Parcel2Go & Yodel - A Match made in Hell

arcon5

Well basically you paid for a service which would carry a parcel with a value up to x and now want the benefits of a service to carry parcels with a value up to y.

I agree with your risk assessment, however, that simply means it's less likely to be lost - not the the risk has been removed.

Hard luck my friend - next time pay the price for the correct service!

RFW

I mostly agree with the comments above that the value is that of the insurance. However, if there was negligence and/or theft at the hands of a Yodel employee then I doubt Yodel would want this to be public knowledge.
Rather than pursue through the courts, write to them and pursue through social media.
I've been a victim of theft at the hands of Yodel, luckily I was only the recipient and the sender replaced the tab someone in their employ had stolen from the box they delivered.

Brooker_Dave

visidigi wrote: »

You won't win.

If you google, there are quite a few examples of people getting full payouts with out taking out the extra insurance.

It seems that carriers still have a duty of care, and court cases can be won, if it even gets that far.

visidigi

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

If you google, there are quite a few examples of people getting full payouts with out taking out the extra insurance.

It seems that carriers still have a duty of care, and court cases can be won, if it even gets that far.

The OP won't win on the grounds they have outlined.

I am aware of the selection of cases on google - the carrier does have a duty of care, alot of those are during the delivery process and negligence in leaving, not damage in transit.

Parcel2go are the only contact the OP has a claim with, calling Yodel will not get the OP anywhere which is why I said they wont win.

unholyangel

Insurance should be only for risks/circumstances that are out of the suppliers control.

Insurance is not there to allow them to be negligent with impunity - indeed such terms are covered by unfair contract terms guidance.

But as with all negligence claims, it comes down to satisfying 4 "rules".

1. That a duty of care was owed
2. That they were in breach of that duty of care
3. That their breach caused the damage and
4. That the damage was not too remote.

If it falls within those rules then its a negligence claim. If not then its an insurance claim.

arcon5

Most of the cases where people have received a larger payout than that insured involve things like the supplier throwing parcels over gates, leaving them outside houses, kicking them around or stepping on them purposefully in depots etc

sheramber

arcon5 wrote: »

Most of the cases where people have received a larger payout than that insured involve things like the supplier throwing parcels over gates, leaving them outside houses, kicking them around or stepping on them purposefully in depots etc

There was a tv programme where a hidden camera showed parcels being thrown from one are to another in a warehouse.- even those marked 'fragile'.

RFW

sheramber wrote: »

There was a tv programme where a hidden camera showed parcels being thrown from one are to another in a warehouse.- even those marked 'fragile'.

From what I've heard from people who've worked for certain couriers that should read "especially those marked 'fragile'".

arcon5

RFW wrote: »

From what I've heard from people who've worked for certain couriers that should read "especially those marked 'fragile'".

Interestingly I used to send out 200-250 fragile items out per month by courier and damaged rates was ridiculous. When I stopped using the fragile tape to package them I noticed a significant drop in damaged items. Coincidence or not I don't know, but of the two years I used to do this I stopped marking parcels as fragile after about 6 months

mattyprice4004

Not quite the same circumstances, but I took UK Mail to court after they used the 'maximum compensation' argument, and they settled out of court for the full amount.