Amazon/UPS £1200 Macbook lost by UPS when i used My Own Returns postage label

[BankFodder]

I don't know what you mean when you say that they were double selling you insurance.

In my view – and technically speaking – you would only be entitled to claim for the declared value. Interesting to see that their terms and conditions seem to indicate that you could send items for more valuable than that.
I suggest that you claim for the full value of the laptop but be prepared to step back to the declared value.

[jk2054]

what I meant is, by losing the parcel, they're acting otherwise in accordance with section 49 of CSR 2015.

Therefore, I can surely refute their claim that I am only insured up to £1,000 as this is the level of cover I purchased, since they carry goods up to the value of 50,000 USD.

In regards to declared value, you never get the option to declare the value, you simply get two options,

one being you can use the £60 included cover,

the other being you can pay a flat fee to insure up to £1,000.

There is no option to insure above this, but in section 3.1 of their T&C's they limit a shipment's value maximum liability at 50,000 USD.

Since there's no option to declare the value, can I claim for the full value and then base my claim on them losing it is not carrying out the service with care nor skill, and as such I can claim the full value since their terms and conditions allow me to claim up to 50,000 USD?

OR

Do I have to accept the maximum amount I can claim for is £1,000  since this was the level of cover purchased (N.B no option to cover it for more)?

TIA

[BankFodder]

I still don't understand what you mean by double insurance.

However, what is much more interesting is that you say that there was no opportunity to declare value. Simply to insure for £60 or else for £1000 Despite the fact that they say that the maximum value that they will carry is $50,000.

Are you absolutely sure that there is no opportunity to declare the value?

In that case claim for maximum. Produce your POC here and let's have a look at the wording

 

[jk2054]

Ok - We can ignore double insurance as it doesn't really impact this claim.

 

In regards to declaring value, I am sure there's no option.

I've attached  a document with two screenshots showing their protection page and their protection terms if you can take a look at them and just check it's as expected to make sure I've not missed anything?

Thanks so much for your help btw

UPS CARRIAGE TERMS FOR PROTECTION.pdf

[BankFodder]

Very useful document. Paragraph 4 is especially useful because it makes it clear that they will compensate you on the value of the goods.

Go ahead and claim the full value as long as the items correctly described. I expect that they will kick back – but let's see.

Oh how we laughed

[jk2054]

Thank you, I'm continuing my POC now (They'll probably need some edits) but once I'm done I'll post it here.

Thanks for your help so far

Hey - another quick question, in my POC should I reference that UPS initially say they paid, then say they want more time, then declare it delivered and refuse the claim, or do I simply reference UPS declaring it lost and then not paying?

Just a bit unsure and can't see a similar claim around anywhere?

[BankFodder]

Yes you will have to mention that briefly.

Then as you suggest, say that they then change their mind and they claimed that it was delivered but that you have very clear evidence that it was not delivered and you put UPS to proof.

[jk2054]

Ok - This is my first time so I'm prepared that you're probably going to say its terrible. 

 

 

POC draft 1.pdf

[BankFodder]

Quote

The defendant in this case is UPS (UK) Limited company number 01852013
I used the defendants courier service to send a parcel containing a macbook to amazon
under tracking reference XXXXX.

The parcel was marked as delivered on the 6th June 2023, however the receiver (Amazon)
has, on multiple occasions, confirmed it never entered their possession and they have not
received it. Since the receiver did not receive the parcel, despite it being marked as
delivered I initiated an investigation with the defendant.

On 13th June 2023 the defendant confirmed the goods were lost and issued a claims form in which the defendant declared that
the shipment was “lost”.

