ParcelMonkey Woes! Lost £400 Monitor
- Thread starter Craterloads
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Oh, its not "fair" at all and people should go to town on these delivery companies on mass with government regulation basically saying they can't refuse to offer insurance on certain products just because they want to. You're either a certified delivery company or you aren't.
I'm not sure if business customers(like ocuk/other such stores) do get insurance for monitors or if they take it in the behind when things go wrong, my guess is they have insurance and likewise "dodgy" delivery drivers know their bosses don't care about the one screen a not regular customers sends out once a decade, its not real business lost, while losing ocuk as a customer could make a real impact in profit.
I was mostly posting it as simply one company you can use in certain circumstances, better than none, most screens are still 24" or below, massively so, so odd's on that they'll cover the vast majority of people looking for insurance on a sent monitor.
To the rest of the thread, why do people harp on about T&C's, they aren't legally binding, they can't bypass actual laws and unfair T&C's are usually not worth the paper they are printed on. Fair ones on the other hand are, fact is, even more so if business's do get monitor loss/damage insurance, that it would point to the policy being very very obviously unfair.
A business customer can get insurance on, a laptop, as can a one off customer, a business customer can get insurance on a monitor, but a one off customer can't? Fairly sure trading standards would deem that entirely unfair and not legal.
Much like the company I posted, how could they justify a 25.9" monitor being insurable, but a 26" monitor not being insurable. Do they insure 12" graphics cards but not 12.1" graphics cards? a 26" monitor is no more breakable than a 25.9" screen.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 13,073
- Location
- Sunny Stafford
Let's get this straight. The OP paid for £400 cover, yet nothing is covered because the Monkey page has banned practically everything. What was the point of their insurance in the first place?
To generate them extra profit as a protection scheme, of course.
We'll charge you £10 to deliver that. Ok?
Yeah that's great!
Ok. It'd be a real shame if something was to happen to it... wouldn't it? An extra tenner please.
Insurance companies shouldn't refuse to cover a 17 year old on a Ferrari. You're either an insurance company or you aren't, right?
So, delivery drivers specifically pick out consignments sent by Joe random rather than ones sent out by big customers to steal? I suppose they do this using their in depth knowledge of the trade profile of hundreds of thousands of companies across the UK and can easily ascertain who would be a customer their employer could cope with losing and one who they cannot live without.
Why would trading standards deem that unfair and not legal? Howdens won't sell me any wood because I'm not in the trade, should I go to trading standards? What about Costco and their elitist membership scheme? I don't work for any of those trades so I cannot have a Costco card, that's not fair.
They can justify what they like because they're unregulated and are providing a service that you are under absolutely no obligation to accept?
Sadly if you don't bother to read T&C's in this present day you will get screwed. You tick the box agreeing to the T&C's when you arrange the delivery based on the premise that you actually read and agree with them. I spent nearly 2 days looking through these companies to find one which does actually cover a BenQ 24inch gaming monitor I sold on here a few weeks back. Turned out that the only one to offer insurance is parcel force and even then it must be declared. I had no issues at all with the delivery of the product and I didn't even try and obscure what the product actually was as I sent it in the original box.
Sure its unfair that you lose so much money and don't have anything to show for it, yet you should have done your research when posting something so delicate and expensive in my opinion.
Sure its unfair that you lose so much money and don't have anything to show for it, yet you should have done your research when posting something so delicate and expensive in my opinion.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,250
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
I'd argue that whilst the terms don't cover monitors for damage, your goods aren't damaged but lost.
I’d also argue that you explicitly stated the item to be transported was a 'Dell Monitor' a responsible operator should have identified this was in contradiction to his terms and refused to either insure the item or transport it, this could have been done at either the point of sale or via email after the sale.
I’d also argue that you explicitly stated the item to be transported was a 'Dell Monitor' a responsible operator should have identified this was in contradiction to his terms and refused to either insure the item or transport it, this could have been done at either the point of sale or via email after the sale.
If you'd bothered to read the rest of the thread you'd understand why your opinion has no merit.
Exactly, they refuse to cover a 17 year old on a Ferrari, not happily accept the payment for the insurance but when something goes wrong they change their minds.
Again, Costco/Howdens are refusing to provide you with a service so you know where you stand - you can shop elsewhere. They are not taking your money and subsequently denying you access to the service/goods you paid for.
No loss involved either as each of those packages were returned to the courier correct?
if not then there's theft involved.
Your analogies are irrelevent. This is not the case of a company refusing to transact with a particular customer as with Costco. This is a company agreeing to transact with a customer; accepting the collection and delivery of an item (if you read the T&C, it is explicit that they may in fact agree to accept all unacceptable items); but saying that, should they decide to wilfully and deliberately smash the item into the tiniest pieces, loose it or insert it within the darkest orifices imagineable, the customer has no recourse against them whatsoever. This places the consumer at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to the position of PM. PM's position is non-negotiable and there is nothing a consumer can do about it. That is unfair and, therefore, unlawful.
Besides, technically this is not a case of unfair contract terms. The unfair terms appear within a secondary webpage - not the T&C - which PM themselves state is not precise and should not be relied upon. The T&C state that prohibited items can be accepted by agreement. Since the nature of item was disclosed, there is a strong argument that PM have agreed to take the item. At no point within the T&C is there anything relating to the restriction of liability. The position is grey enough to suggest that PM are in breach of contract by refusing compensation.
Things do get lost. A TNT driver leaving our yard couldn't be bothered to close his roller shutter door (presumable he was only going a small distance) and as he drove out, a parcel fell off the back of the van on the road and the driver never saw it.
An ex employee of ours picked it up and it was a brand new phone.
So things do get lost.
An ex employee of ours picked it up and it was a brand new phone.
So things do get lost.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 3,781
I've nothing of use to add to this thread but the OP might like to know that searching for Parcelmonkey on Google UK shows this thread as result 9 with the title of "ParcelMonkey Woes! Lost £400 Monitor - Overclockers UK Forums"
Ouch...
Ouch...
This is just a Parcel monkey thing.
Im sure the various large online retailers who foolishly use Citylink (now and in the past against profesional advice) have no problem at all hammering Citylinks claims department for broken and stolen monitors.
I know this, as I did 2 ****ing weeks of DMB's (Double money backs) for city link and then forwarding the cost of the damaged goods onto claims.
To the OP.
You proposed a contract for carriage of a monitor (you MUST be sure you informed a representative of the company this fact before they offered you the insurance) with special insurance.
They accepted this contract and agreed to its terms when the driver arrived, signed for your goods and took them away.
When a driver takes your goods away he is accepting that in his proffesional opinion that the goods are:
Fit for transport, he as a representative of the company has decided in his proffesional opinion that however you have packaged the goods, whether its a label, a pair of frilly knickers wrapped round it or whatever, is suitable protection to travel through the network.
Any damage that occours to the item after this point regardless of the actual suitability of the packaging, is the couriers problem.
By carrying the goods the courier company has accepted the goods are fit for carriage.
I would suggest that the OP hammer this fact into whoever he is dealing with a Parcel monkey as I would argue that this also applies to losses as well.
If you informed them it was a monitor before they accepted payment for extra insurance then you should have no problem.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,713
- Location
- North
Wow thats going to do some damage to parcelmonkey! do you guys think this is worth mentioning in the letter? Going to send tommorrow by special delivery so will be delivered monday.