Anyone had any experience, success or failures with claims against a parcel delivery company.
Basically having sold a crash helmet through that well known auction site it arrived with a rear plastic spoiler broken off and damaged. In my opinion adequately packed in box with those air bags around it. It must have received a good impact on that area of the box.
Initial claim failed, not unexpectedly of course, appeal lodged. Copy of appeal below:
My ‘appeal’ is based upon the following:
1. It is only reasonable that parcel carriers have an expectation of their customers that they use common sense and that they should expect that parcels will be subject to some trauma whilst they pass through the system and be packaged to cater for that eventuality. Of course the handling systems are of an unknown quantity to the customer.
2. There is also a reasonable expectation that XXXXXX handle customers parcels sympathetically.
3. When I packaged the item in its box it was also provided with addition protection in the form of air bags, placed in vulnerable areas to adsorb any potential reasonable trauma. Having sent many items over the years I have always ‘over packaged’ and on this occasion I deemed the packaging and packing more than sufficient to withstand reasonable handling practices.
4. The relative lightweight nature of my item in relation to the size of the box would tend to suggest to anyone manually handling the item that there may be some fragility and should be handled accordingly. Notwithstanding that the packaging, in my opinion, was such as to withstand reasonable trauma.
5. Whilst you allude to the fact I did not comply with your ‘packaging guidelines’, at no time were these brought to my attention prior to me packaging, delivering the parcel to the XXXX XXXXX, handing over and paying the required fee. Nor was their any requirement /signature regarding acknowledgement of those guidelines.
6. The only time you come across those guidelines is maybe if you perhaps have an unusual item for which you need guidance or as in this case you are going through a claims process. As above, in most cases common sense should prevail.
7. XXXXXXXX is a premium parcel handling business in a competitive market and its pricing structure does reflect that fact so that there is a customer expectation that items travelling through its network will receive premium handling.
So it is my argument that at some point that my item clearly received excessive trauma, whether it be manually, or during mechanical sorting, which breached what would by most be considered to be sufficient packaging and packing materials and the item was delivered in a damaged state.
I paid the appropriate fee which included insurance to provide cover for such an eventuality. A not insignificant amount I might add. But a ‘piece of mind’ purchase. Which at this point is turning out not to be the case.
I appreciate your job is firstly, and rightly, to protect the interests of XXXXXXXX. I must also protect my interests. I believe I have more than a valid claim on this occasion and at the risk of sounding bullish I am prepared to follow up with whatever action I need to take to resolve this matter.
I ask you to re-consider you initial decision.
|
|
Got any evidence to back up your case? Photos of its packaging? A statement from the purchaser confirming up your assertion it was well packed? photos of the damaged packaging upon receipt?
|
Oh yes. Recipient has been extremely helpful, I was obliged to refund. XXXXXX contacted him and he completed a questionnaire and sent photographs.
Their initial decision was is that the manufacturers box with extra internal air bags was not sufficient and it should have been double boxed with packing inbetween.
|
I have significant experience of this from my retirement activity and have come to the conclusion unless you are happy to accept the loss or have the most god almighty battle for compensation which you will probably lose then don't send items by parcel carriers!
Double boxing is a requirement of most or perhaps all carriers.... so if you didn't do that then it will be a miracle if you get further with a claim.
|
I can take the hit. It was £50 + a tad under £15 for p&p. A premium rate including insurance.
The word principle comes to mind. Particularly when they conclude an email with "XXXXX doesn't have a regulatory body or ombudsman."
To me that says we are in the driving seat with this and you will have to accept whatever we decide. Which of course will be avoid paying out.
Gauntlet thrown and a polite reminder that I have the Civil Claims Court at my disposal. Just have to show that I would seriously consider this option. For that money they wouldn't want to fight it I'm sure.
Then of course I could take the hit, move on and go ride my bike :)
Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 1 Sep 17 at 22:49
|
It's a matter of principle
Lawyers just love those words. :-)
|
Your are all of course right there is a principle at stake... but for me life is too short to fight this particular situation so I mostly move on.
You have to tick so many boxes to get a chance of the claim succeeding (I have won a couple but lost and not bothered with more).
