Hermes getting away with theft

AndyMc.....

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

I use the example of a pair of jeans as that’s the exact example that Royal Mail use to illustrate its compensation in an example in its own terms and conditions. Maybe you need to read them?

As an item of intrinsic value provided you go to a post office, get proof of posting and value then Royal Mail will pay the items full value or have the item repaired if it loses or damages the item while it is in their care WITHOUT the need to pay for additional insurance.

Where’s the evidence to support that?

theonlywayisup

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

I use the example of a pair of jeans as that’s the exact example that Royal Mail use to illustrate its compensation in an example in its own terms and conditions. Maybe you need to read them?

Have you read them? If you did, you misunderstood.

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

As an item of intrinsic value provided you go to a post office, get proof of posting and value then Royal Mail will pay the items full value or have the item repaired if it loses or damages the item while it is in their care WITHOUT the need to pay for additional insurance.

Royal Mail will pay up to the amount you have insured the item for. Take first or second class and your "jeans scenario".

Item has intrinsic value (with additional evidence) -

Postage refund, plus compensation on basis of the customer’s actual loss. This compensation is subject to the maximum payable being the lower of the market value of the item and £20 (£50 for Royal Mail Signed For®)
Articles for the Blind compensation is on basis of the customer’s actual loss and is subject to the maximum payable being the lower of the market value of the item and £46.

You chose the jeans situation as you read it on the RM site, however, you completely misunderstood it.

Mrs Smith (the end purchaser) bought a pair of jeans from a shop and paid £25 for them. If she posts them on and they go missing she can claim what it cost her to purchase the jeans, i.e. £25.

The Shop (the retailer) that sells the jeans buys them from the manufacturer for £15. If they post them and they go missing they can claim what it cost them to acquire the jeans, i.e. £15.

The Factory (the manufacturer) that supplies the shop makes the jeans for £10. If they post them and they go missing they can claim what the item cost them to manufacture, i.e. £10.

You read that bit without taking into account Note 1 above it.

1. Where an item is lost or damaged beyond repair then actual loss is the amount it cost the customer to acquire, purchase or manufacture the item subject to condition, age and depreciation. Where an item is damaged it is the cost of repair. No additional payment will be made for the reduced value of the repaired item. If a customer has used one of the services set out in table 1 above, then any claim for compensation for actual loss will be paid up to the market value or the statutory maximum which ever is the smaller amount. Where Royal Mail Special Delivery Guaranteed by 1pm® has been used then any compensation for actual loss will be paid up to the smaller of market value or the compensation purchased by the sender. Below is an example of actual loss.

In the jean example, Mrs Smith has to insure the jeans to the value of £25 to get the £25. If she only takes first or second class standard mail she will only get £20, not £25.

Silent_Dancer

This thread is about Hermes. The discussions about Royal Mail aren't helpful as the Royal Mail is highly regulated whereas with Hermes and other carriers consumer protection laws apply.

pmduk

AndyMc..... wrote: »

If you think it’s theft try reporting it to the police. You won’t get anywhere is it’s lost.

I reckon the police are busy enough already without wasting their time.

Rosemary7391

photome wrote: »

I havent read the whole thread, but this post doesnt ring true.


If I send something of lets say £2000 value and RM lose it,I have proof of posting but I havent taken insurance.


Are you saying RM will pay me £2000

You have to send it special delivery AND pay extra for the increased level of insurance. I've done it several times with my clarinet (I post it to the maker for repairs/servicing). They also tend to ask you what you're sending / how much it's worth at the post office. Let's be realistic - no one is going to take on a £2k risk for the pennies a normal letter costs to send.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Because they don't cover the item?

AndyMc..... wrote: »

So the risk is greater with larger monitor therefore they don't cover them. So what don't you get?

AndyMc..... wrote: »

He didn't get the service but isn't insured against it so loses out. You don't need to be a legal expert.

Any company can draw up a list of terms but the Consumer Rights Act prohibits unfair terms.

It's pointless us discussing what is "fair" as in a case like this it would be decided on the day by the judge hearing the small claims case.

Hermes has two lists, one is prohibited items which you may not use their service to send and a second no compensation list.

The OP is in a position to argue that a 27 inch monitor (no compensation rather than prohibited) is no more like to go missing then a 21 inch monitor.

It's very likely Hermes will not wish to defend the claim in court as it will cost them more than refunding the claim.

At the very least the cost of the service should be refunded as Hermes didn't fulfill the contract.

Pinkshoes is also correct that their terms wouldn't override their obligations in the case of negligence but as I stated I think the courier would be in a position to argue the loss was not negligence, if they had driven over the parcel and delivered a pancake with tyre tracks on that may well be classed as negligence as an example.



My personal take on this is that the lists of prohibited and non compensation items are excessive for a lot of couriers and if they were adhered to (couriers rejected obvious prohibited items and consumers took the time to read no compensation lists and sent via other services that would cover their item) these couriers would have a lot less parcels to deliver and find themselves having to improve their service.

They generally accept anything and if something goes wrong tell you tough luck which isn't a good practice in my view.

Hermes is a budget courier, on the one hand you use them and take your chances plus consumers are also driving down prices and the service has to give somewhere.

That said a courier shouldn't lose a properly packaged parcel and as part of that proper packaging a copy of the shipping label inside the box is a must as there is then no excuse.

Boxes don't just walk off and although in a warehouse filled with millions of them it will happen from time to time on the odd occasion a box does disappear the courier should, in my view, take responsibility and cover the loss for the customer.

Feral_Moon

winther wrote: »

They confirmed it arrived in their depot, did a depot sweep and then concluded it was "lost"
A box with a 27" monitor does not simply get "lost".

If tracking says it never left the parcel shop then it's likely it was stolen from there and not at Hermes, otherwise it would have been scanned into the system when collected from the shop.

Feral_Moon

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

Agreed. But the item wasn’t damaged it was ‘lost’ which strays into maybe.... negligence, which is why I’m asking why would you have to insure against negligence.

Who says it wasn't damaged? Even if it did enter the system, although tracking says it didn't, then damaged items don't usually get sent out and will be put to one side to return to sender. However, broken glass wouldn't be allowed back into the system. And, as it wasn't insured for damage, it would probably just be binned.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Feral_Moon wrote: »

Who says it wasn't damaged? Even if it did enter the system, although tracking says it didn't, then damaged items don't usually get sent out and will be put to one side to return to sender. However, broken glass wouldn't be allowed back into the system. And, as it wasn't insured for damage, it would probably just be binned.

If it was damaged the courier should document this and provide the information to the customer, if not for any other reason than to reduce their liability.

Are monitors still made of glass? The one I have here has a soft sort of plastic as the screen.

Rosemary7391

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

If it was damaged the courier should document this and provide the information to the customer, if not for any other reason than to reduce their liability.

Are monitors still made of glass? The one I have here has a soft sort of plastic as the screen.

I suspect damaged items are actually more likely to get lost - they leave the normal flow of the system, possibly in an odd place, and the damage might remove/obscure the address label. On that basis it might be reasonable to exclude items that are more likely to be damaged from compensation for loss as well as damage. And I think a 27'' monitor is more likely to be damaged than a 21'' monitor.