DPD have flagged my address - what does this mean?

EllieJade1995

Hello, I have a claim with a retailer as I didn’t receive the item that they sent, I have said from the beginning that it was obviously an issue on their behalf as I can see the box wasn’t sealed. They still claimed with DPD, who have told them the weight matches - but obviously it’s fallen somewhere along the way as it was literally open, so that’s not relevant. Anyway, the retailer has been good but has told me that DPD’s response has flagged “multiple open claims” on my address. That’s all they’ve said, but I wanted to understand what this means. For a back story, there’s 3 within 1 year and only one (the above) is active. The other one was a dodgy driver that DPD never admitted to but the area had problems with, the package was clearly opened before and something was missing & the other they left outside when I hadn’t asked and I didn’t receive. I’ve still had deliveries from them since this most recent claim & had no issues, but would have thought surely if there’s a problem with my address they wouldn’t allow deliveries there? I don’t know if the retailer has caused me to unnecessarily worry and it’s just a precaution if it’s over a certain level, and that’s why I haven’t been banned as there’s been nothing further - or whether I should actually be worried?! Just looking for some advice as to if anyone knows what it means if a shipping company flag it, but still deliver to you. Thanks

Aylesbury_Duck

Sounds like you're on a naughty list, perhaps close to DPD blacklisting your address.  There's nothing you can do about it, they can choose not to deliver to you as long as they're not discriminating against you on the basis of a protected characteristic.  It sounds like they are close to considering your address to be more trouble than it's worth.  

There are probably lots of people with flags against their addresses from various delivery companies and retailers, who are blissfully unaware.  I wouldn't let it bother you.

Grumpy_chap

The DPD descriptor "multiple open claims" might not mean, as the OP as reasonably interpreted, open as in "current" or "live" but might mean multiple claims for "open box / items missing".

The OP does acknowledge three claims within the year:

• current claim - item not received, box not sealed, fallen somewhere as it was literally open
• 2nd claim - package was clearly opened before and something was missing (OP states a dodgy driver)
• 3rd claims - item left outside and OP did not receive.

For all the times this sort of thing does crop up, three in one year for one address is quite a high number of open box, something missing claims.  It is not unreasonable that the courier firm flag such an issue as it does seem to indicate a matter to be resolved - either a rogue driver, or a rogue resident, or rogue neighbours.  If the courier cannot resolve, then flagging and potentially ultimately refusing to deliver to the address is one plausible route the courier firm might select.  I imagine that the courier firms have masses of data and can use various analysis tools to identify the root cause as the courier firm asses it.

Ultimately, if DPD decide to block the OP's address because of missing contents / parcel claims history, there is not much the OP can do.  DPD are entitled to make business decisions so long as this refusal is not on the basis of protected characteristics which it does not seem to be from what the OP has stated.

With the current claim, if the OP can advise the retailer and the item that has gone missing, there may be the possibility that the forum can share insight as to how that particular retailer might be persuaded to reach a favourable outcome.

EllieJade1995 said:

Hello, I have a claim with a retailer as I didn’t receive the item that they sent, I have said from the beginning that it was obviously an issue on their behalf as I can see the box wasn’t sealed. They still claimed with DPD, who have told them the weight matches - but obviously it’s fallen somewhere along the way as it was literally open, so that’s not relevant. Anyway, the retailer has been good but has told me that DPD’s response has flagged “multiple open claims” on my address. That’s all they’ve said, but I wanted to understand what this means. For a back story, there’s 3 within 1 year and only one (the above) is active. The other one was a dodgy driver that DPD never admitted to but the area had problems with, the package was clearly opened before and something was missing & the other they left outside when I hadn’t asked and I didn’t receive. I’ve still had deliveries from them since this most recent claim & had no issues, but would have thought surely if there’s a problem with my address they wouldn’t allow deliveries there? I don’t know if the retailer has caused me to unnecessarily worry and it’s just a precaution if it’s over a certain level, and that’s why I haven’t been banned as there’s been nothing further - or whether I should actually be worried?! Just looking for some advice as to if anyone knows what it means if a shipping company flag it, but still deliver to you. Thanks

Okell

I don't see that it matters if DPD have "flagged" the OP's address.  (If that is even a thing)

Whomever the OP is buying from online has a legal obligation to deliver into the OP's physical possession.  If the seller uses DPD and they won't deliver to the OP then that is the seller's problem, not the OP's. 