I returned the claims forms on June 13th 2023 by email to the
defendant and the defendant contacted me on 20 June 2023 to inform me that the
maximum amount I could claim was limited at £1,000 for the costs of the merchandise plus
my shipping costs (£7.49). I initially accepted this.
On 22 June 2023 the defendant marked the claim as paid stating the payment would arrive
to me within 2 days, however the claim payment never reached me.
On 23 June 2023, the defendant then said they wanted more time to investigate, despite
previously declaring the parcel lost and then saying they paid the claim.
On 5 July 2023 the defendant then changed their story from lost to delivered, however
despite this claim, the receiver is adamant that the parcel has never entered their
possession. On 6 July 2023, the defendant supplied a proof of delivery which simply states
it was received by “AMAZON” without naming the physical possession of the person who
accepted the parcel. Additionally, on a date after the date stated on the proof of delivery, the
defendant has declared the parcel lost, therefore I have sufficient reason to believe that the
defendant has lost the parcel.
Since the defendant initially declared it lost, in the balance of probability, I’m satisfied that The parcel
did not reach the receiver’s possession, and the defendant is therefore liable for the
package in accordance with their terms and conditions as they have failed their contractual
obligation to deliver the item.
In losing the parcel the defendant has also acted otherwise in accordance with section 49 of
the consumer rights act since they have carried out a service without reasonable care or skill
since they have accepted that they lost my parcel whilst it was in their possession.
Upon further review of Section 4 of the defendant’s “Protection terms & conditions” it states
that “You should note that the coverage and payment in case of a damage or a loss will be
based on the value of replacing the goods that are being shipped. In order to calculate the
correct value, we need supporting documents as evidence of the prices of the goods.”

Furthermore, the defendant excludes their liability to reimburse their customers for lost or damaged parcels and this is contrary to section 57 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The defendant is prepared to waive their exclusion if the claimant pays extra money for an insurance policy which the defendant describes as "enhanced compensation" (xxxplease check that this is the name)xxx.
The claimant chose not to purchase the defendant's insurance policy on the basis that requiring customers to pay an extra fee in order to enjoy rights already guaranteed under the 2015 Act is contrary to ss.47 and 72 of the 2015 Act and therefore unnecessary and unenforceable.

In any event, the defendant's insurance policy is limited to a maximum of £1000 despite the fact that the defendant's terms and conditions agreed to carry parcels to value of maximum $50,000.
Therefore, based on this I now claim the full value of my goods which is £1,229.00 as this is
the value of replacing the goods, as set out in section 4 of the defendant’s “Protection terms
& conditions”. I have supplied the defendant with documentation that shows the value of the
goods, and the defendant have not, at any time, suggested that there is a problem with my
evidential document showing the goods’ value therefore I have satisfied their requirements
and am therefore subsequently entitled to full compensation of £1,229.00 for the goods as
this is under the defendant’s maximum value of goods for carriage as set out in term 3.1 of
the defendant’s terms and conditions which is USD 50,000.00
Therefore the total value of my claim excluding court costs is £1,229.00 + £7.49 + plus
interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts act 1984 at 8% per annum calculated
from the date the package was lost until the date the case is settled.

See if this proposed particulars of claim makes sense.

See if you agree with its contents or if there's anything you want to add or take away.

Also it should be better spaced out. One point per paragraph and spaces between each paragraph so that it is easy to read

[jk2054]

ok the majority makes sense other than 

 

"

The defendant is prepared to waive their exclusion if the claimant pays extra money for an insurance policy which the defendant describes as "enhanced compensation" (xxxplease check that this is the name)xxx.
The claimant chose not to purchase the defendant's insurance policy on the basis that requiring customers to pay an extra fee in order to enjoy rights already guaranteed under the 2015 Act is contrary to ss.47 and 72 of the 2015 Act and therefore unnecessary and unenforceable."

 

I do not understand why I use this because I did purchase the insurance.

 

Can you explain why I should include this just incase im asked because it will surely contradict the fact that I did purchase the insurance?

[BankFodder]

Yes, you're right. I copied it from somebody else's particulars which I helped out on. I didn't pay attention.

 

Quote

The defendant is prepared to waive their exclusion if the claimant pays extra money for an insurance policy which the defendant describes as "enhanced compensation" (xxxplease check that this is the name)xxx.
The claimant purchased the defendant's insurance policy despite the fact that requiring customers to pay an extra fee in order to enjoy rights already guaranteed under the 2015 Act is contrary to ss.47 and 72 of the 2015 Act and therefore unnecessary and unenforceable."

I have amended it.

Please check it. Also – look at their terms and conditions and find out how they described their insurance policy

[jk2054]

Thanks, I'll take a look at all the edits made.

