ParcelMonkey did it again, lost laptop worth 370 pounds!

[Cleeecooo]

i never get the insurance bit......

right, you pay the devliery companies to deliver your goods. so why pay extra to cover? daft!

it's like me saying to you, pay me £20 to deliver the parcel for you but you have to pay extra £10 in case i lost the parcel.

I disagree with this. Insurance on parcels costs money and the advantage of parcelmonkey is that they let you send parcels for less, but the trade off is that you won't be covered for as high an amount should the parcel go missing. It is up to the user to insure the parcel for the amount they desire.

As far as I understand, PM accepted the contract of taking the parcel from A and delivering to B. Should the parcel go missing, they would then pay £50 compensation as that is what has been agreed.

If the same thing happened with RM, I wonder if so many would still be against it? eg, someone sent a laptop valued at £400 via first class recorded with compensation of £46 as opposed to the more expensive Special Delivery with compensation of up to £500. I'd presume most would have said something like "tough."

IANAL.

I do love the way its considered acceptable to buy a service from someone and have to pay extra to cover yourself against the incompetence of the people you hired.

It's like me charging you to fit a radio to your car and accidentally crashing it into a wall, then refusing liability because you didn't pay me even more money to cover yourself against me being incompetent.

In cases of loss I cannot see how the item itself matters. It's lost, not broken because its fragile or something.

The way I see this is that they are covered against incompetence, but only for a certain amount. Taking your radio example, the person may only be confident to fit it on a lower value car because they are willing to accept the risk of damaging the car and having to compensate you for what you are paying them to do it. However, if you expect higher compensation, it'd only be fair of them to ask more money from you for the service in the event that they do screw up as otherwise it won't be worthwhile for them to carry out the service for the previous cost as they stand to lose a lot more money.

 

[shine]

If the same thing happened with RM, I wonder if so many would still be against it? eg, someone sent a laptop valued at £400 via first class recorded with compensation of £46 as opposed to the more expensive Special Delivery with compensation of up to £500. I'd presume most would have said something like "tough."

IANAL.

If RM lose a parcel they will pay to replace the item:

http://www.royalmail.com/customer-s...ompensation/lost-item-compensation/lost-items

They're only exception is if there is no negligence on their part. For example, if the parcel is damaged because the sender did not package it correctly. If RM lost a package then they must replace it - insurance or no insurance. There are no T & C's a company can use to limit their liability for their own negligence.

 

[stkrup]

I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement.

I mean that I used to parcelmonkey few times before and ALWAYS paid insurance up to value of the send item.

I cannot really believe that their incompentence (or the courier - but my contract is with the PM and not City-Link) and loose parcel twice can simply be covered using their T&C.

I would like to send a letter but I want to refer it to some legistlations, I would like to argue that they were liable in negligence (lost parcel - fair enough it can happen but not twice) failing to deliver (or care) my goods, worse lost it twice so they evidently there is a breach of their duty of care. Just wonder if you know legistlation act which could be relevant to duty of care goods in transport?

 

[shine]

The way I see this is that they are covered against incompetence, but only for a certain amount. Taking your radio example, the person may only be confident to fit it on a lower value car because they are willing to accept the risk of damaging the car and having to compensate you for what you are paying them to do it. However, if you expect higher compensation, it'd only be fair of them to ask more money from you for the service in the event that they do screw up as otherwise it won't be worthwhile for them to carry out the service for the previous cost as they stand to lose a lot more money.

How much a company charges for a service is irrelevant. You don't see service charges along the lines of:

£1 - incompetent
£20 - no incompetence

This is why all business are required to take out insurance to cover themselves when they are negligent.

 

[Cleeecooo]

If RM lose a parcel they will pay to replace the item:

http://www.royalmail.com/customer-s...ompensation/lost-item-compensation/lost-items

They're only exception is if there is no negligence on their part. For example, if the parcel is damaged because the sender did not package it correctly. If RM lost a package then they must replace it - insurance or no insurance. There are no T & C's a company can use to limit their liability for their own negligence.

Could you quote the bit I'm meant to be looking at please?

