threatened with court action over wrongly measured parcel?
Discussion
TooMany2cvs said:
Unlikely.
You requested them to perform a service.
You made an error in your request for the service, so their initial estimate of cost was too low.
You are now refusing to pay the amount they say you owe.
You are not, afaict, disputing the error in measurement - simply suggesting that it was an easy error to make. Nor do you have any evidence to refute their claim.
You have a choice. Pay the £60 plus whatever costs have been accrued to date. Or wait to find out if they're bluffing. If they aren't bluffing, then you may wish to consider the risk of you losing and being made to pay a lot more - more costs accrued - or get a CCJ against you.
A CCJ would only be gained if the OP was taken to court and either didnt turn up or had a judgement against them and didnt pay. Stop scaremongeringYou requested them to perform a service.
You made an error in your request for the service, so their initial estimate of cost was too low.
You are now refusing to pay the amount they say you owe.
You are not, afaict, disputing the error in measurement - simply suggesting that it was an easy error to make. Nor do you have any evidence to refute their claim.
You have a choice. Pay the £60 plus whatever costs have been accrued to date. Or wait to find out if they're bluffing. If they aren't bluffing, then you may wish to consider the risk of you losing and being made to pay a lot more - more costs accrued - or get a CCJ against you.
essayer said:
Maybe the stand opened in transit 
If you do send an 'interesting' package it always pays to take pictures of the measurements
+ weight being taken just to prevent this sort of issue
If you do send an 'interesting' package it always pays to take pictures of the measurements
+ weight being taken just to prevent this sort of issue
I thought that, but after contacting the girl that I sent it to I confirmed it was still all taped up the same as it left me.
And, yes, kicking my self now for not taking pics of the 'final' package.
Fastra said:
Did you get any where with this?
I've just been hit with the same thing.
Sent a digital piano and folding stand via interparcel and UPS.
I stated it was 148 x 41 x 36cm
They tell me it was 135 x 127 x 37cm.
They now want £109 from me!!!!!
The original shipment cost £35 including insurance.
I've sent pics of it pre wrapping and links to amazon showing the package size.
We'll see what they say.
Even upping my original measurements to 150x47x37 only adds a couple of quid on - though changing 47 to 49 adds on £27!!
Though there's no way I was that much out on my original measurement!!!
[
|https://thumbsnap.com/ypWpEMpD[/url]
You can tell they've got it wrong just by looking at it.I've just been hit with the same thing.
Sent a digital piano and folding stand via interparcel and UPS.
I stated it was 148 x 41 x 36cm
They tell me it was 135 x 127 x 37cm.
They now want £109 from me!!!!!
The original shipment cost £35 including insurance.
I've sent pics of it pre wrapping and links to amazon showing the package size.
We'll see what they say.
Even upping my original measurements to 150x47x37 only adds a couple of quid on - though changing 47 to 49 adds on £27!!
Though there's no way I was that much out on my original measurement!!!
[
|https://thumbsnap.com/ypWpEMpD[/url]Edited by Fastra on Monday 31st July 18:56
Edited by Fastra on Monday 31st July 19:02
135 x 127 would almost be square in those two dimensions. It's a good job it wasn't an intelligence test. Muppets!
Interparcel have just replied...
"Thank you for providing additional information relating to the surcharges applied to this order.
I can confirm that I have logged a dispute with the carrier; the carrier will now check the evidence provided against their own records, this process can take up to two weeks so we thank you for your patience and ask that you bear with us whilst we work with the carrier to resolve this.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter; I will update you just as soon as I receive a response from the carrier."
!!!
You'd have thought that to rasie the issue in the first place then UPS would have to provide proof!
The email I got from Interparcel was literally along the lines of..
Ohh, your parcel was bigger than you said, we've got your details so is it ok to charge your card £109?
If you pay within a week we'll drop the £15 admin fee and only charge you £94.
"Please confirm if you would like us to automatically charge this amount to the Card or PayPal account used to pay for this order."
They must pray on peoples appathy!
