I read his post along the lines that we can simply dismiss as irrelevant the legislative protection provided to consumers by contract law, UCTA and UTCCR in its entirety due to the existence of a three post thread on a techy forum. Nice logic
ParcelMonkey Woes! Lost £400 Monitor
- Thread starter Craterloads
- Start date
I read his post along the lines that we can simply dismiss as irrelevant the legislative protection provided to consumers by contract law, UCTA and UTCCR in its entirety due to the existence of a three post thread on a techy forum. Nice logic
In other words for the people who obviously don't get what I'm talking about....
DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE SENDING HIGH PRICE PRODUCTS
I did and if I can do it, everyone can. Not doing so is just stupid. Accept the mistake and move on.
It isn't his job actually, I should know as I do it for a living
We do not look at the contents description of anything we collect, nor do we ask if someone has proper insurance and so on. Occasionally if I call to a customers house to collect a parcel and it is covered in writing saying 'FRAGILE GLASS' i'll tell them that it will not be insured, or if its obviously a TV/monitor.
If the customer has gone as far as ordering a collection then they have agreed to the terms and conditions already, its not up to a driver to question them tbh.
As a driver for a certain unnamed company, I dont look at anything in detail all i check is got a from/to address isnt obv over weight (30kg) and looks okay packaging (ie a laptop in a tesco bag!!) other than that its just another box!
Just to add to this the amount of customers that are fully aware of restricted items but h=just chance it anyway is unreal. For example a recent customer that tried to insure a parcel for £1500 because it contained antiques. When he was told they couldn't be insured he just sent them anyway
If they had went missing or were damaged he would have been out a lot of money.
If they had went missing or were damaged he would have been out a lot of money.
All couriers will open packages if they want to (for example - to perform a security check, or to try and trace the sender or receiver in the event of a missing or disfigured address label.
We open parcels that have no/unreadable details on the label. It is the *only* way we can get it delivered or returned.
Also for the exact reason above, people can and do send things like wooden parts in a monitor box. If the box has no details, we need to open it to make sure we are delivering the guys Ikea return and not some poor blokes actual monitor. Lying will simply vastly reduce the chance of the item being recoverd.
You will be hard pressed to find a courier that doesn't work like this, infact I wouldn't trust any courier that doesnt. We have very strict policies on who can/cant open parcels. The *vast* majority can't.
Good to see someone promote insurance fraud though
So, even though the law is potentially on his side, he should simply lie on his back and wave ta-ta to £400 in circumstance where, for a few minutes effort and the cost of a stamp, he could at least try to recoup his loss? Interesting. It may be stupid to not research properly beforehand but it would be equally stupid to not attempt to assert those consumer rights that do actually exist.
Good to see someone promote insurance fraud though
Well if these people want to try and sell me insurance with an exemption for damaging or losing anything that could be described as 'various' in the first place, they can stick it up their **** for all I care, they'll find no sympathy from me.
If you don't like the service, don't pay for it. Insurance fraud is illegal my friend.
If you only you could see my face and how much I care
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 16,017
- Location
- Fareham
Well imo it's fraudulent to sell insurance on an item that is exempt from that same insurance cover. What exactly does the extra cost cover if not the insurance of the goods??
He ticked the box signing away his rights when he accepted the T&C of buying the courier service. Sure its not right that the package was lost but he accepted the fact that if it was, he couldn't claim for it.
Its not like he couldn't use another company which does offer insurance on these products. Due to that alone, he wouldn't have a case in court as he obviously didn't read the T&C and even if he did, he agreed to it regardless.
The insurance was on the sale for a value only. The T&C clearly states that monitors aren't covered so he didn't need to pay extra for insurance which he wasn't entitled to anyway. Who's fault is that? The companies? Not a chance. It was his decision to send the monitor via that company as he clearly only looked at cost without doing any research.
He ticked the box saying he had checked and agreed to the list of items not covered and included a link to the list. What more do they need to do?
Exactly!
Please, please read the whole of this thread. Take it from someone who has extensive experience of contract law and, in particular, unfair contract terms that the law is potentially on his side. T&C check boxes on websites are an huge minefield - more so for the proprietor than the consumer - and it is just plain wrong to say that you sign away your rights by checking a box.
You still miss the point. There isn't just one company that offers courier services and there are companies that offer insurance on monitors, he just didn't pick one. You have extensive experience in contract law but you seriously think that not reading the T&C, not doing research or just blindly agreeing with it means that he is the victim?
Why should a company lose profits due to a customers stupidity? The company have already covered themselves by offering to refund the cost of the insurance have they not? Don't see how the OP has a leg to stand on legally though as consumer as he agreed to the contract which was to courier an item worth £400 from A to B and this item wouldn't be insured to being on an exclusion list which is linked directly on the process of actually booking the courier.
I read the thread. I just don't think he has a leg to stand on when he read that monitors aren't covered, attempted to cover the monitor anyway, then complained knowing full well he wasn't covered.
When he ticked that box he lied. Either he hadn't read the list, or he read it and ticked the box when he didnt agree. Which is it?
The existence of other companies is beside the point. The issue regarding the position of the OP relates to the fairness or otherwise of the standard terms presented by the courier company. Would you agree that it is fair for a company to lose the property of another person through negligence and then not to be liable to compensate them? Of course not, and the law would agree. In law, it does not matter what T&C state since a consumer's statutory rights will always supersede them. The T&C are unfair and would be set aside. You can try to argue to the contrary but I know this from experience.
The company would not be losing profits due to the customer's stupidity. They would be losing profits due to their own negligence in losing the item. Why should a customer suffer total loss when the company has been negligent? Had the item been damaged then it would be a different matter - but such a catastrophic failure in their duties under the terms of their contract, ie to collect and deliver said item, leaves them with a very limited defence.