Couriers, lost parcels and unfair terms

Manxman_in_exile

I wouldn't disagree with any of the points you make.

The fact that "rational" consumers prefer to pay some form of cheaper cross-subsidised price rather than a price that reflects the true costs of something plays into the hands of retailers who want to maximise market share in the short and medium term so they can get bigger profits by exploting a market with reduced competiton in the longer term.

eg I know Amazon got a massive boost from Covid, but we seemed to be headed in that direction anyway, we just got there a bit sooner.  I do wonder if we will regret giving so much custom to Amazon...  (@tightauldgit may agree as I think he's involved in running an actual bricks and mortar shop)

My view is just that anytime a consumer pays a price for something that doesn't reflect the true cost of producing or providing that "thing", they are liable to be spending their money unwisely.

Manxman_in_exile

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

...It is interesting not only to see a judgement on this issue in particular but also to see how the judge went through the relevant aspects of the legislation in a methodical manner interpreting them as written ...

Yes.

If I were a consumer with a similar complaint against a courier who had lost a parcel, I would use the judge's analysis and reasoning as the starting point for drafting my claim.

The judge in the second case I posted is less helpful in that respect.  She basically seems to be more of the view that the defendant and anybody else who might think the defendant is not liable in this situation must be completely deluded...  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

I wouldn't disagree with any of the points you make.

The fact that "rational" consumers prefer to pay some form of cheaper cross-subsidised price rather than a price that reflects the true costs of something plays into the hands of retailers who want to maximise market share in the short and medium term so they can get bigger profits by exploting a market with reduced competiton in the longer term.

eg I know Amazon got a massive boost from Covid, but we seemed to be headed in that direction anyway, we just got there a bit sooner.  I do wonder if we will regret giving so much custom to Amazon...  (@tightauldgit may agree as I think he's involved in running an actual bricks and mortar shop)

My view is just that anytime a consumer pays a price for something that doesn't reflect the true cost of producing or providing that "thing", they are liable to be spending their money unwisely.

With the topic in hand I can certainly agree looking at that other forum with complaints of sending laptops and phones with Evri and then facing a headache when they go missing I certainly think the choice was unwise. 

With somethings it can be difficult, if I buy a fridge and pay double do I get double the quality? 

I wanted a retractable washing line for the garden and in the end settled on the cheapest, they all had complaints of breaking or sagging so what am I paying the extra for? 

The uncertainty is the problem, if I knew paying more would be a better deal overall I'd happily do so for most things. I guess people might not know how bad Evri are, but that seems a bit unlikely.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

...It is interesting not only to see a judgement on this issue in particular but also to see how the judge went through the relevant aspects of the legislation in a methodical manner interpreting them as written ...

Yes.

If I were a consumer with a similar complaint against a courier who had lost a parcel, I would use the judge's analysis and reasoning as the starting point for drafting my claim.

The judge in the second case I posted is less helpful in that respect.  She basically seems to be more of the view that the defendant and anybody else who might think the defendant is not liable in this situation must be completely deluded...  

I didn't see your other post last night, it's is a little bit more to the point but still follows the principle that the manner in which a business decides to conduct itself doesn't take precedence over consumer rights. 

It also highlights the cost should be £28ish but dismisses the fact that's what the consumer should have paid, instead implying that's what the business should have charged. 

Very interesting to see.

Regarding the other forum, their third party idea seems to be a newish one from a quick read, they appear to be saying third party rights apply if they aren't excluded. 

If that is valid I can see the terms eventually being updated to exclude those rights, although whether that would be fair and binding on a consumer I don't know. 

tightauldgit

Manxman_in_exile said:

I wouldn't disagree with any of the points you make.

The fact that "rational" consumers prefer to pay some form of cheaper cross-subsidised price rather than a price that reflects the true costs of something plays into the hands of retailers who want to maximise market share in the short and medium term so they can get bigger profits by exploting a market with reduced competiton in the longer term.

eg I know Amazon got a massive boost from Covid, but we seemed to be headed in that direction anyway, we just got there a bit sooner.  I do wonder if we will regret giving so much custom to Amazon...  (@tightauldgit may agree as I think he's involved in running an actual bricks and mortar shop)

My view is just that anytime a consumer pays a price for something that doesn't reflect the true cost of producing or providing that "thing", they are liable to be spending their money unwisely.

Two problems with Amazon and Tesco etc - they hoover up all the business by basically making it inconvenient for people to go elsewhere so you tend to just get a gravitational effect. If I'm getting all my groceries delivered by a Tesco lorry I am not going to bother going into town to buy bread from the bakery, fruit from the grocer and bacon from the butcher. I just add it to my shopping cart. COVID drove this move to online everything a lot quicker and most people haven't gone back. 

Second problem is more fundamental in that their business model is based on screwing everyone and everything who interacts with them - suppliers, staff, government, the planet you name it - in order to make more money. Then the bigger they get they also effectively get subsidised by government because they're the only people who can afford to employ people - albeit on subsistence wages and inhumane conditions but hey you've got a job so be happy pleb! 

