Small Claims Court / Parcel Delivery!

MH1927

If you think Negligence is out how about a claim under the Consumer Rights Act as the Service wasnt carried out with "Reasonable care and Skill"? Thats a far lower bar to cross on the balance of probabilities!

Gavin83

shezza2 wrote: »

I only had the basic because to insure for the full value I could have got a taxi and delivered it myself. (what is a LBA)

Maybe you should have done this then.

Most likely an expensive lesson for you but I wish you the best of luck in pursuing your claim, which could also be a less expensive lesson.

mije1983

MH1927 wrote: »

If you think Negligence is out how about a claim under the Consumer Rights Act as the Service wasnt carried out with "Reasonable care and Skill"? Thats a far lower bar to cross on the balance of probabilities!

It may be, but the OP still has to prove it. And that I think will be the hard part.

unholyangel

mije1983 wrote: »

It may be, but the OP still has to prove it. And that I think will be the hard part.

Hard how? Was the parcel delivered or are the courier alleging the parcel was delivered?

The way couriers operate presents certain oddities. Such as being entitled to compensation where a parcel is delayed but not when its completely lost or damaged, all because you didn't purchase insurance to guard against them being negligent (which is transferring inappropriate risk to consumers and also allows them to be negligent with impunity - both things prohibited by unfair terms legislation).

Could you imagine if every business did this. "Its £200 for me to tile your bathroom and if you want to ensure I turn up, do a good job and don't damage anything then you'll need to buy insurance at £300 extra".

Its patently absurd.

mije1983

unholyangel wrote: »

Hard how?

Read the rest of the thread. I have already named circumstances which couldn't be considered negligent.


Your analogy, while vaguely interesting, isn't really relevant to the point as it currently stands as we don't know if the courier was negligent.

unholyangel

mije1983 wrote: »

Read the rest of the thread. I have already named circumstances which couldn't be considered negligent.


Your analogy, while vaguely interesting, isn't really relevant to the point as it currently stands as we don't know if the courier was negligent.

I did read the thread, my point is that there doesn't need to be negligence in breach of contract. One is action founded on simple contract and the other is action founded on tort, different rules apply to each.

Even if it was circumstances outwith their control as you mention, that wouldn't absolve them from liability for breach of contract (ie refund for services not rendered), only for losses arising from that breach.

custardy

MH1927 wrote: »

The contract is to deliver the item, they have failed the contract has been breached. To lose a parcel is pretty negligent, if it had been destroyed in a vehicle fire then ok fair enough.

Ah,you like contracts but not the parts the OP also agreed to?

custardy

unholyangel wrote: »

Hard how? Was the parcel delivered or are the courier alleging the parcel was delivered?

The way couriers operate presents certain oddities. Such as being entitled to compensation where a parcel is delayed but not when its completely lost or damaged, all because you didn't purchase insurance to guard against them being negligent (which is transferring inappropriate risk to consumers and also allows them to be negligent with impunity - both things prohibited by unfair terms legislation).

Could you imagine if every business did this. "Its £200 for me to tile your bathroom and if you want to ensure I turn up, do a good job and don't damage anything then you'll need to buy insurance at £300 extra".

Its patently absurd.

Not really. Its the customer who creates this.
The OP could have sent their item fully covered,however like most they look at the price.
Many sellers 'self insure' through savings on postage and take a hit on X% losses/damage.
The OP did what many do,went as cheap as possible without even a thought on what would happen if things didn't.
See it many times on these boards alone.
As an example,Royal Mail offer Special Delivery with varying levels of cover at a cost. Does that mean the package with higher insurance is treated differently in transit?

lindens

shezza2 wrote: »

Hi all I have recently sent a parcel by Hermes through Parcels2Go What I did not know then is that both outfits have horrendous reviews, so yes I know now that I should read reviews first. Anyway true to their reviews between them they have lost my parcel £405 worth, and now neither of them are answering my emails. So what I am asking is what details do I need to take them to court, because they are not answering emails I can't get any addresses from them.

I use them weekly and have posted over 200 parcels with them, had 1 problem only with a "lost parcel" which turned up less than a week later.

Have you tried phoning them? i found them helpful on the phone.

Did you read what you were buying and did you get correct insurance?

soolin

lindens wrote: »

I use them weekly and have posted over 200 parcels with them, had 1 problem only with a "lost parcel" which turned up less than a week later.

Have you tried phoning them? i found them helpful on the phone.

Did you read what you were buying and did you get correct insurance?

OP has no additional insurance, just the basic £20 as per the thread. I find using social media like Facebook a good way of getting their attention as well.