DPD prohibited items scam

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. 

HillStreetBlues

Hoenir said:

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. 

There is the cost of time

Hoenir

HillStreetBlues said:

Hoenir said:

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. 

There is the cost of time

Counterclaiming isn't a game it's for real money. Nor complain when services or products you personally use rise in price. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

OP out of interest did the booking flow ask what the item was and if so did you enter that it was a projector? 

Hoenir said:

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

I didn't think such things were awarded in small claims but rather the awarding of actual costs may be more generous if the claim is vexatious?