First you need to check the restricted** items which are those that are carried but not covered by insurance... then double box to a good standard... then the recipient must co-operate and keep all packing... and finally have proof of value.
**Restricted with my online carrier company includes computers, laptops, TVs, monitors, anything like glass or ceramics.
Every booking I make I have to tick the terms and conditions box.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Sat 2 Sep 17 at 08:19
|
|
I think that without double-boxing it, you'll have limited success in your claim. :-(
|
|
Any particular part of the CRA Rob??
|
Services is what I'd be looking at, Taking reasonable care etc.
Maybe worth starting a small claims process though. For what it costs you it would be worth it just to yank their chain. They're unlikely to try and defend it.
Last edited by: R.P. on Sat 2 Sep 17 at 18:54
|
I think it depends;
If one is shipping as part of a business, then it is a business decision. Time spent is important and it can be that it is more sensible simply to factor it in as a business cost.
If, however, it is something I have shipped personally then it is not a business decision and it is my time to spend; then I will fight to the death over getting what I feel is justice, far beyond what makes economic or commercial sense. Usually.
|
>> It's a matter of principle
>>
>> Lawyers just love those words. :-)
It is every Englishman's(see note 1) right to see that justice is carried out.
I would refer me learned friend to Jarndyce v Jarndyce:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarndyce_and_Jarndyce
Note 1. Other British races, The Jocks, The Taffs and The Paddies(see note 2) may perceive that they too, have a similar right to justice.
Note 2. Why is it that there is no friendly slang word for those who are English?
|
Note 2. Why is it that there is no friendly slang word for those who are English?
Refinement dear boy.
But noting your moniker, you may require further reading?
|
|
Here it is mostly "Gringo", but they're a bit indiscriminate with the term.
|
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_names_for_the_British
Surprised to find the terms Emmet and Grockle were not included in the list. Particularly since many in Cornwall regards themselves as an independent country.
Can our pet emmet comment?
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Mon 4 Sep 17 at 16:21
|
|
We are the emmets aren't we?
|
Hardly hear the terms Emmet & Grockle these days. Emmets are tourists. I'm an incomer, an outsider, a foreigner or ... an unnatural.
Cornwall is a Celtic nation with its own language. Perhaps it should have some sort of devolution,
although the Cornish (the real Cornish) are in a minority down 'ere.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall#Devolution_movement
|
Update
Dear Fullchat
Thank you for your correspondence, in respect of the parcel you sent which arrived in a damaged condition.
I would like to apologise for the parcel arriving in a damaged condition and for any inconvenience caused to you or the intended recipient.
As such, Parcelforce Worldwide is a bulk carrier shipping over 1 million items per week, much of the sorting process is handled by automated machinery. Parcels therefore must be strong enough to withstand the machinated sorting processes, plus boxes may be stacked in and around other heavy.
From the details supplied with the claim and the photographs supplied, it is clear that the Helmet did not have sufficient packaging to withstand any knocks. If the item had been protected within its existing packaging then within a strong outer box, then any impact from a knock or drop would be absorbed by the packaging and would not impact onto the item itself. Air bags within the manufactures display box, is not sufficient packaging for transit through a courier network.
It is advised in the Conditions Of Carriage that should the packaging be insufficient, claims will not be paid. This is stated as follows -
We will be unable to consider claims for damage if the parcel has not been packaged properly.
Therefore, taking the above details into account, I have not been authorised to reopen this claim for payment. I am sorry I cannot offer a more favourable outcome to your enquiry.
Once again, please accept my apologies for this matter and thank you for bringing the details to my attention.
Yours sincerely
My move
|
My response:
Dear XXXXXX
Thank you for your response
I received a response email today from a XXXXXXXXregarding me querying a previous request for photographs which were to be passed to the Appeals Manager. My query related to the fact that the photographs should be in your possession both from myself and the parcel recipient and upon which the original decision was made. The response indicated that the photographs were not in the possession of XXXXXXX XXXXXXX It would seem from the contents of your communication, that they infact are.
Anyway, moving on.
I have read the contents of your email and am disappointed that XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX acknowledge that the contents of my parcel where damaged during handling amongst ‘over 1 million items per week’ however are not prepared to compensate me to the value of my claim.