Either the seller will have to find an alternative method of delivery or they will have to refund the OP.

(Or, I suppose it's possible the OP might find that no online seller wants him as a customer if his claims history indicates that they are a "problem" consumer)

Grumpy_chap

Okell said:

Whomever the OP is buying from online has a legal obligation to deliver into the OP's physical possession.  If the seller uses DPD and they won't deliver to the OP then that is the seller's problem, not the OP's. 

Either the seller will have to find an alternative method of delivery or they will have to refund the OP.

I think that would affect future business, not the current order.

AIUI, the OP's current case is that the OP purchased an item online and it was delivered by DPD. 
The OP then lodged a claim with the retailer for item not received / missing, box wasn't sealed it was literally open so the item must have fallen out.
The retailer has sought to claim from DPD, and DPD have investigated and that investigation is ongoing with DPD having updated to the retailer that the address has flagged for multiple open claims.
The OP states the retailer "has been good" but not how or if the retailer has resolved the issue, or the retailer is not processing a resolution based upon DPD investigating and the interim comment that the address has several "missing item" claims.

IMO, three such claims, all with the same courier, all within the same year does seem to me to be quite a high incidence rate.  Of course, we have no idea how many items the OP has delivered - and via DPD - in a year.

Strictly, it is the retailers problem to resolve but the supply and delivery chain is going to become more wary if a particular address gets noted for regular issues being reported for missing items.
This can be the records of the retailer, or the records of the couriers that raise an alert.
It is not unreasonable, if DPD have recorded three instances that they assume instances for deliveries via other delivery services also.  I suspect that courier firms have good processes for determining the difference between a suspect driver causing missing item claims and a suspect location.

Ultimately, DPD may reach a point where they flag an address and do not accept online retailer parcels for the address as they will populate their computer to reject requests with "Sorry - we are not able to deliver to that address" which would force the retailer to select an alternative delivery service or to reject the order and refund the OP.
If multiple couriers reach the same conclusion, that will result in the OP being unable to make online purchases.

We have had prior threads where individuals have had accounts closed with specific online purchasing platforms and retailers, citing the similar comments about too many claims / too many returns.  It is quite reasonable to assume that the couriers would also have some kind of monitoring to protect their business interests also.

For specific assistance in this case, can the OP confirm who the purchase was from, what the item was purchased and what is missing - the whole contents or just some part?

DullGreyGuy

What's the size of the seller? Big national company? Single small store?

Most large companies dont insure the parcels they send, its just not worth it when you are sending millions a year as all you're doing it increasing the profit of the courier company and you factor in the X% of lost/damaged goods into your pricing in the same way you do shop lifters etc. 

When uninsured there's nothing in it for the courier to refuse an address based on prior losses, normally bans are only based on assaulting staff etc. Couriers will also offer discounts for exclusivity which is also problematic if you are then turning around and refusing to deliver certain parcels.

Whether insured or not the merchant will still contact the courier for information to try and resolve issues with delivery and resolution may be dependent on that information. 

Couriers closely track issues raised with deliveries including delivery address, depots involved, employees, senders etc and their systems will highlight cases which have a disproportionate level of issues. For depots, employees etc this will likely trigger internal investigations in case of sticky fingers or careless staff. For delivery addresses it may only trigger if there is an insurance claim, if the merchant is assuming the risk they may just provide a data point that you have an unusually high claim rate and how outlandish it is... this may trigger the merchant to dispute your claim or potentially bar you as a customer going forward if it doesn't feel it has enough evidence to dispute this claim. 

