Complaint about Parcel Force

ajaxgeezer

RFW wrote: »

I doubt that that would hold up in court. They are entering into a contract to deliver to the person (or business) at the given address, if the neighbour were to keep the item, who would be liable to get it back? If they haven't delivered it to the addressee then it has not been delivered and they have not fulfilled their contract.

I've had similar problems with receiving recorded delivery letters, the postman seems to think that getting a neighbour to sign is good enough, it isn't.

.... until the contracts are seen, firstly between the OP and the US company, and then between the US company and the US shippers, and then between the US shippers and ParcelForce, it's all anyone has to go on. I can't see that Parcelforce would ever enter into a contract to deliver to a specific address if their T&Cs state that they don't need to - they would only enter into a contract which was subject to their standard T&C's.

Cute_'n'_Quirky

We are back to where I started - Parcel Force are a donkey - since I used the word xxx which is a perfectly acceptable name in this country, but it is reduced to !!!.

Parcel Force are paid to deliver to AN address not ANY address.




Mods - we are NOT in the USA, we are British and an !!! is a donkey in the UK, kindly remember that.


!!!1 /æs/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[as]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1.a long-eared, slow, patient, sure-footed domesticated mammal, Equus asinus, related to the horse, used chiefly as a beast of burden.

2.any wild species of the genus Equus, as the onager.

3.a stupid, foolish, or stubborn person.
[Origin: bef. 1000; ME asse, OE assa, prob. hypocoristic

ajaxgeezer

Cute_n_Quirky wrote: »

We are back to where I started - Parcel Force are a donkey - since I used the word xxx which is a perfectly acceptable name in this country, but it is reduced to !!!.

Parcel Force are paid to deliver to AN address not ANY address.

... are they? Their terms and conditions say they are not.

Or are Parcelforce "WRONG WRONG WRONG" as well? :rolleyes:

Cute_'n'_Quirky

Ajax what is your problem exactly?

ajaxgeezer

Cute_n_Quirky wrote: »

Ajax what is your problem exactly?

I don't have a problem, I think parcelforce are ok.

frivolous_fay

Cute, recently you've sometimes made a point which is incorrect, and when challenged, vehemently insisted you were correct (an example was where you said someone was WRONG WRONG WRONG)

When proven wrong yourself, (as you were in the WRONG WRONG WRONG incident) it might be polite to accept it and say sorry, in order to avoid long-standing feuds

Cute_'n'_Quirky

Well FF, a few times I have found you out on a few wrong things, so folks in glass houses, etc!!!!! My issue was only to do with auctiva photos - hardly an important issue, but unfortunately you seem to think differently. I did post a retraction but probably you missed it, since you spend your time arguing about being right all the time. The issue is about 'correct' information, not about personal battles which yours are and mine are not.

This issue of Parcel Force is extremely important to anybody who buys or sells on ebay or anywhere else.

Parcel Force are completely out of order here.

frivolous_fay

Cute_n_Quirky wrote: »

Well FF, a few times I have found you out on a few wrong things, so folks in glass houses, etc!!!!!

Quite possibly, do throw me an example would you?

FYI, you never backed down after I proved that banker's drafts weren't free, and that I wasn't 'confused'.

But what do I know, I just answered your question about why ajax was cheesed off with you, please feel free to have a dig while I do you a favour :rolleyes:

RFW

ajaxgeezer wrote: »

... are they? Their terms and conditions say they are not.

Or are Parcelforce "WRONG WRONG WRONG" as well? :rolleyes:

I did say that I doubt their terms and conditions would stand up in court. There's quite a lot of examples of companies having things written in their t&cs that are unlawful, just because a company is large or even government owned doesn't mean they can do or say what they want.

When accepting a parcel, their contract is to deliver to the person/company at the address on it, if the parcel is delivered to a different neigbouring address and subsequently "lost" or "damaged" that would be Parcelforce's fault and they would (and have with me) pay out on a claim made for loss of parcel.

This site does a lot with reclaiming unfair bank charges, charges that are in the bank's terms and conditions, terms and conditions that are in fact "wrong, wrong, wrong":T

ajaxgeezer

RFW wrote: »

I did say that I doubt their terms and conditions would stand up in court. There's quite a lot of examples of companies having things written in their t&cs that are unlawful, just because a company is large or even government owned doesn't mean they can do or say what they want.
This site does a lot with reclaiming unfair bank charges, charges that are in the bank's terms and conditions, terms and conditions that are in fact "wrong, wrong, wrong":T

.... I knew bank charges would come up in this thread. The bank charges thing is around because the banks don't have the right to fine someone, and they refuse to show that their charges don't constitute a fine - this is totally different.

When accepting a parcel, their contract is to deliver to the person/company at the address on it, if the parcel is delivered to a different neigbouring address and subsequently "lost" or "damaged" that would be Parcelforce's fault and they would (and have with me) pay out on a claim made for loss of parcel.

RFW, the fact of the matter is that none of us knows - we are not privy to the contract between the US shipper and Parcelforce. The likelihood is that it will be based around Parcelforce's standard terms and conditions, I'd be amazed if it wasn't, and until we see otherwise we have to assume that it is. Until then we can guess as much as we like but it's meaningless.
The fact that they have paid out to you does not mean that they can't drop it with a neighbour, it means they have accepted liability for the problem and/or paid out anyway because it has proved financially astute to do so. In retaining the right to drop off with a neighbour, they accept that mistakes will happen and therefore pay out - seems fair to me. It's safe to assume that far more parcels dropped off with neighbours reach the intended recipient without problems than parcels which "get lost", so it's in Parcelforce's interests to do so.

If you doubt it would stand up in court, then order a trinket from the US and make sure you are not in when it is delivered. Then you can test your theory.. until then, let's stick with the only evidence we have as anything else is subjective and therefore meaningless.