Stating:
'It is advised in the Conditions Of Carriage that should the packaging be insufficient, claims will not be paid. - We will be unable to consider claims for damage if the parcel has not been packaged properly.’
This is based upon the opinion that it is ‘clear’ that the helmet did not have sufficient packaging to withstand knocks and that the manufacturers ‘display' box , supplemented by airbags, specifically designed to assist with packaging was insufficient to stand the rigours of machinated sorting processes. The ‘display’ box is the box that it was originally transported in from the country of manufacture. I might add that, other than the damage sustained to a plastic component, the packaging and the remainder of its contents arrived unscathed so it must have been adequate other than one occasion of excessive trauma which caused the damage.
I made it very clear in my appeal communication why I felt that I had a valid case against XXXXXXXX and I’m not going to repeat those points, but I will remind you that I used the words ‘reasonable’ to define expectations of both XXXXXXXXX and its customers in its business with each other. A word used regularly in both Civil and Criminal Law.
What I will again return to are that both yourself and members of your claims team keep referring to 'Conditions of Carriage’. Without getting into the nuances of Contract Law the parcel was taken to, accepted and payment taken at the Post Office. At no time was my attention drawn to or was I asked to acknowledge or agree to any any ‘Conditions of Carriage’. Had I done so I would have had the opportunity to recover the package and comply by your ’terms and conditions'.
The Consumer Credit Act 2015, Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 49 states:
Service to be performed with reasonable care and skill
(1)Every contract to supply a service is to be treated as including a term that the trader must perform the service with reasonable care and skill.
(2)See section 54 for a consumer’s rights if the trader is in breach of a term that this section requires to be treated as included in a contract.
As I have referred to previously, it is a reasonable expectation that I package the contents to a reasonable standard to withstand reasonable handling not necessarily armour plate them.
Having communicated what i consider a reasonable argument to support a legitimate claim, XXXXXXX XXXXXXX has stated its grounds for refusal and has indicated that there is no further avenue for me to pursue with them. On this basis I have no other option open to me other than to pursue this through the local Small Claims Court. The claim will be for the original claim value, and costs incurred pursuing the claim.
I shall be lodging the claim in the near future. I might add that I do have many years of experience both preparing and presenting court cases so have no issue with formal proceedings.
Yours Sincerely
|
Today I received an e-mail:
Dear Fullchat
Thank you for your recent email further to the rejection of your claim, reference above.
I have reviewed your claim and its associated photographic evidence and have decided to authorise the payment of your claim further to the damage caused to the contents
Certainly, more substantial internal packaging should have been utilised, however the item has clearly undergone a level of mis-handling and therefore have decided to meet the claim in your favour.
Your claim will be paid to you by cheque, which will be with you within the next 5 – 7 working days.
Yours sincerely
So a battle of communication and an expenditure of time which wasn't unexpected but it would have been easy to roll over and I'm sure many would.
|
The principle of reading and agreeing to terms and conditions before entering the contract seems to be an old established and important principle.
Many years ago, perhaps over 45 years, my grandmother broke her wrist at a local swimming pool after slipping over after buying a ticket, but even before reaching the changing rooms. She was able to obtain compensation, with the help of a local solicitor, because buying the ticket meant that she had been deemed to accept the terms and conditions of entry (including a warning of the danger of slipping), but they were not visible to her until after the ticket had been bought and she'd been through the turnstile and effectively entered into a contract. Much the same situation as yours.
P.S. Yes, I agree it's self-evident that there was the outside chance of finding water at a swimming pool, but probably not at the location where she slipped.
Last edited by: Mike H on Tue 26 Sep 17 at 17:57
|
|
Some assistance and encouragement from my learned friends :)
|
I am astonished at their change of heart given your failure to double box.
>>+ a tad under £15 for p&p. A premium rate including insurance.
Never, ever, bother paying for insurance. Only insurers ever win at that game, and postal insurance is so expensive - and so difficult to claim against - that it's a mug's game for the punter over the long term.
|
Yep good on FC for triggering their "not worth fighting this guy" decision making process to get his money back.... but yes the lack of double boxing is a legit get out in almost every case.
Agree I never up the standard inclusive insurance as it's a fortune when you consider the value it's covering and the very short timescale.
|
Damaged item during parcel delivery. - Zero