EnPointe

Okell said:

I don't see that it matters if DPD have "flagged" the OP's address.  (If that is even a thing)

Whomever the OP is buying from online has a legal obligation to deliver into the OP's physical possession.  If the seller uses DPD and they won't deliver to the OP then that is the seller's problem, not the OP's. 

Either the seller will have to find an alternative method of delivery or they will have to refund the OP.

(Or, I suppose it's possible the OP might find that no online seller wants him as a customer if his claims history indicates that they are a "problem" consumer)

which  legislation requires this  ? ( act  section please )  ... 

as otherts have said as long as  decision is made  on the basis of  discrimination  due to a Protected Characteristic  per  EA2010  - note proptected Characteristic, not  Belief)   a business can refuse to trade with someone...

Okell

EnPointe said:

Okell said:

I don't see that it matters if DPD have "flagged" the OP's address.  (If that is even a thing)

Whomever the OP is buying from online has a legal obligation to deliver into the OP's physical possession.  If the seller uses DPD and they won't deliver to the OP then that is the seller's problem, not the OP's. 

Either the seller will have to find an alternative method of delivery or they will have to refund the OP.

(Or, I suppose it's possible the OP might find that no online seller wants him as a customer if his claims history indicates that they are a "problem" consumer)

which  legislation requires this  ? ( act  section please )  ... 

as otherts have said as long as  decision is made  on the basis of  discrimination  due to a Protected Characteristic  per  EA2010  - note proptected Characteristic, not  Belief)   a business can refuse to trade with someone...

What do you mean "which legislation requires this  ?"   Which legislation requires what?

Also I think you will find that you have missed a rather important word - "not" - from your second paragraph...

mikb

Okell said:

I don't see that it matters if DPD have "flagged" the OP's address.  (If that is even a thing)

It's certainly a thing. I tried to arrange courier to pick up items from me and deliver to another address -- the courier's website accepted the name/address/postcode, but then indicated that they could not deliver to this address. After speaking to them, it was "because of too many claims of lost items".

I had to contact the intended recipient and ask "Do you have a spare address I can use?" ... and they were able to provide an alternate delivery location that was accepted.

dumpster_fire2025

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Sounds like you're on a naughty list, perhaps close to DPD blacklisting your address.  There's nothing you can do about it, they can choose not to deliver to you as long as they're not discriminating against you on the basis of a protected characteristic.  It sounds like they are close to considering your address to be more trouble than it's worth.  

There are probably lots of people with flags against their addresses from various delivery companies and retailers, who are blissfully unaware.  I wouldn't let it bother you.

It's definitely a thing for DPD.

In a previous life I dealt with mobile phone insurance claims. Fraud was rife, not only with dodgy loss claims (and a few damage claims no doubt) but also quite a few claiming the phone was missing when they received their package, multiple times.

On occasion we'd repeatedly try to send phones out only for them to come back to us and when investigated by the team that did the dispatching (and who had contacts within DPD) it turned out that there were multiple loss claims and the address was blacklisted. No idea why this wasn't flagged before being sent, which would save a lot of faffing around but it is what it is.

Grumpy_chap

mikb said:

Okell said:

I don't see that it matters if DPD have "flagged" the OP's address.  (If that is even a thing)

It's certainly a thing. I tried to arrange courier to pick up items from me and deliver to another address -- the courier's website accepted the name/address/postcode, but then indicated that they could not deliver to this address. After speaking to them, it was "because of too many claims of lost items".

I had to contact the intended recipient and ask "Do you have a spare address I can use?" ... and they were able to provide an alternate delivery location that was accepted.

One has to assume that the majority of online business retailers would not want to dodge a blacklisted address by using an alternative courier (or alternative recipient address) as, if the destination is linked to an unusually high number of claims / compensation / replace instances, why take such action to force the sale to proceed and risk being a victim of an erroneous claim rather than simply losing the sale?