Can Parcelforce legally do this?
Discussion
So i bought something on Ebay, seller posted with Parcelforce, tracking shows "In Progress" and that remains the case for a week (48hr delivery).
I contact seller, he contacts Parcelforce and then no change for another week so seller refunds me.
I now have a letter through the post, saying that I need to sign and return a form to say it did not arrive, and to confirm I have checked with neighbours and so on ignorer for them to 'investigate' which is fine.
However it also says if I don't reply in 30 days they will void the sellers claim for insurance.
I will be filling in and returning, but the part about the voiding on non-return if I didn't seems outrageous. They had the package, they have not delivered it as per their own tracking, yet they are attempting this get out clause - as many buyer's may not bother to return this would leave the seller out of pocket.
Surely this can't be legal?
I contact seller, he contacts Parcelforce and then no change for another week so seller refunds me.
I now have a letter through the post, saying that I need to sign and return a form to say it did not arrive, and to confirm I have checked with neighbours and so on ignorer for them to 'investigate' which is fine.
However it also says if I don't reply in 30 days they will void the sellers claim for insurance.
I will be filling in and returning, but the part about the voiding on non-return if I didn't seems outrageous. They had the package, they have not delivered it as per their own tracking, yet they are attempting this get out clause - as many buyer's may not bother to return this would leave the seller out of pocket.
Surely this can't be legal?
Edited by hyphen on Thursday 19th October 13:41
hyphen said:
So i bought something on Ebay, seller posted with Parcelforce, tracking shows "In Progress" and that remains the case for a week (48hr delivery).
I contact seller, he contacts Parcelforce and then no change for another week so seller refunds me.
I now have a letter through the post, saying that I need to sign and return a form to say it did not arrive, and to confirm I have checked with neighbours and so on ignorer for them to 'investigate' which is fine.
However it also says if I don't reply in 30 days they will void the sellers claim for insurance.
I will be filling in and returning, but the part about the voiding on non-return if I didn't seems outrageous. They had the package, they have not delivered it as per their own tracking, yet they are attempting this get out clause - as many buyer's may not bother to return this would leave the seller out of pocket.
Surely this can't be legal?
Parcel force are hopeless and coming from the same stable as Royal Mail will try everything to duck out of their responsibilities. I have problems with both of them and their resolution is always the same. An apology.I contact seller, he contacts Parcelforce and then no change for another week so seller refunds me.
I now have a letter through the post, saying that I need to sign and return a form to say it did not arrive, and to confirm I have checked with neighbours and so on ignorer for them to 'investigate' which is fine.
However it also says if I don't reply in 30 days they will void the sellers claim for insurance.
I will be filling in and returning, but the part about the voiding on non-return if I didn't seems outrageous. They had the package, they have not delivered it as per their own tracking, yet they are attempting this get out clause - as many buyer's may not bother to return this would leave the seller out of pocket.
Surely this can't be legal?
It will be in the T&Cs somewhere abouth them doing this but trying to find them will be a nightmare.
If there is a clause in the contract between the seller and Parcelforce that provides for the seller's claim to fail if not supported by evidence from the buyer, such a clause might well be held to be unreasonable, as the seller has no control over the buyer.
It may be that the letter (which is written in a horrible, crabbed pseudo legal style) is simply trying to encourage the buyer to help out.
It may be that the letter (which is written in a horrible, crabbed pseudo legal style) is simply trying to encourage the buyer to help out.
Breadvan72 said:
If there is a clause in the contract between the seller and Parcelforce that provides for the seller's claim to fail if not supported by evidence from the buyer, such a clause might well be held to be unreasonable, as the seller has no control over the buyer.
It may be that the letter (which is written in a horrible, crabbed pseudo legal style) is simply trying to encourage the buyer to help out.
Don't tell me you've never said, "As such non receipt of this document with 30 days will deem this claim void", in court. It may be that the letter (which is written in a horrible, crabbed pseudo legal style) is simply trying to encourage the buyer to help out.
Drumroll said:
I am not trying to start an argument, just interested in what law(s) the OP thinks Parcel Force may be breaking?
Been a longtime since I studied any law modules in education, but various 'unfair terms' rules exist in contract law. As the Breadvan-man said, I don't think it would be considered 'reasonable' to penalise the party based on actions of a 3rd party.hyphen said:
So i bought something on Ebay, seller posted with Parcelforce, tracking shows "In Progress" and that remains the case for a week (48hr delivery).
I contact seller, he contacts Parcelforce and then no change for another week so seller refunds me.
I now have a letter through the post, saying that I need to sign and return a form to say it did not arrive, and to confirm I have checked with neighbours and so on ignorer for them to 'investigate' which is fine.
However it also says if I don't reply in 30 days they will void the sellers claim for insurance.
I will be filling in and returning, but the part about the voiding on non-return if I didn't seems outrageous. They had the package, they have not delivered it as per their own tracking, yet they are attempting this get out clause - as many buyer's may not bother to return this would leave the seller out of pocket.
Surely this can't be legal?
e mail it back with the 'Sender has requested confirmation of receipt' function or whatever it's called. I contact seller, he contacts Parcelforce and then no change for another week so seller refunds me.
I now have a letter through the post, saying that I need to sign and return a form to say it did not arrive, and to confirm I have checked with neighbours and so on ignorer for them to 'investigate' which is fine.
However it also says if I don't reply in 30 days they will void the sellers claim for insurance.
I will be filling in and returning, but the part about the voiding on non-return if I didn't seems outrageous. They had the package, they have not delivered it as per their own tracking, yet they are attempting this get out clause - as many buyer's may not bother to return this would leave the seller out of pocket.
Surely this can't be legal?
Edited by hyphen on Thursday 19th October 13:41
SantaBarbara said:
How come the tracking failed to show the final delivery?
I sent some golf clubs via a national courier once, the tracking showed them as received at 4am at a depot in London then that was it, the car boot they went in at 4:05am and the pub they were sold in weren't on the tracking system, they didn't care , no investigation, compensation was minimal then unless you paid 3x the amount to insure it so they just sent me a cheque for £30 or whatever it was, never used them againGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff