Hermes via parcel2go lost an insured item but refuse to pay compensation

naedanger

tb111 wrote: »

Thanks this is great help!

I suppose it comes down to whether they can convince the judge that by stating I must provide "proof of value" in their terms and conditions, they can insist on seeing a payment receipt in order to pay out on the goods I bought cover for & they lost.

In a court you will have to prove on the balance of probability that the item was worth at least £300. (Note that the balance of probability is not a high hurdle. You just need to show it as being more likely than not.)

To be honest I think it will be very easy to prove - provide some adverts showing the price when new, and ideally adverts of second hand items like yours at a similar price. In practice I think a judge will be thinking why would you insure it for more than its worth (assuming the cost of insurance increased with value). You were hardly going to expect the item would go missing, you were just covering a small risk and would wish to do so at minimum cost. It therefore would seem to be not in your interest to over-insure.

I do not think the lack of a receipt will be a big barrier. Even if the courier's terms and conditions stated a receipt was required I think a judge would ignore such a condition as being unfair unless it was prominently stated before you purchased the insurance.

tb111

Even if the courier's terms and conditions stated a receipt was required I think a judge would ignore such a condition as being unfair unless it was prominently stated before you purchased the insurance.

That's reassuring - and in any case of course, they don't define proof of value as a purchase receipt.

I think it's pretty clear their policy is to make it so difficult to claim that people give up and just accept the 'goodwill gesture' - they are betting on me just giving up and taking the £150 to avoid the hassle.

IMHO they are silly because it's going to cost them far more in the end - court costs, travel, man hours etc. I'm not sure why they wont budge - either they don't think I have the gumption to follow through with small claims or it's some bully middle manager trying to prove a point.

Their latest reason for not accepting screenshots is that in the past they have been 'conned' (their word). But they cannot, despite me repeatedly asking them, give me a feasible scenario in which I could possibly know a priori which packages would go missing. Also, just because I have a receipt doesn't mean I necessarily sent those cymbals anyway - I could just as easily have bought an item, kept the receipt and sent a different item. In fact, if I was attempting to con them, that would have made a lot more sense!

naedanger

tb111 wrote: »

That's reassuring - and in any case of course, they don't define proof of value as a purchase receipt.

I think it's pretty clear their policy is to make it so difficult to claim that people give up and just accept the 'goodwill gesture' - they are betting on me just giving up and taking the £150 to avoid the hassle.

Actually I should have said that my last sentence would not be valid if you arranged the courier service as a business user. If you are a business user then the law expects you to know the terms you are agreeing to. However, even as a business user, you should not have a problem as the terms and conditions did not state you require a receipt. (And a receipt is not necessarily proof of value anyway, especially for second hand goods.)

IMHO they are silly because it's going to cost them far more in the end - court costs, travel, man hours etc. I'm not sure why they wont budge - either they don't think I have the gumption to follow through with small claims or it's some bully middle manager trying to prove a point.

You may find they pay up at the "letter before action" stage if they believe you really will go ahead. If you do win at court they will have to pay some costs e.g. the court fees. But be aware they won't normally be liable for your travel costs or your time etc. (Conversely if you lose then you won't be liable for their travel costs, time etc.)

Their latest reason for not accepting screenshots is that in the past they have been 'conned' (their word). But they cannot, despite me repeatedly asking them, give me a feasible scenario in which I could possibly know a priori which packages would go missing. Also, just because I have a receipt doesn't mean I necessarily sent those cymbals anyway - I could just as easily have bought an item, kept the receipt and sent a different item. In fact, if I was attempting to con them, that would have made a lot more sense!

They probably won't change their position now, regardless of the quality of your argument, unless they are convinced you will take effective action against them - i.e. competent legal action. A well drafted letter before action may do the trick. Then again you may need to actually follow through.

bod1467

naedanger wrote: »

But be aware they won't normally be liable for your travel costs or your time etc. (Conversely if you lose then you won't be liable for their travel costs, time etc.)

I think OP was meaning that they would incur those costs if they let it go to court. But you're right - some people in some companies are so bloody-minded that they forget to put on the "sensible hat".

[Deleted User]

I suspect the policy is not to fold at the first hurdle so as not to open the floodgates to fraudulent claims. I also believe they will likely payout on receipt of a Letter Before action.

tb111

I suspect the policy is not to fold at the first hurdle so as not to open the floodgates to fraudulent claims. I also believe they will likely payout on receipt of a Letter Before action.

I can't believe they think this is a fraudulent claim - as I mentioned before, they cannot present me with a feasible scenario by which I could con them using this route.

tb111

They probably won't change their position now, regardless of the quality of your argument, unless they are convinced you will take effective action against them - i.e. competent legal action. A well drafted letter before action may do the trick. Then again you may need to actually follow through.

I'm actually quite looking forward to it

You may find they pay up at the "letter before action" stage if they believe you really will go ahead. If you do win at court they will have to pay some costs e.g. the court fees. But be aware they won't normally be liable for your travel costs or your time etc. (Conversely if you lose then you won't be liable for their travel costs, time etc.)

Are you sure? In the pdf you sent, in part 1.5.2 of the pdf you sent, Costs, it states:

there are reasonable travelling expenses, loss of earnings (although the amount that can be allowed for these is restricted by the court rules for the small claims track) and expert’s fees (if the court has allowed an expert to be instructed). if you win a small claim, the other party will generally be ordered to reimburse these for you, but of course if you lose you may be ordered to pay the amount awarded to the successful party.

[Deleted User]

tb111 wrote: »

I can't believe they think this is a fraudulent claim .

Nowhere did I say the company think your complaint is fraudulent.

naedanger

tb111 wrote: »

Are you sure? In the pdf you sent, in part 1.5.2 of the pdf you sent, Costs, it states:

there are reasonable travelling expenses, loss of earnings (although the amount that can be allowed for these is restricted by the court rules for the small claims track) and expert’s fees (if the court has allowed an expert to be instructed). if you win a small claim, the other party will generally be ordered to reimburse these for you, but of course if you lose you may be ordered to pay the amount awarded to the successful party.

Sorry, it seems I was wrong. Hopefully the prospect of paying costs on top of the claim amount may incentivise the courier to pay out sooner rather than later.

timbstoke

Is it an item that you sold? If so, then the person who bought it was willing to pay that much for it. That is therefore self-evidently the value of the item. If it's second hand and the new price is more, then any clause they may have about not paying the profit element is irrelevant, since you are selling at a loss.

A letter before action is definitely the way to go. Frankly, the fact that you paid for an insurance value of £300 should really trump any need for proof of value - "I told you it was worth £300 when I insured it for that amount. You lost it, I expect you to pay out the value of the insurance I took out". Obviously it's not that simple, but it sounds like you can prove both the new and used values, so I'd put your claim in for the full amount of a used replacement of equivalent condition, plus the cost of shipping, plus your time in dealing with them at a sensible rate. That way, you have a little room to negotiate down to the £300 you actually insured it for (plus the cost of shipping) prior to it actually getting to court.