All I can see is:

This compensation is subject to the maximum payable being the lower of the market value of the item and the maximum level of compensation purchased

 

[shine]

Could you quote the bit I'm meant to be looking at please?

Search for the notes section, the main bit is

Where an item is lost or damaged beyond repair then actual loss is the amount it cost the customer to acquire, purchase or manufacture the item subject to condition, age and depreciation. Where an item is damaged it is the cost of repair.

 

[Cleeecooo]

Search for the notes section, the main bit is

thanks, but I still see this bit:

If a customer has used one of the services set out in table 1 above, then any claim for compensation for actual loss will be paid up to the market value or the statutory maximum which ever is the smaller amount.

As I understand it, that just means that they'll pay as little as they can.

How much a company charges for a service is irrelevant. You don't see service charges along the lines of:

£1 - incompetent
£20 - no incompetence

This is why all business are required to take out insurance to cover themselves when they are negligent.

True, however, if a company is paid £1 to deliver an item worth £500 and if it gets lost they have to compensate for the loss, then it's not worth it. However, if it's the same scenario, but they're paid £10, then it may well be worth it. The contract made between PM and the OP states that if the parcel is not delivered, they'll pay <£50 and in return, the OP pays, say, £5. However, PM may not have accepted the contract under the same terms if the OP wanted £500 compensation for something that costs £5 to send.

 

[shine]

thanks, but I still see this bit:


As I understand it, that just means that they'll pay as little as they can.

That's just to stop people purchasing the extended insurance then trying to claim £500 for a £10 item.

 

[cyber69]

I've sold loads of laptops on ebay and always made sure they are sent with adequate insurance usually by Parcel Force (who never lost one laptop).

Each laptop I posted would normally cost around £15 using Parcel Force and if it was an expensive laptop then I would send RM special delivery at around £22.

Problem is this sometimes puts off ebay buyers who see it as an additional cost and don't take into consideration the thought of it getting lost in the post. However ebay would protect them in anycase and the seller would have to make the claim and suffer the loss.

I've had one buyer offer to use his own courier to come and pick up the parcel but this is not a method to use for anything on ebay as you will not be protected against loss.

 

[shine]

True, however, if a company is paid £1 to deliver an item worth £500 and if it gets lost they have to compensate for the loss, then it's not worth it. However, if it's the same scenario, but they're paid £10, then it may well be worth it. The contract made between PM and the OP states that if the parcel is not delivered, they'll pay <£50 and in return, the OP pays, say, £5. However, PM may not have accepted the contract under the same terms if the OP wanted £500 compensation for something that costs £5 to send.

Not delivering and losing the item are different. If PM failed to deliver due to bad weather or the address is incorrect - the OP gets their item back and maybe their fee depending on the circumstances to the limit of £50. That is fine.

In no way do these terms state that if PM loses the item they will only pay £50. They must produce the parcel either to the OP or the recipient to have fulfilled the contract. By losing the parcel they have failed to complete the contract and in the process caused the OP to be out of pocket.

Does that make sense?

 

[chief barker]

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

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

 

[dowie]

i never get the insurance bit......

right, you pay the devliery companies to deliver your goods. so why pay extra to cover? daft!

it's like me saying to you, pay me £20 to deliver the parcel for you but you have to pay extra £10 in case i lost the parcel.

That's how insurance works... you have to pay more to insure goods of a greater value.

Two similar size/weight items would attract the same fee to deliver however assume one is worth £500 and the other is worth £50 - if the chance of losing either is the same then there is greater risk with the more valuable item... if you want to insure against loss of that item then you should pay more.

Couriers don't have unlimited liability for the items they carry and if everything was insured up to some high limit then the costs of sending less valuable items would be higher.

It does sound like the company has been particularly incompetent this time in finding the item then losing it again so maybe complaining at a higher level would work though in general, if you've only insured up to £50, then you shouldn't expect more.

 

[stkrup]

Not delivering and losing the item are different. If PM failed to deliver due to bad weather or the address is incorrect - the OP gets their item back and maybe their fee depending on the circumstances to the limit of £50. That is fine.

