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

tb111

Sorry, I didn't explain myself properly. I don't think you think my claim is fraudulent!

My point was, them not folding at the first hurdle is one thing, but they can't truly believe that this is a fraudulent claim, given that they fail to point out a feasible way in which I could con them through this method.

tb111

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.

I've had a lot of back and forth with them and they are clearly not budging, I suspect this will go to court. I wasn't selling them, I was sending them overseas for a gig. I ended up having to rent cymbals for the gig, which I will claim for as well as an indirect cost arising from their unfulfilment of care of duty (2 gigs, 30 EUR per gig).

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

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.

You're possibly thinking of legal costs. Although loss of earnings for attending is capped at £90 a day for claims under £10,000.

They also can't claim for time in dealing with it as suggested by another poster. Only for the earnings they lose through having to attend the hearing.

tb111 wrote: »

I've had a lot of back and forth with them and they are clearly not budging, I suspect this will go to court. I wasn't selling them, I was sending them overseas for a gig. I ended up having to rent cymbals for the gig, which I will claim for as well as an indirect cost arising from their unfulfilment of care of duty (2 gigs, 30 EUR per gig).

Be careful OP - I'd be very surprised if their T&C's didn't disclaim liability for consequential loss/loss of profit etc as is the standard.

tb111

Be careful OP - I'd be very surprised if their T&C's didn't disclaim liability for consequential loss/loss of profit etc as is the standard.

They state:

We shall not be liable to you under any circumstances for any direct or indirect loss (including, but not limited to loss of profits, or loss of goodwill) or for any other special or indirect losses, costs, damages, or claims which do not arise naturally as a result of our negligence, breach of duty, or other wrongful act or omission.

But surely losing the parcel counts as a clear breach of duty - so they ARE liable? Or have I missed a double negative or something?

unholyangel

tb111 wrote: »

They state:

We shall not be liable to you under any circumstances for any direct or indirect loss (including, but not limited to loss of profits, or loss of goodwill) or for any other special or indirect losses, costs, damages, or claims which do not arise naturally as a result of our negligence, breach of duty, or other wrongful act or omission.

But surely losing the parcel counts as a clear breach of duty - so they ARE liable? Or have I missed a double negative or something?

You're misreading that. They're saying they don't cover losses that don't arise naturally from their breach/negligence - as in unless its a loss that anyone would incur from their negligence/breach of duty, they wont pay out.

I suspect you're reading it that they wont pay out for such losses unless it arises from their negligence.

dacouch

naedanger wrote: »

I agree. I don't think they would offer you £150 unless they thought you had a good case, were you to take them to the small claims court.

It may be worth reading the following information.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/CJC/Publications/Other+papers/Small+Claims+Guide+for+web+FINAL.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/overview

27 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Practices is somewhat of a Silver Bullet for the OP

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/schedule/1/made

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

Assuming this is an Insurance Policy

tb111

27 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Practices is somewhat of a Silver Bullet for the OP

According to them, Parcel2Go.com is not an insurance broker and is not backed by any. They tell me they "do not offer any kind of insurance on any of our services".

They then tell me:
"We do however give all of our customers the option to cover their goods so that if a claim should arise we are able to compensate them in accordance with our service Terms and Conditions."

I guess the wording is to stop them having to abide by insurance regulation?

tb111

They're saying they don't cover losses that don't arise naturally from their breach/negligence - as in unless its a loss that anyone would incur from their negligence/breach of duty, they wont pay out.

Hmm this is still a little unclear to me, could you give me an example of a naturally arising cost?

unholyangel

tb111 wrote: »

Hmm this is still a little unclear to me, could you give me an example of a naturally arising cost?

Its basically about whether its foreseeable/remoteness of damage.

A loss naturally arising would be for example loss of the item or damage to the item.

The reason I was telling you to be careful is that you have essentially been dealing as a business and the loss of hiring replacement gear is a business one. Businesses dont have the same rights as consumers and even where they do have rights, they can be contracted out of.

tb111

The reason I was telling you to be careful is that you have essentially been dealing as a business and the loss of hiring replacement gear is a business one. Businesses dont have the same rights as consumers and even where they do have rights, they can be contracted out of.

I see - thanks for the tip. We weren't actually getting paid for the gig, but best to keep that out of the small court claim if it could cause complications. OK I'll just stick to the 300 - incidentally from 300.01 and up the cost of small claims rises rapidly. I assume "court costs" are apart from the amount claimed.