ParcelMonkey did it again, lost laptop worth 370 pounds!

[Cleeecooo]

Since when is a parcel 'lost' in the post.

It's not been lost it's been STOLEN.

What makes you say that?

Bearer bonds aren't normally sent via PM so there would be a case that you were negligent in not picking a suitable company. Your negligence would have to be considered as well as any by PM.

Do you have any other unrealistic and silly examples?

Here's a fairly realistic one:

Let's say someone sends a GTX 680 via PM, something entirely fathomable and the sort of stuff one would expect to be sent. They insure it for £50, it gets lost. Why should PM have to pay £400 when they accepted the contract on the understanding that if they lost it, they'd only have to pay £50 as that is what you told them it was worth?

 

[Kenai]

Sounds reasonable but not for me, I am not going to let it go with this, to be honest I don't really care to lose another 300 pounds on court proceeding as long as PM has a lot of hassle and I am sure they will. Insurance was paid only in value of 50 pounds as an error I was genuinely trying to pay for 500 pounds (like I mentioned before must be an error maybe due to rushing with booking), I have just checked other shipment I did with them and all of them were insured up to value (I shipped few laptops and TVs).

Why do you feel they should be liable for your error in selection, rushed or otherwise?

 

[stkrup]

That makes sense

However, I disagree with you based on the fact that in the contract, I'd presume it states that should they fail to deliver the goods, they will compensate you up to the amount agreed. In this case, the amount is £50 and that is what the OP should be compensated for.

I was thinking about this and I am pretty confident after initial lost I would swallow it and probably took their offer or at least try to get some higher settlement for 100 pounds, but not after telling me they found it just to tell me again they it has been lost again. This is not right and I don't really mind to go to court even if I lose

 

[Cleeecooo]

I was thinking about this and I am pretty confident after initial lost I would swallow it and probably took their offer or at least try to get some higher settlement for 100 pounds, but not after telling me they found it just to tell me again they it has been lost again. This is not right and I don't really mind to go to court even if I lose

Why waste a court's time, your time and PM's time?! Face it OP, that is pretty childish. I realise you're annoyed, but seriously, try to stay calm, try to get maybe £75 as goodwill and just take it on the chin.

 

[stkrup]

Why do you feel they should be liable for your error in selection, rushed or otherwise?

Where did I state they should be liable for my errors? They should be liable for losing my parcel, compensation is a different matter.

 

[shine]

That makes sense

However, I disagree with you based on the fact that in the contract, I'd presume it states that should they fail to deliver the goods, they will compensate you up to the amount agreed. In this case, the amount is £50 and that is what the OP should be compensated for.

Let me put it another way then - you buy a laptop for £400 from OCUK. It never arrives because the courier lost it. Would you accept a £50 refund from OCUK because the courier limited their liability in the contract.

 

[Cleeecooo]

Where did I state they should be liable for my errors? They should be liable for losing my parcel, compensation is a different matter.

They are, that's why they're giving you the compensation amount agreed.

 

[Cleeecooo]

Let me put it another way then - you buy a laptop for £400 from OCUK. It never arrives because the courier lost it. Would you accept a £50 refund from OCUK because the courier limited their liability in the contract.

No, because my contract was with OcUK. I would want the laptop, or a refund from OcUK, but if OcUK only paid for £50 compensation, then it'd their own problem and they'd get £50 back whilst having to compensate me £400

 

[One]

It's discount delivery.

IMO things like this are on par with pay-day loan companies.

The issue I have with them is that they parade themselves about like they are an upstanding company when in reality any contract you take out is full of riddles and small print and any simple error on your part can and most likely will end up costing you a fortune.

Here PM offer and accept payment for insurance on an item they know isn't covered by the insurance they've just sold. It's just like the PPI situation the banks where in.

Essentially consumer advice need to start doing some work and explaining exactly what you need to do in layman terms so as to avoid being screwed by the small print.

They're dishonest companies.

 

[Kenai]

Where did I state they should be liable for my errors? They should be liable for losing my parcel, compensation is a different matter.

Which they are, up to the value you agreed with them that they would be liable for.

It is your mistake that means this value isn't sufficient to cover the value of the item, so why should they be liable for anything more?

 

[shine]

No, because my contract was with OcUK. I would want the laptop, or a refund from OcUK, but if OcUK only paid for £50 compensation, then it'd their own problem and they'd get £50 back whilst having to compensate me £400

What if they limited their liability to £50 in their contract. Would you accept a £50 refund?

 

[Kenai]

Here PM offer and accept payment for insurance on an item they know isn't covered by the insurance they've just sold. It's just like the PPI situation the banks where in.

In the previous thread that was the case, they agreed to take payment for cover on a type of item they explicitly stated they do not cover under any circumstance and refused to pay up later. That's dishonest and underhanded.

In this case the consumer has merely selected the incorrect level of cover to meet his actual desires.

