Couriers, lost parcels and unfair terms

DullGreyGuy

Manxman_in_exile said:

Undervalued said:

... Suppose a high end jeweller decides to send tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds of diamonds in a packet with a five quid next day courier. Are they really expected to accept almost unlimited liability?...

"12.  Another relevant factor, to my mind, is the fact that, at least in this case, the Defendant was told the value of the goods and it seems to me, therefore, that taking all of that into account, it is right to say that the effect of clause 16.7 is that it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer because the Defendant can, in essence, not perform or inadequately perform with very limited exposure.

13. The position might be different if, for example, the Defendant had not been told the value of the parcel before quoting a price to the Claimant..."

13 isnt true though... every courier website I have ever used you get quoted the price first and subsequently declare the value of the goods. Purchase happens post declaration of value so there is an option for the merchant to increase the pricing now knowing the value but thats not the same thing as the judgement states.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

DullGreyGuy said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Undervalued said:

... Suppose a high end jeweller decides to send tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds of diamonds in a packet with a five quid next day courier. Are they really expected to accept almost unlimited liability?...

"12.  Another relevant factor, to my mind, is the fact that, at least in this case, the Defendant was told the value of the goods and it seems to me, therefore, that taking all of that into account, it is right to say that the effect of clause 16.7 is that it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer because the Defendant can, in essence, not perform or inadequately perform with very limited exposure.

13. The position might be different if, for example, the Defendant had not been told the value of the parcel before quoting a price to the Claimant..."

13 isnt true though... every courier website I have ever used you get quoted the price first and subsequently declare the value of the goods. Purchase happens post declaration of value so there is an option for the merchant to increase the pricing now knowing the value but thats not the same thing as the judgement states.

I think that's the point, the courier (or likes of Parcelhero) are aware of the value so can charge what is enough to cover their liability, the judge is saying had they not asked then they wouldn't have been aware of their liability and that may have affected the decision. 

As a side note Royal Mail doesn't ask the value, they just show their services and note what the level cover is as they don't charge specific amounts to increase cover but instead vary it depending upon the services. 

Manxman_in_exile

tightauldgit and the lunatic  -  I agree pretty much with all both of you say.

In particular it's always true that

tightauldgit said:

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

AstonomyDomine

You should have a look at the new MSE parcel delivery insurance guide and also the new thread which has been set up by MSE admin about that topic.

Okell

I think that thread is less informative than this one?

AstonomyDomine

I don't think it's a question of comparison. I think it's a question of looking at all the information holistically in order to understand the big picture.
Have you looked at the new guide?

born_again

AstonomyDomine said:

You should have a look at the new MSE parcel delivery insurance guide and also the new thread which has been set up by MSE admin about that topic.

To which they never replied.
That is confusing as they mention insurance which courier's do not offer.

Insurance is a regulated area. As such offering insurance they have to be regulated by FCA/PRA. None of which are.
So this is just compensation.

AstonomyDomine

I'm afraid you are probably wrong. The protection insurance that they also probably is  " insurance" And in that case they would be committing an offence of selling an unregulated insurance product

AstonomyDomine

If it really was as easy as saying that because it isn't called insurance it isn't insurance, then it would be very easy for any company or any person to avoid the effect of any legislation simply by changing the label. 
That's not the way it works. 
You have to look at the characteristics of what is being sold and the protection or enhanced compensation has all the characteristics of insurance. 

born_again

AstonomyDomine said:

I'm afraid you are probably wrong. The protection insurance that they also probably is  " insurance" And in that case they would be committing an offence of selling an unregulated insurance product

May seem pedantic.
But if insurance wording is used, then it can be taken it is a regulated policy. 
They (MSE) need to stop using the term.
Even couriers do not use the term..