But at the end of the day the true cost of doing business with Amazon is hidden from the consumer and all they see is they got their new shiny thing in 24 hours at a price they can afford. They never quite make the connection to the fact that two thirds of UK households are on benefits, there are thousands reliant on foodbanks to eat and the country is being mired in strikes because wages can't keep pace with massive corporate profits. 

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I wouldn't disagree with any of the points you make.

The fact that "rational" consumers prefer to pay some form of cheaper cross-subsidised price rather than a price that reflects the true costs of something plays into the hands of retailers who want to maximise market share in the short and medium term so they can get bigger profits by exploting a market with reduced competiton in the longer term.

eg I know Amazon got a massive boost from Covid, but we seemed to be headed in that direction anyway, we just got there a bit sooner.  I do wonder if we will regret giving so much custom to Amazon...  (@tightauldgit may agree as I think he's involved in running an actual bricks and mortar shop)

My view is just that anytime a consumer pays a price for something that doesn't reflect the true cost of producing or providing that "thing", they are liable to be spending their money unwisely.

With the topic in hand I can certainly agree looking at that other forum with complaints of sending laptops and phones with Evri and then facing a headache when they go missing I certainly think the choice was unwise. 

With somethings it can be difficult, if I buy a fridge and pay double do I get double the quality? 

I wanted a retractable washing line for the garden and in the end settled on the cheapest, they all had complaints of breaking or sagging so what am I paying the extra for? 

The uncertainty is the problem, if I knew paying more would be a better deal overall I'd happily do so for most things. I guess people might not know how bad Evri are, but that seems a bit unlikely.

Really depends how you define quality and what value do you put on for example everyone in the chain to get that fridge to you being able to support their family from a living wage? From the factory that built it not polluting the water of the local people and making it undrinkable? From being able to get polite and competent after sales support rather than being told 'we can't help you' by a call center employee in India who could make more money running phone scams? From not creating a mega wealthy cabal of hyper billionaires like Bezos and Musk who wield far too much potentially malevolent influence over politics and our lives? 

Sometimes there's more going on than just a cheap fridge.   

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I wouldn't disagree with any of the points you make.

The fact that "rational" consumers prefer to pay some form of cheaper cross-subsidised price rather than a price that reflects the true costs of something plays into the hands of retailers who want to maximise market share in the short and medium term so they can get bigger profits by exploting a market with reduced competiton in the longer term.

eg I know Amazon got a massive boost from Covid, but we seemed to be headed in that direction anyway, we just got there a bit sooner.  I do wonder if we will regret giving so much custom to Amazon...  (@tightauldgit may agree as I think he's involved in running an actual bricks and mortar shop)

My view is just that anytime a consumer pays a price for something that doesn't reflect the true cost of producing or providing that "thing", they are liable to be spending their money unwisely.

With the topic in hand I can certainly agree looking at that other forum with complaints of sending laptops and phones with Evri and then facing a headache when they go missing I certainly think the choice was unwise. 

With somethings it can be difficult, if I buy a fridge and pay double do I get double the quality? 

I wanted a retractable washing line for the garden and in the end settled on the cheapest, they all had complaints of breaking or sagging so what am I paying the extra for? 

The uncertainty is the problem, if I knew paying more would be a better deal overall I'd happily do so for most things. I guess people might not know how bad Evri are, but that seems a bit unlikely.

Really depends how you define quality and what value do you put on for example everyone in the chain to get that fridge to you being able to support their family from a living wage? From the factory that built it not polluting the water of the local people and making it undrinkable? From being able to get polite and competent after sales support rather than being told 'we can't help you' by a call center employee in India who could make more money running phone scams? From not creating a mega wealthy cabal of hyper billionaires like Bezos and Musk who wield far too much potentially malevolent influence over politics and our lives? 

Sometimes there's more going on than just a cheap fridge.   

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I wouldn't disagree with any of the points you make.

The fact that "rational" consumers prefer to pay some form of cheaper cross-subsidised price rather than a price that reflects the true costs of something plays into the hands of retailers who want to maximise market share in the short and medium term so they can get bigger profits by exploting a market with reduced competiton in the longer term.

eg I know Amazon got a massive boost from Covid, but we seemed to be headed in that direction anyway, we just got there a bit sooner.  I do wonder if we will regret giving so much custom to Amazon...  (@tightauldgit may agree as I think he's involved in running an actual bricks and mortar shop)

My view is just that anytime a consumer pays a price for something that doesn't reflect the true cost of producing or providing that "thing", they are liable to be spending their money unwisely.

With the topic in hand I can certainly agree looking at that other forum with complaints of sending laptops and phones with Evri and then facing a headache when they go missing I certainly think the choice was unwise. 

With somethings it can be difficult, if I buy a fridge and pay double do I get double the quality? 

I wanted a retractable washing line for the garden and in the end settled on the cheapest, they all had complaints of breaking or sagging so what am I paying the extra for? 

