Complaint about Parcel Force

ajaxgeezer

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!!!!! 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.

... firstly, thanks Fay for remembering the thread where, after trying to help C&Q by pointing out that Auctiva didn't protect her photos, she launched into me - capitals at the ready - with a "WRONG WRONG WRONG", and "this is FACT - go and try it for yourself" tirade. Four minutes later, someone backed me up, she tried it herself and found out I was pretty darn right. Incidentally, C&Q, you also left these snippets in a single message.

Cute_n_Quirky wrote: »

I reported someone for using my photo

Cute_n_Quirky wrote: »

At the end of the day is only a photo

...... so important enough to report to Ebay... but not important?

Secondly C&Q, if the auctiva thing was so unimportant, why did you get so vehement about it? Why could you have not shown some grace and politeness and asked "One keypress disables it? Can you please show me how?". The higher the horse, the longer the fall.

Thirdly, this retraction you mention. Where is it? Fay missed it.. I missed it - I think the whole world missed it as it certainly isn't there on the thread. I asked if you'd be polite enough to apologise for your "WRONG WRONG WRONG" outburst after seeing that I wasn't... and you didn't. I consider that to be rude, and apparently so do other people.

So, yesterday we went off again, you angry with Parcelforce, I tried to help by showing you a part of their T&Cs, and yet your belligerence is still to the fore. It's bad forum etiquette, it's rude and it's unnecessary. If someone is trying to help you, why not have the grace to take it?

It really doesn't matter how much you want things to be right - it won't make them any 'righter', capitals or not.

ANd I tried to not bring this up for the sake of all, but well.... you did push.

RFW

ajaxgeezer wrote: »

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 only contracts that really matter in this case is between the sender and the company it was sent with and between buyer and seller. The contracts don't need to be seen or indeed written, they are the agreements made at the time of 'purchase'. The buyer has a contract for the seller to send to their address, the seller has then a contract with courier to deliver to that address. If sent with trackable guaranteed delivery and was not delivered to the correct address, no amount of terms and conditions would remove the liability to deliver from the courier company.

ajaxgeezer wrote: »

... 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.

The point was that the charges are in the bank's terms and conditions, you seem to think that as long as a company writes it in their terms and conditions it is legally binding, that is not the case.

ajaxgeezer wrote: »

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.

I've no need or desire to test my theory it is based on knowledge, if it means that much to you consult a lawyer.

This thread seems to have turned into something vindictive, I can't really see who is to blame, but it does seem a little childish. I thought we were better than that on here.

ajaxgeezer

RFW wrote: »

The only contracts that really matter in this case is between the sender and the company it was sent with and between buyer and seller. The contracts don't need to be seen or indeed written, they are the agreements made at the time of 'purchase'. The buyer has a contract for the seller to send to their address, the seller has then a contract with courier to deliver to that address. If sent with trackable guaranteed delivery and was not delivered to the correct address, no amount of terms and conditions would remove the liability to deliver from the courier company.

.... until someone has proved Parcelforce wrong, they've done nothing wrong.

The point was that the charges are in the bank's terms and conditions, you seem to think that as long as a company writes it in their terms and conditions it is legally binding, that is not the case.

.... absolutely not, just pointing out the differences in the two. As you may see, I've done the reclaimy bank charges thingy, so know that all T&Cs are not legal. These T&Cs aren't tested as far as we know, I have no opinion, and will say again that until they are proved wrong, they are all we have to go on. I just live in a world where people are innocent until proven guilty, and conditions are right until they are proven wrong.

I've no need or desire to test my theory it is based on knowledge, if it means that much to you consult a lawyer.

.. it doesn't. I didn't bring up the court thing, you did. I couldn't give a fig whether she gets her stuff from Parcelforce or not, was only trying to assist the OP

This thread seems to have turned into something vindictive, I can't really see who is to blame, but it does seem a little childish. I thought we were better than that on here.

We are, which is why I appealed for manners and propriety from the OP, rather than writings which are self-indulged and boorish.