What I might struggle to prove though, is the size of the actual parcel was in when it was actually sent!
"Thank you for providing additional information relating to the surcharges applied to this order.
I can confirm that I have logged a dispute with the carrier; the carrier will now check the evidence provided against their own records, this process can take up to two weeks so we thank you for your patience and ask that you bear with us whilst we work with the carrier to resolve this.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter; I will update you just as soon as I receive a response from the carrier."
!!!
You'd have thought that to rasie the issue in the first place then UPS would have to provide proof!
The email I got from Interparcel was literally along the lines of..
Ohh, your parcel was bigger than you said, we've got your details so is it ok to charge your card £109?
If you pay within a week we'll drop the £15 admin fee and only charge you £94.
"Please confirm if you would like us to automatically charge this amount to the Card or PayPal account used to pay for this order."
They must pray on peoples appathy!
What I might struggle to prove though, is the size of the actual parcel was in when it was actually sent!
Fastra said:
................
What I might struggle to prove though, is the size of the actual parcel was in when it was actually sent!
Why though? Just e-mail them a picture of the parcel.What I might struggle to prove though, is the size of the actual parcel was in when it was actually sent!
The longest dimension could have been measured incorrectly certainly. But it is quite obvious that the width is somewhere between a quarter
and a fifth of the length, and the height is approximately two thirds of the width.
The dimensions they gave are clearly impossible for that shape of parcel. So as it's quite obvious their measurments are incorrect, they
need to measure it again.
EDIT: In other words, the actual dimensions are irrelevant, whatever they are. The measurements they claim simply do not preserve the proportions. Not even vaguely.
Edited by Pete Eroleum on Tuesday 1st August 13:19
Pete Eroleum said:
Fastra said:
................
What I might struggle to prove though, is the size of the actual parcel was in when it was actually sent!
Why though? Just e-mail them a picture of the parcel.What I might struggle to prove though, is the size of the actual parcel was in when it was actually sent!
The longest dimension could have been measured incorrectly certainly. But it is quite obvious that the width is somewhere between a quarter
and a fifth of the length, and the height is approximately two thirds of the width.
The dimensions they gave are clearly impossible for that shape of parcel. So as it's quite obvious their measurments are incorrect, they
need to measure it again.
EDIT: In other words, the actual dimensions are irrelevant, whatever they are. The measurements they claim simply do not preserve the proportions. Not even vaguely.
Edited by Pete Eroleum on Tuesday 1st August 13:19
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Yamaha-P35-Portable-Digit...
Which shows dims similar to mine but without the stand taped on top.
I'm just thinking out loud that they could reply "unless you provide a picture of the actual parcel that was sent WITH a tape measure next to it then how do we know?"
Obviously to you and me it's common sense from the 'evidence' I've provided that the thing was no where near over a metre square.
But you know how obstinate some companies can be.
Fastra said:
Sent them the pic, plus thus link ;
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Yamaha-P35-Portable-Digit...
Which shows dims similar to mine but without the stand taped on top.
I'm just thinking out loud that they could reply "unless you provide a picture of the actual parcel that was sent WITH a tape measure next to it then how do we know?"
Obviously to you and me it's common sense from the 'evidence' I've provided that the thing was no where near over a metre square.
But you know how obstinate some companies can be.
So you say 'send me a picture of the parcel or how do I know you didn't scan the wrong parcel'https://www.amazon.co.uk/Yamaha-P35-Portable-Digit...
Which shows dims similar to mine but without the stand taped on top.
I'm just thinking out loud that they could reply "unless you provide a picture of the actual parcel that was sent WITH a tape measure next to it then how do we know?"
Obviously to you and me it's common sense from the 'evidence' I've provided that the thing was no where near over a metre square.
But you know how obstinate some companies can be.
Fastra said:
I'm just thinking out loud that they could reply "unless you provide a picture of the actual parcel that was sent WITH a tape measure next to it then how do we know?"
incorrect, which you can do to anyone sporting at least one eye.
If they persist in refusing to open theirs, then let them take it to court. The judge will take one look at the pic, one look at their claimed dimensions,
and then throw it out.