The uncertainty is the problem, if I knew paying more would be a better deal overall I'd happily do so for most things. I guess people might not know how bad Evri are, but that seems a bit unlikely.

Really depends how you define quality and what value do you put on for example everyone in the chain to get that fridge to you being able to support their family from a living wage? From the factory that built it not polluting the water of the local people and making it undrinkable? From being able to get polite and competent after sales support rather than being told 'we can't help you' by a call center employee in India who could make more money running phone scams? From not creating a mega wealthy cabal of hyper billionaires like Bezos and Musk who wield far too much potentially malevolent influence over politics and our lives? 

Sometimes there's more going on than just a cheap fridge.   

Completely agree with all that I just meant from a purely selfish point of view if I pay double for my fridge will it last me twice as long.

The ethical dilemmas of purchasing are too complex, even with those claiming to be green, substantiable or whatever there needs to be a very large pinch of salt applied to such claims.

Personally I find little joy in possessions these days and do my best to simply not buy much stuff. 

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I wouldn't disagree with any of the points you make.

The fact that "rational" consumers prefer to pay some form of cheaper cross-subsidised price rather than a price that reflects the true costs of something plays into the hands of retailers who want to maximise market share in the short and medium term so they can get bigger profits by exploting a market with reduced competiton in the longer term.

eg I know Amazon got a massive boost from Covid, but we seemed to be headed in that direction anyway, we just got there a bit sooner.  I do wonder if we will regret giving so much custom to Amazon...  (@tightauldgit may agree as I think he's involved in running an actual bricks and mortar shop)

My view is just that anytime a consumer pays a price for something that doesn't reflect the true cost of producing or providing that "thing", they are liable to be spending their money unwisely.

With the topic in hand I can certainly agree looking at that other forum with complaints of sending laptops and phones with Evri and then facing a headache when they go missing I certainly think the choice was unwise. 

With somethings it can be difficult, if I buy a fridge and pay double do I get double the quality? 

I wanted a retractable washing line for the garden and in the end settled on the cheapest, they all had complaints of breaking or sagging so what am I paying the extra for? 

The uncertainty is the problem, if I knew paying more would be a better deal overall I'd happily do so for most things. I guess people might not know how bad Evri are, but that seems a bit unlikely.

Really depends how you define quality and what value do you put on for example everyone in the chain to get that fridge to you being able to support their family from a living wage? From the factory that built it not polluting the water of the local people and making it undrinkable? From being able to get polite and competent after sales support rather than being told 'we can't help you' by a call center employee in India who could make more money running phone scams? From not creating a mega wealthy cabal of hyper billionaires like Bezos and Musk who wield far too much potentially malevolent influence over politics and our lives? 

Sometimes there's more going on than just a cheap fridge.   

Completely agree with all that I just meant from a purely selfish point of view if I pay double for my fridge will it last me twice as long.

The ethical dilemmas of purchasing are too complex, even with those claiming to be green, substantiable or whatever there needs to be a very large pinch of salt applied to such claims.

Personally I find little joy in possessions these days and do my best to simply not buy much stuff. 

Yeah but that's a bit like asking if I pay double for my meal in a restaurant will I feel full twice as long. It's probably asking the wrong question. 

It also kind of avoids the reality that if people were willing to pay double for fridges that last twice as long then they probably would get fridges that last twice as long. The problem is generally people don't care about that stuff when they shop - they just want the shiniest one at the best price. So most manufacturers are rewarded for producing things which look superficially good at a low price point while in other cases people are purely buying the name to show off to their neighbours at dinner parties which again doesn't incentivise longevity or boring old good engineering. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

Yeah but that's a bit like asking if I pay double for my meal in a restaurant will I feel full twice as long. It's probably asking the wrong question. 

It also kind of avoids the reality that if people were willing to pay double for fridges that last twice as long then they probably would get fridges that last twice as long. The problem is generally people don't care about that stuff when they shop - they just want the shiniest one at the best price. So most manufacturers are rewarded for producing things which look superficially good at a low price point while in other cases people are purely buying the name to show off to their neighbours at dinner parties which again doesn't incentivise longevity or boring old good engineering. 

If I pay double at a restaurant I'd expect (hope?) for better quality ingredients that taste nicer, with the fridge I'd expect (hope?) for better quality components that last longer. 

I think overall the manufacturers earn more selling us cheap rubbish that doesn't last, more volume means lower costs due to economies of scale which means lower prices which means more consumption. They certainly may make less per fridge or whatever but the numbers at the end of the year must be higher otherwise they wouldn't do it.  

The fancy widgets are just fluff to encourage you to replace perfectly good things because the latest model has something new added and with branding it should represent confidence but I'm coming to conclusion that's just a load of fluff as well and doesn't mean much these days. 

Competition inspires greatness, as big companies dominate the landscape and then all act in a similar manner competition is reduced which in turn reduces the need to tailor yourself to the consumer but instead allowing you to act in your own interests as you have the ability to dictate the market rather than respond to what it demands.