In no way do these terms state that if PM loses the item they will only pay £50. They must produce the parcel either to the OP or the recipient to have fulfilled the contract. By losing the parcel they have failed to complete the contract and in the process caused the OP to be out of pocket.

Does that make sense?

I think I can use their own terms and conditions against PM which states:

''Where The Customer deals with The Company as a consumer, the provisions set out here within do not and will not affect The Customer's rights under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977''

I believe a list of prohibited & no-compensation item is way to long and includes way to many valuable item to be fair under unfair contract terms act 1977.

I will use the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 as a basis to complain for a breach/non-performance of contract in which I have lost 370 pounds. They simply cannot lost the parcel twice and hide under their T&C which are clearly against our statutory rights.

In my disadvantage PM could argue that they offer full compensation to the cover paid but once again this is against their own T&C because the item is on the list of prohibited & no-compensation items.

I think I really cannot use to argue that I made a mistake to choose insurance value - 50 pounds rather than 500 pounds (as in all other shipments I used correct insurance up to good's value).

 

[dowie]

Not delivering and losing the item are different. If PM failed to deliver due to bad weather or the address is incorrect - the OP gets their item back and maybe their fee depending on the circumstances to the limit of £50. That is fine.

In no way do these terms state that if PM loses the item they will only pay £50. They must produce the parcel either to the OP or the recipient to have fulfilled the contract. By losing the parcel they have failed to complete the contract and in the process caused the OP to be out of pocket.

Does that make sense?

no it doesn't at all

Supposing I send £500 million in bearer bonds via parcel monkey, they then lose the package - are parcel monkey now liable for £500 million in bearer bonds regardless of the fact I've only taken out insurance up to £50?

Couriers don't have unlimited liability for losses of packages

 

[shine]

no it doesn't at all

Supposing I send £500 million in bearer bonds via parcel monkey, they then lose the package - are parcel monkey now liable for £500 million in bearer bonds regardless of the fact I've only taken out insurance up to £50?

Couriers don't have unlimited liability for losses of packages

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?

 

[dowie]

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?

It was a ridicules example to illustrate a point... if there were unlimited liability for parcels then sending bearer bonds would be perfectly feasible.

In fact they're quite specific with the limits they're liable to for losses which is why people pay more to send more expensive items up to a higher limit.

 

[stkrup]

It was a ridicules example to illustrate a point... if there were unlimited liability for parcels then sending bearer bonds would be perfectly feasible.

In fact they're quite specific with the limits they're liable to for losses which is why people pay more to send more expensive items.

This is what PM's liability according to T&C:

The Company shall not be liable for any claim for damage or loss whatsoever in excess of the value of the item stipulated by The Customer during the booking process. Liability is strictly limited to £1000.

 

[JonJ678]

I'm siding with parcelmonkey on this one. They lost it, no one is particularly surprised. Hence insurance and indeed hence why the OP paid for insurance.

In a strange twist, the OP paid for insurance up to £50 for a £400 item. Hence parcelmonkey offering £50. Sounds reasonable to me. Especially considering you could plausibly be posting a brick with "laptop" scribbled on the box.

Perhaps, if seeking a more reliable delivery service, you should avoid the absolute cheapest group who have called themselves "Parcel Monkey."

 

[stkrup]

I'm siding with parcelmonkey on this one. They lost it, no one is particularly surprised. Hence insurance and indeed hence why the OP paid for insurance.

In a strange twist, the OP paid for insurance up to £50 for a £400 item. Hence parcelmonkey offering £50. Sounds reasonable to me. Especially considering you could plausibly be posting a brick with "laptop" scribbled on the box.

Perhaps, if seeking a more reliable delivery service, you should avoid the absolute cheapest group who have called themselves "Parcel Monkey."

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).

 

[Cleeecooo]

Not delivering and losing the item are different. If PM failed to deliver due to bad weather or the address is incorrect - the OP gets their item back and maybe their fee depending on the circumstances to the limit of £50. That is fine.

In no way do these terms state that if PM loses the item they will only pay £50. They must produce the parcel either to the OP or the recipient to have fulfilled the contract. By losing the parcel they have failed to complete the contract and in the process caused the OP to be out of pocket.

Does that make sense?

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.