Parcel2Go lost parcel and claim for negligence

astra1975

Hi all

A few weeks ago I sold my Optoma projector on ebay for 250 pounds (net of ebay fees). I decided to post the item via the Parcel2Go website - the courier I selected was Citi-link.

A week after posting I got a message from the buyer saying that he hadn't received the item.

I contacted Citi-link who confirmed that the item was "missing" and that I needed to contact Parcel2Go who I had entered into the contract with. In the meantime I fully refunded the ebay buyer.

I gave all the details to Parcel2Go who accepted my claim but only offered 20 pounds compensation. They stated that since I had not paid for the extra insurance, I was not entitled to more, per their T&Cs.

I've sent Parcel2Go a pre-action letter (prior to raising a claim with the Small Claims Court) and asked them to provide evidence that they had investigated properly into this "missing parcel".

I feel strongly that not paying for additional insurance shouldn't be a reason for them to limit their payment. Its very difficult to comprehend how a clearly labelled parcel of this size can just go "missing" in the normal course of business.

They replied to my pre-action letter saying that they would not offer more money. They didn't respond to my question as to whether an investigation had been performed into this lost parcel.

Should I go to small claims court ? Has anyone been in a similar position and won their case? Thanks in advance.

MamaMoo_2

You should have insured the item. You wouldn't expect home insurance to pay out for £20,000 worth of damaged goods if you had only got £10,000 worth of cover. Posting items works by the same rules.

bris

This is why you don't scrimp on postage when you send expensive items.

You could threaten a small claims court and see if they bite, but don't hold your breath.

visidigi

astra1975 wrote: »

Hi all

A few weeks ago I sold my Optoma projector on ebay for 250 pounds (net of ebay fees). I decided to post the item via the Parcel2Go website - the courier I selected was Citi-link.

A week after posting I got a message from the buyer saying that he hadn't received the item.

I contacted Citi-link who confirmed that the item was "missing" and that I needed to contact Parcel2Go who I had entered into the contract with. In the meantime I fully refunded the ebay buyer.

I gave all the details to Parcel2Go who accepted my claim but only offered 20 pounds compensation. They stated that since I had not paid for the extra insurance, I was not entitled to more, per their T&Cs.

I've sent Parcel2Go a pre-action letter (prior to raising a claim with the Small Claims Court) and asked them to provide evidence that they had investigated properly into this "missing parcel".

I feel strongly that not paying for additional insurance shouldn't be a reason for them to limit their payment. Its very difficult to comprehend how a clearly labelled parcel of this size can just go "missing" in the normal course of business.

They replied to my pre-action letter saying that they would not offer more money. They didn't respond to my question as to whether an investigation had been performed into this lost parcel.

Should I go to small claims court ? Has anyone been in a similar position and won their case? Thanks in advance.

Why should they pay for your negligence in not ensuring it was appropriately insured for loss or damage?

You can threaten all your want, they are very VERY well practised at this and their t&cs reflect this

astra1975

Thanks for the replies but I was really hoping for someone who has actually gone through the process of small claims court to reply?

tinkerbell28

I doubt you'd find anyone. You agreed to the terms of service and loss cover at value x. Which they will provide. Now you want the cover for the value of y which you did not pay for.

So they are keeping their side of the contract, yes they didn't deliver, but I am sure it says that in that event they will pay what they are offering with higher insurance available. You agreed to that and didn't cough up. Cant see it getting far.

bod1467

Off-topic ... the thread title made me smile; inferring that P2Go lost both the package AND the negligence claim letter. I've heard they can be inept, but that would take the biscuit.

mattyprice4004

Not this again!

You want the cover, you pay for the cover! How many times will this happen before people actually learn? And, on a side note, why is it THEIR fault despite the fact you didn't have adequate insurance? These days it's always someone else's fault.

On a side note, I insured my house contents for £500 but forgot about my £10,000 Faberge egg. Can I force them to pay out?

If you do take it to small claims, be sure to keep us posted. I'd love to see how you get on.

Next time, use common sense and put this down to experience. You're just wasting time and money.

vaio

Aren't the house insurance analogies spurious as you have control over your house & contents?

Wouldn't a better analogy be say handing over a suit to be cleaned or a TV to be repaired?

Do the posters above suggest that punters need to insure the suit/TV against damage/loss caused by the negligence of the cleaner/repairer? Or should the cleaner/repairer/courier be responsible for their own negligence?

OP....in your position I'd be arguing that the term requiring you to be responsible for the negligence of the courier is an unfair term and therefore unenforceable.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/unfair_contract_terms/oft143.pdf is worth a read particularly annex B which includes both

(iv)Disclaimers of liability for failure to do what was agreed…….

…..A term which could have the effect of allowing a business to opt out of its obligations – without giving appropriate redress – is highly likely to be considered unfair, especially if consumers remain bound to fulfil their promises….

and

v) Disclaimers reducing the amount or availability of redress

For example, liability accepted up to the value of the goods only…..

……No liability is accepted for consequential or indirect loss.

……Terms which limit a supplier's liability, or make consumers pay certain costs whether or not they are at fault, or exclude certain types of redress altogether, all have an effect similar to exclusion clauses…….

in the list of terms likely to be held to be unfair

visidigi

vaio wrote: »

Aren't the house insurance analogies spurious as you have control over your house & contents?

Wouldn't a better analogy be say handing over a suit to be cleaned or a TV to be repaired?

Do the posters above suggest that punters need to insure the suit/TV against damage/loss caused by the negligence of the cleaner/repairer? Or should the cleaner/repairer/courier be responsible for their own negligence?

OP....in your position I'd be arguing that the term requiring you to be responsible for the negligence of the courier is an unfair term and therefore unenforceable.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/unfair_contract_terms/oft143.pdf is worth a read particularly annex B which includes both

and
in the list of terms likely to be held to be unfair

The problem you have here is if you want the service and the coverage you go to the courier direct. Why don't people do that? Because its four+ time the price.

How can you prove negligence? They have tens of thousands of packages a day - and there is going to be a fail rate amongst them.

If you had used city link direct you would have a claim,using a middleman and hoping for the same right simply isn't going to happen

vaio

As they took the package and haven't delivered it then I don't really see any great problem with proving negligence/breach of contract.

just because punters go via resellers rather than direct to couriers doesn't mean that the resellers (or their courier sub contractors/agents) escape their sale of goods and unfair terms responsibilities. They lost the parcel and should compensate the sender.