Hermes getting away with theft

Rosemary7391

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

On a practical level I completely agree with you but that’s not how the law works. There’s 1 law that everyone large or small is bound by.

One of the largest dairy companies in the U.K. processes around 3.5 billion litres of milk a year. They can’t turn around and shrug because 10 litres of it poisoned 25 people.

There should be no difference between handling 50 parcels a day and 500,000.

There is no difference as far as I know - they both have to take reasonable care, taking into account the risk and so on. Losing a parcel is hardly equivalent to poisoning people! I would expect a much more thorough inquiry in that case, and rightly so. But it still might not be the dairy company at fault.



Losing a parcel doesn't automatically mean that the company is negligent. For instance, they may have lost the parcel because the customer didn't stick the label on very well. That's clearly nothing to do with the company.

Labsuper

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

I’m not a legal expert but again it comes down to getting the service that has been paid for ie getting from a to b.

If I stick 4 x £50 notes in an envelope and post it to my daughter with just a first class stamp on the letter and it gets lost what should be my compensation? I'll tell you, it's zero.

wesleyad

This has come up a few times before but I cant find the threads. I'm sure someone established that irrelevant of insurance cover, the courier still has a duty of care (they become temporary bailee).

The company exempt themselves from damage to the item, as items such as these can be easily damaged even when exercising a reasonable duty of care. However an item cannot get lost whilst taking reasonable care. So, it can be argued that an exemption for losing an expensive item is an unfair term.

Now whether this would stand up in court I have no idea. What does seem ridiculous is that a company can effectively just pocket any large TV or monitor and have no recompense.

davidmcn

wesleyad wrote: »

This has come up a few times before but I cant find the threads. I'm sure someone established that irrelevant of insurance cover, the courier still has a duty of care (they become temporary bailee).

The company exempt themselves from damage to the item, as items such as these can be easily damaged even when exercising a reasonable duty of care. However an item cannot get lost whilst taking reasonable care. So, it can be argued that an exemption for losing an expensive item is an unfair term.

Now whether this would stand up in court I have no idea. What does seem ridiculous is that a company can effectively just pocket any large TV or monitor and have no recompense.

But as pointed out, it's long been the case that Royal Mail don't compensate you (beyond the standard £21 or whatever it is) unless you've paid for one of their insured services. I expect that if that were at all legally dubious it would have been tested before now. Unless that's a result of special postal legislation and other couriers operate under different laws?

theonlywayisup

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

As regards the house burning down.... if it was caused by the boiler repair man doing a poor job I wouldn’t expect to be denied compensation because because I hadn’t insured against his dangerous work.

No, the burn was down to the drunk-party-going-reveller who decided to light the Christmas candles and fall asleep.....

Did you take out insurance for that?

theonlywayisup

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

I’m not a legal expert

And there ends the sermon.

Mr_Singleton

davidmcn wrote: »

But as pointed out, it's long been the case that Royal Mail don't compensate you (beyond the standard £21 or whatever it is) unless you've paid for one of their insured services. I expect that if that were at all legally dubious it would have been tested before now. Unless that's a result of special postal legislation and other couriers operate under different laws?

Nope, sorry but your wrong...

If you buy a pair of jeans for £25 from a shop and they go missing (in the post) or are damaged beyond repair Royal Mail will refund you the full cost. No need to pay for addition insurance.

AndyMc.....

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

Nope, sorry but your wrong...

If you buy a pair of jeans for £25 from a shop and they go missing (in the post) or are damaged beyond repair Royal Mail will refund you the full cost. No need to pay for addition insurance.

Won't the shop replace them?

Mr_Singleton

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Won't the shop replace them?

Ok, so the shop will get the £25. But the point is if Royal Mail lose or damage your item while in there care they will fully compensate you/sender without the need to pay for additional insurance.

theonlywayisup

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

Nope, sorry but your wrong...

If you buy a pair of jeans for £25 from a shop and they go missing (in the post) or are damaged beyond repair Royal Mail will refund you the full cost. No need to pay for addition insurance.

If you buy them online then the shop pays, not Royal Mail. Insurance isn't your concern as the shop bears the risk until you take delivery.

If you buy them and get them posted (onwards) to someone/you (as it's not clear what your post is suggesting) then RM will only insure up to the cost of the item depending on insurance. Standard mail is £20.

You are clutching at straws and your examples are bizarre.