PM can't be expected to double check every order and ask the consumer if they're sure the level of cover they have selected is enough, there is only so much handholding that can be expected before people just need to take responsibility for their own mistakes.

 

[Kenai]

What if they limited their liability to £50 in their contract. Would you accept a £50 refund?

I wouldn't purchase anything worth more than £50 from a retailer that had a clause in their T&Cs saying 'If we don't actually get your item to you then we'll only give you £50, not a refund'.

To be more akin to this case though, it would be like OcUK offering delivery insurance options and me selecting 'I only want £50 cover' when ordering a £500 PC.

Then that would be on me.

That's a ridiculous example though (in both cases), because paying £500 for something and not receiving it isn't really at all similar to paying someone £10 to transport something worth £500 and selecting that you only wish to cover it for up to £50.

 

[Cleeecooo]

What if they limited their liability to £50 in their contract. Would you accept a £50 refund?

That's quite a tough question.

I simply wouldn't buy from them if that's the case. If they don't make it clear that this is what would happen should the parcel goes missing, then I'd claim unfair terms, but PM do make it quite clear that you will only be compensated up to the amount of £50.

I don't really think PM and OcUK can be compared here. OcUK have a duty of giving you a £400 laptop and it is their responsibility to sort out insurance for a courier, however, PM have a duty to transport something from A to B and if they fail in this, you get a refund in delivery costs. The compensation is seperate.

 

[dowie]

What if they limited their liability to £50 in their contract. Would you accept a £50 refund?

They're a shop and the courier is contracted by them not by you.

If the courier loses an item they send then its up to OCUK to chase the courier for the loss... OCUK will likely ensure they're covered up to the correct amount anyway but either way it doesn't affect the purchaser. Just as the purchaser in the OPs example was entitled to a full refund in-spite of the fact the OP is out of pocket.

 

[One]

In the previous thread that was the case, they agreed to take payment for cover on a type of item they explicitly stated they do not cover under any circumstance and refused to pay up later. That's dishonest and underhanded.

In this case the consumer has merely selected the incorrect level of cover to meet his actual desires.

PM can't be expected to double check every order and ask the consumer if they're sure the level of cover they have selected is enough, there is only so much handholding that can be expected before people just need to take responsibility for their own mistakes.

I wasn't being specific about this case, I just wanted to say what I thought about companies like PM.

It's the internet there is no hand-holding. One extra page to confirm everything like Amazon do. Would that be so hard to set-up? (They may already have this, if that's the case then yes in this case it's an unfortunate error)

Was the £50s worth of insurance still sold on a product that under their own terms is uninsurable?

 

[shine]

In the previous thread that was the case, they agreed to take payment for cover on a type of item they explicitly stated they do not cover under any circumstance and refused to pay up later. That's dishonest and underhanded.

In this case the consumer has merely selected the incorrect level of cover to meet his actual desires.

PM can't be expected to double check every order and ask the consumer if they're sure the level of cover they have selected is enough, there is only so much handholding that can be expected before people just need to take responsibility for their own mistakes.

The PM websites asks for the package contents and value (these fields are compulsory). They state laptops are offered on a no compensation basis but still allowed the OP to buy insurance. It doesn't matter if the OP selected the wrong insurance amount they wouldn't have paid out either way. This is unfair and I can't see why anyone is defending PM. Their T & C's are unfair and they've been negligent.

 

[Cleeecooo]

The PM websites asks for the package contents and value. They state laptops are offered on a no compensation basis but still allowed the OP to buy insurance. It doesn't matter if the OP selected the wrong insurance amount they wouldn't have paid out either way. This is unfair and I can't see why anyone is defending PM. Their T & C's are unfair and they've been negligent.

But they immediately offered to pay

 

[Kenai]

Was the £50s worth of insurance still sold on a product that under their own terms is uninsurable?

One assumes not as they have offered to pay out without any bother. If they were of the opinion they didn't cover the item at all, they'd be doing as they did previously and refusing any pay out at all.

 

[Vanquish-Storm]

I can understand where OP is coming from on one hand but on the other the terms set out by PM are covering them for this case:

CARRIAGE GUARANTEE

6.1. The Carriage Guarantee's intended purpose is to provide the Company's customers with a contractual guarantee that their goods will be reimbursed at their cost value in the event of damage or loss. The Carriage Guarantee is not an insurance product.
6.2. The Carriage Guarantee shall cover items up to a maximum value of £1000 per consignment.
6.3. The Carriage Guarantee shall not cover items that are excluded under these terms and conditions, listed on our prohibited items list, falsely valued or have been incorrectly packaged.
6.4. All claims made under the Carriage Guarantee must be made in accordance with Section 5 of our terms and conditions.


Items specified as 'carried on a no-compensation basis' can be carried at your own risk, but will not be compensated whatsoever in the event of loss or damage.

"Laptops (carried on a no-compensation basis)"


It would be more sense for PM to take details on size weight item and item cost then tender a courier price based on that information to include sufficient insurance, thus covering both themselves and the customer.