Small Claims Court / Parcel Delivery!

custardy

MH1927 wrote: »

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’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.

So tell us how it works.
Your view see's an end to any low end cheap carriers.
So tell us a system that works as you see it should.

Hermione_Granger

unholyangel wrote: »

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.

Yes, that's exactly what they do.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/725206/6.4270_HMPO_Applying_for_your_Passport_Guidance_v24.pdf

We cannot:
take responsibility or provide compensation for any loss or delayed return of your supporting documents when we return them by second class post and you have not asked for secure delivery

MH1927

Why do all these dodgy car dealers still exist? Why do have daily posts on here about large companies who ignore the CRA?

The current system only works because they know enough people will give up! So throw up a few roadblocks and 90% will settle for less than they are owed and then just pay the rest off.

Custardy I would be interested in you showing where my interpretation of the law is wrong, you seem very confident that there is no basis for a claim and I would interested to learn why?

Incidentally TPO use RM so there isnt an applicable contract under the CRA

shaun_from_Africa

MH1927 wrote: »

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'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

But what is reasonable?
If a courier handles 10,000 packages a day and lose 10 of these is this reasonable taking into account that all humans make mistakes?
How about if they lose 100 packages? That still means that 99% of their deliveries made it okay.
Until there is a totally infallible delivery system there will always be occasional losses and as long as there is any human input there can never be a totally infallible system.
The term states "reasonable care" and not "perfect care" and losing some items doesn't automatically mean that reasonable care wasn't taken.

MH1927

Are those 10,000 part of this contract?

shaun_from_Africa

MH1927 wrote: »

Are those 10,000 part of this contract?

Well, for a start, the 10,000 was a made up figure hence my saying "if a courier handles 10,000 packages"
However, that doesn't detract in the slightest from my point (a point which you forgot to address) in asking is a loss of 0.1% or 1% unreasonable? and if you think it is, what figure would you deem to be reasonable?

MH1927

Well the loss figure in this contract is 100%!!!

The sum of the couriers business is completely irrelevant to the OPs contract .

shaun_from_Africa

MH1927 wrote: »

Well the loss figure in this contract is 100%!!!

The sum of the couriers business is completely irrelevant to the OPs contract .

I disagree.
As you pointed out, the relevant word is reasonable and simply losing an item doesn't automatically mean that reasonable care wasn't taken.
If the courier has processes in place to mitigate any losses then even if a loss occurred, providing that the procedures were followed they may still not be negligent in their handling of the item.

If each contract was taken individually and no losses or damages were allowed then surely the legislation would state this instead of relying on "reasonable".
If the OP takes legal action then they will still have to show that reasonable care wasn't taken and IMO, the amount of care taken may well depend on the price paid and the service chosen.

custardy

MH1927 wrote: »

Well the loss figure in this contract is 100%!!!

The sum of the couriers business is completely irrelevant to the OPs contract .

Was it carried point to point in 1 vehicle with one member of staff?
If you want to discount all other packages carried then it flows through.
Im willing to bet the cost of a man with a van point to point would dwarf what the OP paid.
you say Im confident its legal.
I have repeatedly asked you how a system you deem legal/fitting would work.

shezza2

An update is that after the parcel was collected and got to the hub in Rugby it then got labeled for return!! and after making many enquiries as to when I would get it back I was told within 14 days!! After complaining a few more times I was told that they was mistaken and that it was not at the hub and that they are presuming that it is lost.