Packlink (Hermes) lost item and won't refund

mustafa140

Last year I posted an item I sold on eBay using their Packlink service via Hermes. The item was then lost and the tracking information showed the item was picked up from the parcel shop and "Driver not scanned at depot". I raised the issue with Packlink and they only refunded me £25 as I did not buy insurance cover, when the item was around £160...

Is it right that I should be expected to insure myself/item against the delivery company's failure ? A lot of professions and businesses get insurance in case they fail but with delivery companies why is it the other way around?

Further, the Hermes was investigated around about the same time and found to be selling items at auctions. Some of the items they considered undeliverable even had full delivery/sender addresses clearly printed on them. They programme can be found on YouTube if you search "Joe Lycett got your back Hermes". Does this not also show that the carrier acted negligently? I also feel I was treated unfairly by  Packlink when they handled my claim. They simply said that I hadn't insured it and closed the subject marking it "resolved" and ignored all my other messages... To make things more difficult, I can see that Packlink is registered in Spain so Money Claim Online probably won't work.

Any opinion / advice appreciated.

mattyprice4004

Unfortunately while most companies will simply pay to avoid fuss if you lodge a small claim for an amount like £160 - as Packlink is registered in Spain you'd probably have to take action against them there. 

While it's certainly odd, the problem with having the courier liable with no limit is that it'd be open to scams - 'you lost my £100,000 Faberge egg on your £2.70 Hermes service, therefore you owe me 100 grand!' 
I send around 5000 parcels per year, and know that if I choose not to insure them I take the hit. 

A TV programme won't make a difference to their liability, unfortunately. 

theonlywayisup

Last year?  It is now June.  What happened in between?

visidigi

And you used packlink because...they were the cheapest?...
Yes Hermes have a duty of care, but you aren't their customer here, so you can only deal with packlink, who I believe covered you for the loss to the amount you expected for that cheap price...

mustafa140

Thanks all for the comments.

Somewhat it doesn't feel right that the legal basis (if there is one) for such reversal of liabilities is based on "what if the company gets scammed". A person can still attempt to scam in many ways, for example by claiming the never received the expensive item they ordered, but guess what, the delivery company will quickly prove that they did deliver... In my case they clearly admitted they failed to deliver. One would think a delivery company would do the only thing it says on the tin.... deliver.

To respond to other queries; the the mishap was at the end of the last year. Since then I discovered that Hermes have been running a lucrative side business of auctioning off items (a big incentive not to deliver) many of which they are clearly able to deliver. I see this as a proof of negligence at best, fraud at worst... Not just a TV programme, which btw in its feature alone got the results for the people involved.

Yes, the price was a contributing factor for why I chose Packlink, I am not ashamed by that. More than that, being part of eBay it was due to the convenience of it: It prints sender/buyer's address + details, payment is taken care of within the eBay seller scheme, the buyer gets immediately notified of the postage including the long tracking code which I have to otherwise manually type... and no, I didn't say I have a claim  against Hermes. My claim is against Packlink whose choice of carrier happened to include/be Hermes.

Thanks

wesleyad

It's a reoccuring theme on these boards about these companies that can apparently completely absolve themselves of any wrongdoing by just have a few disclaimers in the t&cs. I cant think of any other service where you need extra insurance, provided by the company, to pay for the company to !!!!!! up. Imagine you took your car in for a service and they suggested "extra insurance" in case they scratched your paintwork. You'd drive straight back out.

I completely understand, if the aren't happy with a breakable item and therefore charge insurance in case something happens. Makes total sense. But if they lose the item... how is that relevant? And when you dig into what goods are allowed, you find that pretty much nothing is covered.

If they don't consider themselves capable of fulfilling the contract with high value goods, they need to just declare that.
And as you say, there's nothing to stop them "losing" the item and then selling it. Which clearly cannot be right.

mustafa140

Just an update on this: I have successfully recovered my money through legal action against Hermes. They settled before needing a hearing. I can deduce therefore:
1) Their insurance scheme is a scam especially given the evidence of their negligence. They would and do give a lot excuses to customers to say that the items were uninsurable after selling it in the first place.
2) I do not have to pursue Packlink who is registered in Spain, I can pursue Hermes directly thanks to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
3) I can pursue them even years after the event.

I suggest to anyone who has been let down by this cowboy company to seriously consider legal action (easily done online at MCOL) which is the only way to get through to them. Of course follow the pre-action protocol.

Thanks everyone for your opinions, informed or otherwise

Manxman_in_exile

Well done and thanks for coming back to update.

Personally I think more people should sue companies in this sort of case and I'm interested at least part of your claim was based on the third parties legislation (which is rarely mentioned on these boards).  I'm never been entirely convinced by the "But your contract is with X and not with Y" argument.  I think "Of course they are going to settle".

I'm also inclined to believe the offered insurance is a bit of a scam.  If a courier or parcel company damages or loses what you are sending (the very definition of not taking reasonable care and of being negligent in my view) they should be liable for the full declared value (declared so as to avoid the Faberge $1,000,000 egg argument - if they don't want to carry high value items they can refuse to do so).  They can use their own insurance to cover their negligence, not your insurance.

I'm sure this would make carriage costs more expensive but I'm sure it would be worth it.  Pricing would be more transparent and costs would be allocated more efficiently (ie negligent, careless or reckless couriers would become less competitive), customers who suffer losses would no longer be subsidising other customers and, most importantly, it would encourage couriers to provide a better and more efficient customer service.  They'd actually have to look after parcels properly and would have a financial interest in ensuring that they safely arrived intact at their destination - and didn't go missing.  No longer would it make no difference to them how they treated the parcels entrusted to their care.