Even if they ran over your parcel with a traction engine, the ratio between length and width would remain roughly the same.
EDIT: To put it really simply -
-They are accusing you of stating false dimensions on your parcel in order to pay less than you should for postage.
-Their evidence for this is the measurements they have taken from your parcel, and the discrepancy between what you stated and what they found.
-This single piece of evidence states that, according to their measurements, the second largest dimension is 94% of the largest dimension.
-Your picture clearly shows that the width isn't 94% of the length.
-They have no more evidence to support their accusation.
Edited by Pete Eroleum on Tuesday 1st August 15:06
Cheers Pete,
That's exactly the point I've put to them, though probably not as succinct as that.
😊
Pete Eroleum said:
Fastra said:
I'm just thinking out loud that they could reply "unless you provide a picture of the actual parcel that was sent WITH a tape measure next to it then how do we know?"
incorrect, which you can do to anyone sporting at least one eye.
If they persist in refusing to open theirs, then let them take it to court. The judge will take one look at the pic, one look at their claimed dimensions,
and then throw it out.
Even if they ran over your parcel with a traction engine, the ratio between length and width would remain roughly the same.
EDIT: To put it really simply -
-They are accusing you of stating false dimensions on your parcel in order to pay less than you should for postage.
-Their evidence for this is the measurements they have taken from your parcel, and the discrepancy between what you stated and what they found.
-This single piece of evidence states that, according to their measurements, the second largest dimension is 94% of the largest dimension.
-Your picture clearly shows that the width isn't 94% of the length.
-They have no more evidence to support their accusation.
Edited by Pete Eroleum on Tuesday 1st August 15:06
Finally - I have closure!!!
Received an email from Interparcel on 15th Sept ....
"I just wanted to let you know that we have had a response from UPS and unfortunately they have declined the dispute on this occasion, we have therefore reviewed this internally and have agreed to waive these charges for yourself and we will absorb the charges on your behalf.
We will continue to dispute this matter with UPS separately. I am therefore pleased to confirm that there is no outstanding balance owed by you for this order."
Well, thats that settled then...!
Received an email from Interparcel on 15th Sept ....
"I just wanted to let you know that we have had a response from UPS and unfortunately they have declined the dispute on this occasion, we have therefore reviewed this internally and have agreed to waive these charges for yourself and we will absorb the charges on your behalf.
We will continue to dispute this matter with UPS separately. I am therefore pleased to confirm that there is no outstanding balance owed by you for this order."
Well, thats that settled then...!
I've had similar with another intermediary service provider (coincidentally also using UPS as the actual courier)
Never reached a resolution with the intermediary (always a different call centre monkey and no consistency in their written responses) and took eventual silence after supplying photos with tape measure in shot as it having been resolved.
After a few months I started getting e-mailed threats about outstanding payment from a debt collection agency (its name contains a judicial reference, simply because the company boss shares a surname with a job type in the legal profession!). The final escalation was that they 'may' take me to court if I didn't pay - given any debt wasn't with them, that wasn't going to fly. I took advice at the time and ignored all correspondence, since none of it was signed or had any legal basis whatsoever.
I suspect they've bought some bundled 'debt' from the intermediary and just chance their arm with mass e-mailing, but won't actually spend any money if the scare tactics don't work.
Never reached a resolution with the intermediary (always a different call centre monkey and no consistency in their written responses) and took eventual silence after supplying photos with tape measure in shot as it having been resolved.
After a few months I started getting e-mailed threats about outstanding payment from a debt collection agency (its name contains a judicial reference, simply because the company boss shares a surname with a job type in the legal profession!). The final escalation was that they 'may' take me to court if I didn't pay - given any debt wasn't with them, that wasn't going to fly. I took advice at the time and ignored all correspondence, since none of it was signed or had any legal basis whatsoever.
I suspect they've bought some bundled 'debt' from the intermediary and just chance their arm with mass e-mailing, but won't actually spend any money if the scare tactics don't work.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff