Parcel2Go lost parcel and claim for negligence

ThumbRemote

Think of it this way. The courier company knows they are going to lose or damage some parcels. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact of life. Therefore they need to charge enough money in their prices to cover the expenditure of paying the compensation due. There are two ways they can do this.

The first is a flat fee across all parcels sent. This means it becomes prohibitively expensive to send low value items. It also means, if the company has a sudden run of lost or damaged high value items they will go bankrupt, as they didn't take this into account.

The second is a fee per parcel, which increases depending on the value of the parcel. The more valuable the item, the greater the fee. This keeps low value items cheap to send, and means that the money they take is proportional to the cost of the items carried in their delivery network.

You now want the best of both worlds. You sent an item using the cheap rate, but this is only cheap because it is low risk; compensation for high-value items does not push up the cost of sending low-value items. Yet you want the compensation for a high-value item, despite not paying into that compensation pot.

visidigi

vaio wrote: »

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.

That's the thing parcel2go took the money they never touch a parcel.

They didn't lose the parcel, they never even saw it!

Want the coverage, pay the fee!

vaio

To my mind it doesn't matter whether they deliver the stuff themselves or use somebody else, they took the money, they should provide (directly or indirectly) the service so I'd go with "pay for the service, get the service or full compensation if they don't perform"

On consumer contracts companies can't get away from their sale of goods & unfair terms responsibilities. They are call "statutory rights" for a reason.

Companies might try and hide behind T&C in the hope you'll accept them as being valid or just give up but if you stick to your guns you'll get what is right eventually

Similar case together with outcome here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3252890

visidigi

*cough* PayPal...section 75.

Same scenario no?

soolin

visidigi wrote: »

*cough* PayPal...section 75.

Same scenario no?

If you are suggesting OP uses paypal to reclaim costs, then obviously all they will be reclaiming is the cost of the postage that they paid for using paypal- or does your cough mean something else that I have overlooked?

Also of course they couldn't even claim back the postage as paypal buyer protection does not cover intangible goods or services.

bod1467

No. Visi is drawing a comparison with Section 75 claims wherein they fail if someone buys something on their CC but the payment transfers via Paypal as there is no direct creditor/debitor relationship - there's a 3rd party involved.

I'm guessing the comparison is that P2Go are akin to Paypal ... they made the arrangements with the supplier (courier) who then failed to perform. I'm not sure it's a valid comparison though.

visidigi

soolin wrote: »

If you are suggesting OP uses paypal to reclaim costs, then obviously all they will be reclaiming is the cost of the postage that they paid for using paypal- or does your cough mean something else that I have overlooked?

Also of course they couldn't even claim back the postage as paypal buyer protection does not cover intangible goods or services.

No you've completely missed my point.

I'm using the scenario of s75 claims and PayPal, by using PayPal you do not qualify for s75 coverage.

Why is this any different (In broad scope) as the third party is contracting the service and you are agreeing to parcel 2 go terms and not the terms of the courier....same thing, different service.

I can't see how this scenario is any different...

It's worth noting parcel 2 go are not refusing the claim, they are accepting up to the declared limitation - so this debate is solely about the claim for more than declared

vaio

Nah

Paypal transfer money at your request for any reason including for sales you've concluded externally & independently so the sale contract is between you and the seller and is in existence before paypal get involved.

P2G & similar sell courier services which they buy in bulk or subcontract. The contact is formed when they give you a price and you accept and so, I'd argue, is between you and P2G.

Even if you are right and there might be an argument about whether P2G are acting as my agent or the agent of the actual courier firm but I'd be happy to let a DJ sort that one out.

In reality and as in the link I gave above, for a claim of a couple of hundred quid I'd put money on them paying up at the LBA stage.

Pragmatically they would be mad to incur unrecoverable legal costs defending a small claim for £200 and that's before you consider the consequences of having the strength of their T&C vs the Sale of Goods & Unfair Terms legislation considered by a court.

shaun_from_Africa

Pragmatically they would be mad to incur unrecoverable legal costs defending a small claim for £200

If it would only be a £200 loss to them then I would agree with you.
However, if they were to willingly pay out on a case like this where someone opted not to pay for the required level of compensation, it could open the floodgates for claims from other people.

It's not only courier companies who provide different levels of compensation depending on the premiums paid.
Royal mail do the same, as do many insurance companies on things like travel insurance.

visidigi

vaio wrote: »

Nah

Paypal transfer money at your request for any reason including for sales you've concluded externally & independently so the sale contract is between you and the seller and is in existence before paypal get involved.

P2G & similar sell courier services which they buy in bulk or subcontract. The contact is formed when they give you a price and you accept and so, I'd argue, is between you and P2G.

Even if you are right and there might be an argument about whether P2G are acting as my agent or the agent of the actual courier firm but I'd be happy to let a DJ sort that one out.

In reality and as in the link I gave above, for a claim of a couple of hundred quid I'd put money on them paying up at the LBA stage.

Pragmatically they would be mad to incur unrecoverable legal costs defending a small claim for £200 and that's before you consider the consequences of having the strength of their T&C vs the Sale of Goods & Unfair Terms legislation considered by a court.

So by your description of PayPal then s75 should stand, but it doesn't, why, well because the payment processes handled by a third party, so instead of protected by s75 you are now only protected by paypal's terms, which many many people will agree are far from fair, yet have stood up to plenty judicial scrutiny.

Parcel2go aren't an Agent, they are the company contracting the couriers to complete delivery form a to b at cost x within timeframe y.

The courier is working for parcel 2 go, and the customer is being served by parcel 2 go (you wouldn't believe how many people call the courier companies and kick off with them when they're nothing to do with the customer).

They have been through this claim process many many times and they are more than Willing to defend themselves. Indeed as alluded to before you get a service with coverage according to how much you are willing to pay. You could argue the terms of compensation unfair, but you would also they have to say the transportation time Clauses are also unfair in that case it would be a never ending process and businesses would fail to exist if that we're the 'way of life'.

Home, car, house insurance all work the same way.
Flight tickets with different seats and luggage allowances work the same way.
Buying a car works the same way, you get the options you pay for.

This idea that you can claim beyond the defined limits is quite crazy and the assumption that they would rather pay that dispute is equally unlikely.

This is not the first time this has come up and it certainly won't be the last...