Boots Advent calendars destroyed by RM duo to nail varnish

JP08

custardy wrote: »

Then what is to discourage people sending prohibited goods?

The handling charge. But to say that they can't deliver it and then flog it is tantamount to theft.

custardy

JP08 wrote: »

The handling charge. But to say that they can't deliver it and then flog it is tantamount to theft.

Would the handling charge do that?
Do people never order from abroad because of the handling charge?
Should there then be a fee for disposal too?

marliepanda

JP08 wrote: »

The handling charge. But to say that they can't deliver it and then flog it is tantamount to theft.

It's not theft.

They clearly broke the rules for sending and unsafe item, and now they've lost it.

If you have prohibited goods confiscated at an airport, they're not stealing them.
They are being disposed of, by selling them.

You give up ownership when you try and send goods that are classed as unsafe.

Mateus109

custardy wrote: »

Then what is to discourage people sending prohibited goods?

Yes it would because the goods haven't been sent, loads of hassle, and there'd be fee to pay.

custardy

Mateus109 wrote: »

Yes it would because the goods haven't been sent, loads of hassle, and there'd be fee to pay.

But get your goods back with little penalty.
What are you making the fee?

Mateus109

custardy wrote: »

But get your goods back with little penalty. What are you making the fee?

Where's the deterrent now? The parcel was attempted to be sent! My girlfriend is serious p155ed off, very angry and very very upset. If RM had allowed her to collect the parcel (even if it meant driving across the country and paying a high fee) at least she's get £100 worth of Christmas presents back. Either way she'd never try to send the parcel again but at least Christmas wouldn't have been ruined! The parcels could have been delivered in person by her when visiting the relatives in the New Year (as long as the nail varnish was placed in a plastic bag in her hand luggage). I still think RM should give customers the option to collect impounded goods for a fee, especially when the offending item was 2x single 10ml bottles of nail varnish within, a claimed, 2x £148 collection of non-prohibted Boots goods.

Also, both large parcels had the Boots logo in large print on all sides. Why didn't the RM clerk think/ask if they contained nail varnish!? My girlfriend is someone who prides herself in always following rules/laws but she never thought to check whether a 10ml bottle of nail varnish was on the prohibited list (because she often carries nail varnish in her hand luggage).

marliepanda

Sorry but she can't exactly pride herself on following rules/laws when she makes no effort to find out what they are. Nobody knows all the rules for everything. Most people research:

It's entirely your girlfriends fault. She should be 'annoyed' at herself. Why didn't SHE think to ask/check if it was allowed. People take no responsibility for their own actions!

The calendars were £38 each, not £300 as you claim. Their 'worth' is relative as they're mostly samples you can get for free and small items.

Also, if it's the no7 calendar which appears to be the only one I can find, and matches your worth, there are THREE bottles of nail varnish in each one.

So she sent six, not two bottles.

Mateus109

She accepts it's 100% her fault, but that doesn't help. I never claimed the goods were worth £300 (I said £100 and Boots claim £300). She regularly sends parcels abroad (almost monthly) but on this occasion missed that nail varnish was on the prohibited list.

marliepanda

Well it would have helped if she'd read it. She sent six bottles of prohibited items and now she's lost money.

What will help? I rarely send parcels abroad but I know perfume and nail varnish are prohibited.

Mateus109

marliepanda wrote: »

She sent six bottles of prohibited items and now she's lost money.

The only prohibited item in the parcel was the nail varnish (one 10ml bottle in each parcel). RM confirmed that the rest of the items were fine. They said that if she'd removed this item from each parcel, the parcels would not have been stopped and destroyed.