Small Claims Court / Parcel Delivery!

mattyprice4004

I send literally hundreds of parcels with P2G and Hermes too - and I have very little problems.
I choose not to insure as I take the risk - but sometimes it doesn't pay off as you've found.

You can't have your cake and eat it - regardless of cost, you chose not to insure the parcel so it's your problem now.
If you take it to court and win, let me know - I've got some Faberge eggs I need to post, and it'd be amazing if they went missing and I could get a payout despite not insuring them properly!
Ker-chiiiing

[Deleted User]

Looks like a dispute has to be handled through the broker according to this https://www.moneywise.co.uk/scams-rip-offs/consumer-protection/your-rights-when-parcels-go-missing

Hermione_Granger

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.

Why is it absurd?
Every courier company that I know of as well as Royal Mail provide a small amount of compensation for lost or damaged packages and if you want insurance to cover goods for more then you are expected to pay for this.

If this was prohibited by unfair terms legislation, why haven't the appropriate authorities done anything about it?
After all, it's not as if it's a new practice. It's been this way for as long as I can remember.

Even the government themselves do something similar.
If you apply for a passport and you want your supporting documents returned by a secure method then you have to pay an extra £5 for this.
Why?
Surely if they don't think that their standard delivery service is safe enough then they shouldn't expect consumers to be required to pay for a different service to guarantee that their documents don't get lost.

TW1234

But the contract was to deliver OR pay the compensation agreed. So if the carrier coughs up the (negligible) compensation, they have fulfilled the contract.

MH1927

Which would be an unfair term according to the Consumer Rights Act as it seeks to limit the Legal rights of an individual.

custardy

MH1927 wrote: »

Which would be an unfair term according to the Consumer Rights Act as it seeks to limit the Legal rights of an individual.

which part is unfair?
The consumer has the option to agree to the cover level/choose an appropriate level of cover or use no service at all.

unholyangel

custardy wrote: »

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?

Which is exactly why you can't limit your liability in a consumer contract/we have consumer protection in the first place. Because your average consumer is considered a borderline idiot.

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

Why is it absurd?
Every courier company that I know of as well as Royal Mail provide a small amount of compensation for lost or damaged packages and if you want insurance to cover goods for more then you are expected to pay for this.

If this was prohibited by unfair terms legislation, why haven't the appropriate authorities done anything about it?
After all, it's not as if it's a new practice. It's been this way for as long as I can remember.

Even the government themselves do something similar.
If you apply for a passport and you want your supporting documents returned by a secure method then you have to pay an extra £5 for this.
Why?
Surely if they don't think that their standard delivery service is safe enough then they shouldn't expect consumers to be required to pay for a different service to guarantee that their documents don't get lost.

Do the government disclaim liability unless you use the secure service? They're allowed to offer different services, what they're not allowed to do is disclaim liability for negligence or breach of contract.

Again, its one thing to offer the consumer insurance to cover situations which are not down to negligence or breach of contract by the supplier. Theres no issue with that part of it. The issue is with them disclaiming liability on the basis of you not having it when the liability is theirs to insure against, not yours.

custardy

unholyangel wrote: »

Which is exactly why you can't limit your liability in a consumer contract/we have consumer protection in the first place. Because your average consumer is considered a borderline idiot.



Do the government disclaim liability unless you use the secure service? They're allowed to offer different services, what they're not allowed to do is disclaim liability for negligence or breach of contract.

Again, its one thing to offer the consumer insurance to cover situations which are not down to negligence or breach of contract by the supplier. Theres no issue with that part of it. The issue is with them disclaiming liability on the basis of you not having it when the liability is theirs to insure against, not yours.

You seem dead set on this. So you are saying RM (as an example) would be liable if you sent a £100,000 picture as a large letter if it was 'lost'?
So what do you propose as a working system? Do away with basic post and make everything special delivery (so a minimum of £6 to send a letter)

custardy

also seems the OP simply doesnt learn

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5664627/paypal-and-non-receipt-dispute

MH1927

Consumer Rights Act 2015, Chapter 4 Section 57 states "A term of a contract to supply services is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would exclude the trader!!!8217;s liability arising under section 49 (service to be performed with reasonable care and skill)."

The consumer has the legal right to expect a service to be carried out with reasonable care and skill under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Chapter 4 Section 49.

Royal Mail are covered under there own law not the CRA