Parcel Force adding surcharge

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Fi1964 said:

Thank you for the quick replies. It was sent in the original TV box with a company called Parcel Compare. I suppose we can't prove it wasn't sent in a 9 foot box but surely there must be rules that the courier can't make it up. As someone above said why would they take it if it's bigger than paid for (which it wasn't).

Doubtful they'll do more than hassle you for this, unless you receive papers from a court there's no need to pay if the parcel was within their dimensions. 

If it went to court it would be down to them to prove it was over sized, not for you to prove it wasn't. 

y3sitsm3

Jenni_D said:

y3sitsm3 said:

Fi1964 said:

Thank you for the quick replies. It was sent in the original TV box with a company called Parcel Compare. I suppose we can't prove it wasn't sent in a 9 foot box but surely there must be rules that the courier can't make it up. As someone above said why would they take it if it's bigger than paid for (which it wasn't).

Because they don't necessarily have the time to measure every box they pick up.  It's likely that it has been scanned at some point by a machine that has determined it to be bigger than allowed.

They're stuck between a rock and a hard place really. If they dump it back on the customer's doorstep they'd likely be just as many people annoyed at that as those who had to pay more money.

Apparently Hermes have a lot of issues like this where the machine measure a parcel but also picks up another parcel at the same time and miscalculates the size. (I think Joe Lycett has featured this on his TV show before?) I wouldn't be surprised if other couriers had similar issues.

Ultimately the courier is making a claim - it is for them to prove their claim. The OP's evidence has already been shared, and my calculations above show that a total of 3m would be utterly ridiculous for a 40" TV box. @Fi1964 - does your son have any photos of the TV box?

Unless the OP caves in, the courier would have to take them to court to try and force payment - such a claim would be judged on the balance of probabilities, which I believe would be in the OP's favour.

Bit in underline - a valid comment, but not applicable in this case as the package was already delivered.

I'd be surprised if these "exceptions" aren't measured by hand afterwards, as there can't be all that many of them but I don't work in a courier sorting depot so I have zero experience of their processes.

Jenni_D

y3sitsm3 said:

Jenni_D said:

y3sitsm3 said:

Fi1964 said:

Thank you for the quick replies. It was sent in the original TV box with a company called Parcel Compare. I suppose we can't prove it wasn't sent in a 9 foot box but surely there must be rules that the courier can't make it up. As someone above said why would they take it if it's bigger than paid for (which it wasn't).

Because they don't necessarily have the time to measure every box they pick up.  It's likely that it has been scanned at some point by a machine that has determined it to be bigger than allowed.

They're stuck between a rock and a hard place really. If they dump it back on the customer's doorstep they'd likely be just as many people annoyed at that as those who had to pay more money.

Apparently Hermes have a lot of issues like this where the machine measure a parcel but also picks up another parcel at the same time and miscalculates the size. (I think Joe Lycett has featured this on his TV show before?) I wouldn't be surprised if other couriers had similar issues.

Ultimately the courier is making a claim - it is for them to prove their claim. The OP's evidence has already been shared, and my calculations above show that a total of 3m would be utterly ridiculous for a 40" TV box. @Fi1964 - does your son have any photos of the TV box?

Unless the OP caves in, the courier would have to take them to court to try and force payment - such a claim would be judged on the balance of probabilities, which I believe would be in the OP's favour.

Bit in underline - a valid comment, but not applicable in this case as the package was already delivered.

I'd be surprised if these "exceptions" aren't measured by hand afterwards, as there can't be all that many of them but I don't work in a courier sorting depot so I have zero experience of their processes.

According to what I've seen previously, this scam measurement error is not uncommon.  

Sandtree

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:
If it went to court it would be down to them to prove it was over sized, not for you to prove it wasn't. 

If it went to court the judge would look at the evidence presented by both parties and decide, on the balance of probabilities which is most likely to be true.

Both sides have to submit evidence/(witness) statements and so its not purely for the claimant to prove their case.

Fi1964

Jenni_D said:

As asked above, exactly what dimension are they saying is 3m?

A 40" TV would not be in a box that required a dimension of 3m - not even the diagonal. Even if the box was 20" diagonal bigger than the TV, that is still only a shade over 5 feet ... well under 2m.

Something doesn't add up here.

Exactly. The TV is 40inches. Even with the polystyrene packing and the box it wouldn't be anywhere near 3 metres. The box was the original TV box so the courier knows it wasn't over 3m. 

Jenni_D

See my later post with calculations ... even over-estimating the box size still doesn't take it anywhere near 3m based on Length + Girth.

What box size did you find online (and send to them as evidence)?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Sandtree said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:
If it went to court it would be down to them to prove it was over sized, not for you to prove it wasn't. 

If it went to court the judge would look at the evidence presented by both parties and decide, on the balance of probabilities which is most likely to be true.

Both sides have to submit evidence/(witness) statements and so its not purely for the claimant to prove their case.

I do agree but if the company had proof it was oversized they would have offered this to the OP rather than asking them to prove it was as stated so would have little to base their claim on.

Fi1964

y3sitsm3 said:

Fi1964 said:

Thank you for the quick replies. It was sent in the original TV box with a company called Parcel Compare. I suppose we can't prove it wasn't sent in a 9 foot box but surely there must be rules that the courier can't make it up. As someone above said why would they take it if it's bigger than paid for (which it wasn't).

Because they don't necessarily have the time to measure every box they pick up.  It's likely that it has been scanned at some point by a machine that has determined it to be bigger than allowed.

They're stuck between a rock and a hard place really. If they dump it back on the customer's doorstep they'd likely be just as many people annoyed at that as those who had to pay more money.

Had it been scanned it would be clear it was no where near 3m in any dimension, even with WHD combined. They would also know just by looking at it. I would have no objection to paying off it was that size but it wasn't and I feel it is a scam.

Fi1964

Jenni_D said:

See my later post with calculations ... even over-estimating the box size still doesn't take it anywhere near 3m based on Length + Girth.

What box size did you find online (and send to them as evidence)?

Sorry I've just realised it is 49 inches not 40 but this was the box size we sent them as evidence. 1197 x 810 x 175 mm.

Yorkshire_Dangermouse

Won't girth be(2x810)+(2x175), so added to the length gives 3,167mm ?