DPD prohibited items scam

Adewyatt

I recently sold a projector on eBay. I used DPD local door to door and paid for extra I surance and the package was over £200. The package turned up damaged (it looked as though it has been dropped from a height or kicked around the depot). I made a claim through DPD and this was declined because a projector is a prohibited item. Having looked at their EXTENSIVE list of prohibited items, I'm not actually sure what they do allow. Some notable items are "Ornaments", "Personal items" "Jewellery" and "machines"???. It seems to me that this list is simply a way of them not having to pay out when packages are damaged.

la531983

Where is the scam, please? The sender (you) chose to pick a provider who doesnt allow the sending of projectors, but yet did it anyway. And the list is publicly viewable for anyone to see?

Rantband

Should "have looked at their EXTENSIVE list of prohibited items" before using service.

DullGreyGuy

Adewyatt said:

I recently sold a projector on eBay. I used DPD local door to door and paid for extra I surance and the package was over £200. The package turned up damaged (it looked as though it has been dropped from a height or kicked around the depot). I made a claim through DPD and this was declined because a projector is a prohibited item. Having looked at their EXTENSIVE list of prohibited items, I'm not actually sure what they do allow. Some notable items are "Ornaments", "Personal items" "Jewellery" and "machines"???. It seems to me that this list is simply a way of them not having to pay out when packages are damaged.

Most couriers have two lists:

• Stuff you cannot send
• Stuff you can send but they won't cover for damage

At the end of the day the list is publicly available and if you book direct you have to confirm you've checked the list and are happy to proceed knowing what the lists are.

Unfortunately this seems to be a case of your not checking as had you you could have chosen a different courier or proactively accepted the risk because they were cheaper than another that would have covered the projector. 

HillStreetBlues

Don't they still have a duty of care for items sent? can T&Cs override that?

Hoenir

HillStreetBlues said:

Don't they still have a duty of care for items sent? can T&Cs override that?

Imagine the chaos that would ensure if everybody simply did what they wanted and ignored all legal terms. No would want to undertake the business/trade/service be utterly pointless. 

DullGreyGuy

HillStreetBlues said:

Don't they still have a duty of care for items sent? can T&Cs override that?

They will always have a duty of care however ultimately a judge will have to decide if T&Cs can reasonably limit that duty or if it constitutes an unfair contract term. 

Cannot comment about DPD explicitly but covering highly fragile items for theft/loss but not damage doesn't seem too unreasonable to me especially as you have to actively acknowledge the limitation before you proceed. If you could demonstrate they were grossly negligent (the CCTV showing them drop kicking it over the fence) then maybe a claim. If it's just the general bumping around in the back of a van etc then I'm not on the OP's side. 

As someone thats had many projectors they are very fragile things and each time I've moved them on other than once I've insisted on collection rather than offering postage. The one exception was not on eBay and the buyer confirmed they accepted that damage in transit was on them not me (thankfully it appeared to have arrived safely) - thats part of the benefit of selling on a dedicated forum which doesn't have "buyer protection" etc. 

HillStreetBlues

DullGreyGuy said:

HillStreetBlues said:

Don't they still have a duty of care for items sent? can T&Cs override that?

They will always have a duty of care however ultimately a judge will have to decide if T&Cs can reasonably limit that duty or if it constitutes an unfair contract term.

DPD could settle before if threatened with court action
https://www.urbancottageindustries.com/blogs/blog/dpd-damaged-parcel-sue-legal-action

Slightly different but same principle of DPD trying to rely on their T&Cs to avoid in that case full payment.

DullGreyGuy

HillStreetBlues said:

DullGreyGuy said:

HillStreetBlues said:

Don't they still have a duty of care for items sent? can T&Cs override that?

They will always have a duty of care however ultimately a judge will have to decide if T&Cs can reasonably limit that duty or if it constitutes an unfair contract term.

DPD could settle before if threatened with court action
https://www.urbancottageindustries.com/blogs/blog/dpd-damaged-parcel-sue-legal-action

Slightly different but same principle of DPD trying to rely on their T&Cs to avoid in that case full payment.

This is the fundamental issue with Small Track, with defence costs being prohibited unless there is massive breaches of the CPR it is never going to be economical for a company to defend a £500 claim as per the linked. It's going to cost them many times that in legal fees to actually go to court so even if they win they are more out of pocket than had they just paid up. 

Ultimately companies have to make the decision between losing more money by defending the claim or settling all low volume claims no matter how unrealistic they are and risking opening up the floodgates to opportunistic claimants when it becomes common knowledge that anything under £1k will be paid out. 

HillStreetBlues

DullGreyGuy said:

HillStreetBlues said:

DullGreyGuy said:

HillStreetBlues said:

Don't they still have a duty of care for items sent? can T&Cs override that?

They will always have a duty of care however ultimately a judge will have to decide if T&Cs can reasonably limit that duty or if it constitutes an unfair contract term.

DPD could settle before if threatened with court action
https://www.urbancottageindustries.com/blogs/blog/dpd-damaged-parcel-sue-legal-action

Slightly different but same principle of DPD trying to rely on their T&Cs to avoid in that case full payment.

This is the fundamental issue with Small Track, with defence costs being prohibited unless there is massive breaches of the CPR it is never going to be economical for a company to defend a £500 claim as per the linked. It's going to cost them many times that in legal fees to actually go to court so even if they win they are more out of pocket than had they just paid up. 

Ultimately companies have to make the decision between losing more money by defending the claim or settling all low volume claims no matter how unrealistic they are and risking opening up the floodgates to opportunistic claimants when it becomes common knowledge that anything under £1k will be paid out. 

One thing I would say in that case, DPD would have invested money in the back and forth, and trying to get the company to sign a gag order.
We know most small claims aren't defended as the cost isn't worth it, but I expect many of those wouldn't have racked up fees in correspondence.

Hoenir

HillStreetBlues said:

DullGreyGuy said:

HillStreetBlues said:

DullGreyGuy said:

HillStreetBlues said:

Don't they still have a duty of care for items sent? can T&Cs override that?

They will always have a duty of care however ultimately a judge will have to decide if T&Cs can reasonably limit that duty or if it constitutes an unfair contract term.

DPD could settle before if threatened with court action
https://www.urbancottageindustries.com/blogs/blog/dpd-damaged-parcel-sue-legal-action

Slightly different but same principle of DPD trying to rely on their T&Cs to avoid in that case full payment.

This is the fundamental issue with Small Track, with defence costs being prohibited unless there is massive breaches of the CPR it is never going to be economical for a company to defend a £500 claim as per the linked. It's going to cost them many times that in legal fees to actually go to court so even if they win they are more out of pocket than had they just paid up. 

Ultimately companies have to make the decision between losing more money by defending the claim or settling all low volume claims no matter how unrealistic they are and risking opening up the floodgates to opportunistic claimants when it becomes common knowledge that anything under £1k will be paid out. 

We know most small claims aren't defended as the cost isn't worth it, but I expect many of those wouldn't have racked up fees in correspondence.

No cost to issuing a counterclaim against a spurious/ malicous/unwarranted claim that's been lodged.