We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Couriers again. This time from seller perspective.
Options
Comments
-
the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »OK but if I hire an electrician and my TV blows up due to their negligence can I claim my losses without paying extra just in case they screw up?
So the courier screws up but I have to pay extra to cover my loses, it's obviously legal as they all do it but what law is covering them?
If you can prove he's negligent then you claim from his insurance
(which he pays for to ensure he is covered in the case of his day to day work) - this is factored into the service he provides and the cost reflects that - the couriers price excludes this cost as a separate component as specific by the terms and conditions of carriage to which you agree when purchasing the courier service. 0 -
I would say that the initial breach of contract is on behalf of the OP. He asked the couriers to carry a parcel worth £20 or less, but in actual fact provided one worth £120.
It sounds like a potential scam if the senders could claim any value. Post a hundred empty boxes to an address.. likelihood is that at least one goes missing. Then claim that the box actually contained £5,000 worth of jewelry.0 -
If you can prove he's negligent then you claim from his insurance (which he pays for to ensure he is covered in the case of his day to day work) - this is factored into the service he provides and the cost reflects that - the couriers price excludes this cost as a separate component as specific by the terms and conditions of carriage to which you agree when purchasing the courier service.
But you don't claim of his insurance, he does and if he doesn't have any that's his tough luck. If he doesn't pay you go to court and judge awards you your losses.
If you suffer a loss as a result of breach of contract you are usually entitled to be covered for losses.
In the OP's case the buyer didn't pay insurance either but the law places responsibility on the seller to cover the buyer regardless of anything.
My question is which law prevents couriers from having the same responsibility for losses suffered by the consumer when they have failed to perform the contract?
T&Cs are irrelevant as they must be lawful (which I'm sure the couriers are but again under what law).In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces0 -
I would say that the initial breach of contract is on behalf of the OP. He asked the couriers to carry a parcel worth £20 or less, but in actual fact provided one worth £120.
It sounds like a potential scam if the senders could claim any value. Post a hundred empty boxes to an address.. likelihood is that at least one goes missing. Then claim that the box actually contained £5,000 worth of jewelry.
That depends on the question, parcel2go ask for the value of the parcel and then advise compensation if it's over what their standard cover is. You aren't obligated to pay for the right level of cover, you waive your right to be covered by going ahead, something that most goods and service providers can not do.
The potential scam you mention can happen away and if one were going to pull such a scam life would be much easier to pay the compo anyway.In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces0 -
the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »But you don't claim of his insurance, he does and if he doesn't have any that's his tough luck. If he doesn't pay you go to court and judge awards you your losses.
If you suffer a loss as a result of breach of contract you are usually entitled to be covered for losses.
In the OP's case the buyer didn't pay insurance either but the law places responsibility on the seller to cover the buyer regardless of anything.
My question is which law prevents couriers from having the same responsibility for losses suffered by the consumer when they have failed to perform the contract?
T&Cs are irrelevant as they must be lawful (which I'm sure the couriers are but again under what law).
No, I would claim off his insurance. As he's at fault. In the same way he crashes his car into mine, I don't claim off him, I claim off his insurance. He claims off his for his damage. he doesn't claim off his for mine, I do.
If he has no insurance he is liable -thats this choice he makes in running his business.
T&C are entirely relevant, as long as they do not contain unfair terms. The OP contracted the provided to deliver a product within a specification as defined by the OP when they entered into the agreement with the service provider. The service provider has failed to provide a service they were contracted to provide, therefore they would refund the cost of the service and up to the limit declared for the service.
Lets be clear here - the OP would NOT be claiming for consequential loss. They would be claiming for loss. VERY different kettles of fish....0 -
No, I would claim off his insurance. As he's at fault. In the same way he crashes his car into mine, I don't claim off him, I claim off his insurance. He claims off his for his damage. he doesn't claim off his for mine, I do.
If he has no insurance he is liable -thats this choice he makes in running his business.
T&C are entirely relevant, as long as they do not contain unfair terms. The OP contracted the provided to deliver a product within a specification as defined by the OP when they entered into the agreement with the service provider. The service provider has failed to provide a service they were contracted to provide, therefore they would refund the cost of the service and up to the limit declared for the service.
Lets be clear here - the OP would NOT be claiming for consequential loss. They would be claiming for loss. VERY different kettles of fish....
The OP would be claiming the direct loss to them, i.e the base cost of the contents of the parcel.
All I asked was for this to be demonstrated by quoting the relevant legislation that backs up the claims one must pay for compensation.
This topic seems to come up now and then but I've not seen a post detailing why courier can behave like this and I was merely curious as to why they may not be held liable when other service providers would.In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces0 -
Phew, at least one person gets the question.
When I go to the dentist he doesn't offer me insurance against him damaging my teeth.
When I pay someone to clean my windows, they don't offer me insurance against smashing them.
when I pay someone to look after my kids for the day, they don't offer me insurance against losing them.
...
get the point yet?0 -
workshy_2011 wrote: »Phew, at least one person gets the question.
When I go to the dentist he doesn't offer me insurance against him damaging my teeth.
When I pay someone to clean my windows, they don't offer me insurance against smashing them.
when I pay someone to look after my kids for the day, they don't offer me insurance against losing them.
...
get the point yet?
You go to the dentist, he advises what you need doing, agree a price and perform the work.
Your window cleaner gives you a price and agrees to complete the work outlined for the agreed fee.
You pay a babysitter for performing a role on hours agreed at a rate agreed.
You buy a courier service at a rate and expect that rate to cover you beyond what you agreed at the point of purchase,
You knowingly abused the service offered. They will pay out to the limit agreed.
Get the point yet?0 -
I would say that the initial breach of contract is on behalf of the OP. He asked the couriers to carry a parcel worth £20 or less, but in actual fact provided one worth £120.
It sounds like a potential scam if the senders could claim any value. Post a hundred empty boxes to an address.. likelihood is that at least one goes missing. Then claim that the box actually contained £5,000 worth of jewelry.
No. I put the value as £120.
And then I declined their offer of me paying an additional £5 to cover them against various ways in which they might mess up. It wasn't worded like that.0 -
workshy_2011 wrote: »Phew, at least one person gets the question.
When I go to the dentist he doesn't offer me insurance against him damaging my teeth.
When I pay someone to clean my windows, they don't offer me insurance against smashing them.
when I pay someone to look after my kids for the day, they don't offer me insurance against losing them.
...
get the point yet?
I think we all fully understand the situation, however this is how the logistics industry works. As far as I am aware there has not been a precedent set in court, therefore please feel free to take action and report back what happened.
The difference on the above cases is that they are all things involving you as a consumer rather than this which is clearly a B2B contract.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards