@Parcel2Go and UPS_UK failure to recompense for damage/negligence

[BankFodder]

We consider that the prohibited items list is unfair and therefore unenforceable.

However, that relates to items which are lost where the type of good has obviously no bearing on the fact that the courier service can't find it.

However, it may be that things are different in respect to damaged items.

 

It hasn't been tested particularly. However, the position is that the courier service may consider that it is particularly risky to them to carry certain goods because of their fragility and so they make you aware of this and if you decide to take this risk and send the goods, then if the foreseeable type of damage does occur, then you have no claim.

As I say, this is untested.

 

I'm afraid I think you made a mistake by not allowing UPS to inspect it. This at the very least suggested that UPS were prepared to accept some responsibility.

You may well have lost this opportunity now as your dispute seems to have moved on.

 

In terms of the insurance, if you read through the stories on this sub- forum you will discover very quickly that we consider that the insurance requirement that you protect yourself against the courier's negligence or criminality of their own employees is unfair and therefore unenforceable.

However, in your case if you had accepted the insurance for the turntable it would have indicated that UPS had been prepared to accept a level of risk despite the fact that your turntable appeared on the prohibited items list.

 

This probably doesn't sound very positive for you and if you want to pursue the claim we will certainly help you. However, I'm afraid that I don't think that your position fits the normal profile of claims that we have here which generally speaking refer to items which have been lost or occasionally where they have been damaged but insurance be taken out.

[BankFodder]

What you have said changes things .

You have now told us that the return delivery was not subject to the exclusions.

I find this surprising but if it is correct then you're dealing with a separate contract and everything changes .

Also, I think you should be complaining against  Parcel2go because if you have to sue somebody then it would be them.

 

 

[BankFodder]

If you are asking that last question, then it means that you haven't read the stories on this sub-forum .

Please will you do the reading

 

[BankFodder]

I said that there was a questionmark over liability where the items were damaged rather than lost if those items appeared on their prohibited items list.

We now understand from you that your goods were not subject to a prohibited items list for the return contract.

I also suggested that if an item was on their prohibited items list but they still accepted an insurance premium to cover it, then that probably invalidated the effect of the prohibited items list in any event.

The position now from what we have come to understand from you is that if your turntable was not on the prohibited items list in the attempt to fall back on the fact that that you didn't insure it, then because of the unenforceability of the insurance requirement, they would probably not be entitled to decline liability

[BankFodder]

Because the argument against you is likely to be that you had no insurance, then I would suggest that you claim against parcel2go and I would suggest sending them a letter of claim immediately.

Refer to the complaint that you've already made. The fact that they've declined. Tell them that this is not acceptable and that if they don't reimburse you in full within 14 days then you will issue a claim.

I suggest that you post the draft here and then you can send it off this evening.
We may as well get going.

Spend the next two weeks opening an account on the County Court money claim system. Start preparing your claim although post a draft here.

Read around the stories on this sub- forum. You say that you've done one hour. I suggest that a couple of days is probably more appropriate.

Understand the basic steps in taking County Court claim.

You will acquire a level of confidence and also transferable skills so that you will be able to sue anybody else who gets in your way at any time. There is no downside

[BankFodder]

No.

I don't understand why you are even raising at all the issue of the prohibited items list or giving any mention at all.

According to you hasn't been a factor in the return delivery and so you should not bring the matter up.

Also it is extremely wordy. You made the complaint already they've got all the details and you can simply get them to refer back to that as long as you give the tracking/claim number.

Please try again

[BankFodder]

Well, I haven't looked through through the whole thing but the first thing that does catch my eye is that you are referring to both the collection and the return .

You have told us that these are separate and unconnected contracts, so you should restrict yourself simply to the contract at issue

 

[BankFodder]

You need to understand that by referring to the first contract when you are only concerned with the second contract, you are inviting a lawyer or a judge to accept the position that the terms and conditions of the first contract are implied into the instant contract which is in dispute .

 

This means that if the  excluded categories don't apply in the second contract, it could be argued that as they were included in the first contract, that logic dictates that they are also present in the second contract .

 

We are trying our best to protect your interest, but you're making it rather difficult

 

 

 

[BankFodder]

Try this:

 

Quote

Dear XXX

On XXX date, you agree to carry a parcel containing a record turntable to a UK address. Tracking number XXX refers.

The turntable was eventually delivered in a damaged state. I brought this to your attention – claim reference number XXX – and you refused to reimburse me on the grounds that I had not purchased insurance.

We both know that the requirement that your own customers protect themselves against your negligence or the criminality of your employees is unfair and therefore unenforceable under the consumer rights act 2015.

If you do not reimburse me within 14 days, I shall start an action in the County Court and without any further notice.

Believe me

 

And I hope you're right that there was no prohibited items list in respect of this contract. I'm rather surprised

[BankFodder]

Sorry I misunderstood. I had gathered from you that the return contract did not refer to any prohibited items.

I have that wrong??

[BankFodder]

In that case I have to apologise. I lost the plot somewhere along the way.

It's absolutely correct that there should be liable for the complete loss of the turntable – but damage suggests a certain fragility in respect of which they don't want to take the risk.

What was the damage to your turntable?

[BankFodder]

I'm sorry if I have wasted your time that I don't feel as confident now as I did when I had mistakenly understood that there was no exclusion list.

In fact I think I referred to this earlier and told you that I was surprised that that didn't seem to draw any comment from you.

We will help you all the way if you want to try it. If they rely on the insurance issue then they will lose. If they want to rely on the prohibited items list then I think your chances of success are reduced – probably 50/50