Taking DPD to Court – Advice & Experiences?

PHK

Some advice, and I'm sorry this will seem harsh. If you do go to court then it's all about recouping the cost of an item. It's extremely rare for a judge to make a compo payment and they never make punishment payments to harm firms.  

Also, you'll want to change the way you approach the court - the level of indignation and your case as to why it matters to other people - is a sure way to wind the court up. 

And if your insurance has paid out then you'll get nothing in court because of the principle of betterment. 

But I'm not sure any consumer rights will apply, these clearly seem to be tools of the trade. In which case only the contract matters and as they have gone beyond what they say they'll do then you'd lose that case as well. 

DullGreyGuy

CymbalSaga101 said:
The Impact on Me

1. £2,306 loss in musical equipment (my cymbals were built up over years and used in major performances).
2. £270 in lost income from cancelled drum lessons due to not having my equipment.
3. Months of stress & inconvenience, being unable to properly teach or gig, and constantly having to fight for responses from DPD.
4. Sentimental loss—these were my gigging cymbals, including those used in Guy Garvey’s BBC 6 Music Finest Hour show last year.
5. Missed networking & performance opportunities due to time wasted sourcing/hiring replacement cymbals.

1) Potentially fine - however is this the new price you are quoting or their secondhand value? This isnt an insurance claim but a legal claim so its not new for old but indemnity based

2) Given you are talking about lessons, not performances, why couldn't you have bought a budget set so the lessons didnt have to be cancelled? You have a legal obligation to mitigate your losses

3) Not a valid head of claim

4) Not a valid head of claim

5) You would need to show an actual financial loss

CymbalSaga101 said:
I totally understand why people assume insurance is the key factor in cases like this—it’s what couriers rely on to deflect responsibility. But consumer law actually protects senders when couriers fail in their duty of care, regardless of whether extra protection was purchased.

It's not insurance, it's a change to the terms in relation to the limit of liability. 

The issue is also you are claiming consumer law but you are talking about these generating a loss of earnings and therefore this was not a consumer transaction and consumer rights do not apply to commercial transactions.