Thanks randm, really appreciate your response. The "care and skill" term is definitely something I can use in my case as I think it should be easy to argue that losing a relatively large item that is supposed to be tracked at each point on its journey definitely does not show "care and skill"! I'm guessing that's probably the term that BankFodder was alluding to in his comment above. Your case is slighly different to mine in that they broke your item rather than lost it. I would expect 'unfair terms' would apply in your situation, but only if the rest of the item (not just the glass bed) is damaged, and they are refusing to compensate just because some of the broken item was made of glass. I would imagine if it was only the glass bed that was broken, you might have a tougher time as stating glass is only transported at your risk would probably be considered a fair term (although I am not a lawyer!). Wish you all the best, do let me know how you get on and I'll do the same! I have yet to post my LBA as I was hoping for some support from this forum - I was a bit apprehensive that I didn't get a response to my above queries and figured trying to take on a large company in court without support would be too difficult on my own! (not a dig at all to anyone on this forum - I fully appreciate it's made up of volunteers and I have absolutely no right demanding help!)

Is anyone able to help with the above queries? Thanks!

I don't believe so - I listed the contents as 'splashback' - is that likely to be a problem? The only point I told them it was glass was when I made a claim for the lost parcel

If anyone can help with the above query it would be appreciated. Additionally, how does this sound as an LBA? When I bought the splashback it came with a £10 delivery fee which I have not included in the value calculation above. Should I include it, given that I would have to pay it if I was to replace the item that was lost? Thank you!

Thanks again BankFodder, I appreciate your time in responding. I've given it some thought, looked at the small claims process, and provided I can convince myself I have a case and the financial risk is reasonable given the value of the claim (£25 application + £25 trial to be reimbursed if the case wins?), I believe I am prepared to take it as far as it goes to reach a reasonable conclusion. I feel cheated by Hermes' attempt to wiggle out of any responsibility, and I'm not going to be just another cheated consumer. If it was to go further, it seems I have to fight two battles here: 1) That the term regarding glass items being exempt from any compensation if they are lost by the courier is unfair 2) That insurance for an item lost in transit should not need to be purchased by the consumer and should be covered by the statutory consumer duties of the service provider to perform the service The first one seems fairly easy to attack and I have very little doubt that I could win that one (which makes you wonder how on earth it exists as a term in the first place) - from the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37) published on gov.uk: The second one is harder. Is there any explicit clause of the Consumer Rights Act or elsewhere that I can use to back this up if it does reach court?

Thank you very much for your reply BankFodder. As I have accepted the terms that say that they won't be responsible for glass items going missing, presumably I would be claiming unfair terms? Realistically, what is the likelihood that this will hold up if it did reach court?

Hi all, I recently sent a parcel (a glass splashback) via Hermes. I stated the value of the splashback (£44.99) when purchasing the courier service (which cost £7.99), but took the minimum insurance of up to £20. I checked before sending and their help pages stated: I was prepared to take the risk of the package being damaged as it was reinforced glass, and packaged well. Hermes lost the parcel, however are refusing to refund postage or offer any compensation due to the following clause elsewhere in their T+Cs: I can understand Hermes not compensating for damage to an item which they say is excluded, however it seems very unfair that they are not accepting responsibility for an item lost by their network as opposed to damaged in transit, for which the contents of the parcel is irrelevant! Do I have an argument for full (£44.99+£7.99) or partial compensation (£20) here? What would be the next best steps? Thank you in advance!