Why should parcel insurance exist?

Jelli

I sent a parcel about a month using parcel2go (a broker) choosing Hermes (the courier) worth about £50, but didn't insure as couldn't stand the concept of protection money. The thought of paying extra to protect against another's incompetence is just infuriating. You wouldn't pay a waiter to disincentivise them from eating your meal would you?

The thing is Hermes registered the collection but then nothing beyond that stage. They said it's lost and I should of paid for insurance.

A few weeks on and I needed to send another parcel worth about £14, but the same thing happened again. A collection was registered by Hermes but nothing beyond that stage. They said again, because I didn't pay extra for them to not steal it nothing can be done. So now it's 2 items vanishing in 1 month.

Why should people pay for the responsibility of another person? Surely a legal default should be if a courier loses a parcel then they automatically pay. The whole insurance thing for couriers is just mathia-esk.

One last thing. Even without insurance do you think I should be able to claim back £64 from Hermes/Parcel2Go somehow?

born_again

Given both were picked up and on;y log is received. Perhaps contacting the police might prompt some action.

The thought of paying extra to protect against another's incompetence is just infuriating

Think car, home ins... do you bother with them?

Shaun_of_the_Dead

born_again wrote: »

Given both were picked up and on;y log is received. Perhaps contacting the police might prompt some action.

I doubt it would, what good is a lost property number?

Jelli

born_again wrote: »

Think car, home ins... do you bother with them?

I feel it's different because the courier is like a driver taking a passenger onboard. The driver should insure themselves, not the passenger.

hollydays

You can't say it's been stolen. At this point it's lost.
Hermes covers you up to £20 doesn't it?

Jelli

hollydays wrote: »

You can't say it's been stolen. At this point it's lost.
Hermes covers you up to £20 doesn't it?

when done through the broker there's an option for zero protection which I chose for the reasons given in OP.

davidmcn

I'd say you're at least entitled to a refund if they haven't performed the service you paid them to.

As for the insurance - I suppose it enables a more appropriate allocation of risk, otherwise the people posting a parcel of dirty laundry back to their mum would be subsidising the claims from the people posting Ming vases.

Jelli

davidmcn wrote: »

As for the insurance - I suppose it enables a more appropriate allocation of risk, otherwise the people posting a parcel of dirty laundry back to their mum would be subsidising the claims from the people posting Ming vases.

I suppose to reduce that is to look after parcels very well, but just focusing on internal vanishing parcels I don't think outside insurance is justified.

unholyangel

Insurance does have its place, even for couriers.

Particularly because claiming for someones "incompetence" (aka negligence) requires you to prove they were incompetent. The standard is one of reasonableness, not perfection.

However, there is a breach of contract element. Which would only require you to show they had breached the contract, no negligence required. But you may find that would only cover you for the cost of the services - unless you can also prove negligence.

So yeah, insurance can be worth it.

Jelli

They should insure themselves for internal loses.

I did get back postage which was £3.21 twice (2 loses), but that's the least valuable part.

Aylesbury_Duck

Just use another courier in future. You get what you pay for and shopping around for the cheapest quote and then not insuring means trouble is inevitable when things go wrong. It's no different to using Ryanair versus some of the more "prestigious" airlines. Great when it works, a problem when it doesn't.