In regards to their insurance they say "Subject to the provisions of paragraph 9.5, the shipper may obtain the benefit of a greater limit of liability than UPS provides under paragraph 9.2 above or than may be provided by Convention Rules or other mandatory national law.

The shipper may do so by declaring a higher value on the Waybill and paying an additional charge as stated in the Guide. If the shipper declares a higher value for carriage and pays the applicable charge, then UPS’s liability shall be limited to proven damages not exceeding the sum so declared. The value of the goods concerned shall not in any event exceed the limits specified in paragraph 3.1(ii) and the Guide."

However, They do not give me the option to declare a value on said waybill,  instead only allowing me to add insurance up to £1,000 for a flat fee, however this being said I have paid an additional charge to insure my parcel to the maximum level of cover offered, and in any case, as you've mentioned the insurance is " already guaranteed under the 2015 Act is contrary to ss.47 and 72 of the 2015 Act and therefore unnecessary and unenforceable.".

Would you think there is anything I should change or add to my POC based on this, or should I continue with my POC above?

You're advice is greatly appreciated

Ok, I've updated my POC.

I've chosen to refer to it as "Higher Protection" since this is what UPS sell's it as, and therefore I can reference I have higher protection, and by using protection I can reference the protection terms and conditions (specifically point 4) as you pointed out above which shows how loss/damage is noticed.

I've attached another copy of my (updated) POC if you could take a look and tell me what you think of it please

POC 2.pdf

[BankFodder]

Standby for a further reply tomorrow.

[jk2054]

No worries thank you 

[BankFodder]

 

 

You missed out this essential paragraph

Quote

Furthermore, the defendant excludes their liability to reimburse their customers for lost or damaged parcels and this is contrary to section 47 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Is there a reason for this?

[BankFodder]

Please note that it should be section 57 of the consumer rights act – not section 47

[jk2054]

It's on the top of the second page.

Do i need to reword it?

(quoted just so you know what im referring to)

[BankFodder]

Well I'm afraid I don't see it in the document at all. Neither the first page nor the second page.

[jk2054]

Sorry, my error, I misread what you referenced.

 

Please see attached doc, where it is now paragraph 3 of second page.

POC UPD.pdf

[BankFodder]

I'm sorry – but I am losing the plot here.

You seem to be changing the order of things and putting bits of paragraphs where they shouldn't be.

I suggest that you go back to the edited version which I posted about 20 hours ago with the big section which I posted coloured red – and start working from there.

Also I suggested another edit in red.

Also stop using the word "receiver". Use "Amazon"instead

in purple, there is a short passage which particularly I don't understand why it is in that place

Quote

The defendant in this case is UPS (UK) Limited company number 01852013
I used the defendants courier service to send a parcel containing a macbook to amazon
under tracking reference XXXXX.
The parcel was marked as delivered on the 6th June 2023, however the receiver (Amazon)
has, on multiple occasions, confirmed it never entered their possession and they have not
received it. Since the receiver did not receive the parcel, despite it being marked as
delivered I initiated an investigation with the defendant.
On 13th June 2023 the defendant confirmed the goods were lost and issued a claims form
in which the defendant declared that the shipment was “lost”. I returned the claims forms on
June 13th 2023 by email to the defendant and the defendant contacted me on 20 June 2023
to inform me that the maximum amount I could claim was limited at £1,000 for the costs of
the merchandise plus my shipping costs (£7.49).
On 22 June 2023 the defendant marked the claim as paid stating the payment would arrive
to me within 2 days, however the claim payment never reached me.
On 23 June 2023, the defendant then said they wanted more time to investigate, despite
previously declaring the parcel lost and then saying they paid the claim.
On 5 July 2023 the defendant then changed their story from lost to delivered, however
despite this claim, the receiver is adamant that the parcel has never entered their
possession. On 6 July 2023, the defendant supplied a proof of delivery which simply states
it was received by “AMAZON” without naming the physical possession of the person who
accepted the parcel without providing any evidence.   Additionally, on a date after the date stated on the proof of delivery, the
defendant has declared the parcel lost, therefore I have sufficient reason to believe that the
defendant has lost the parcel.
The parcel did not reach the receiver’s possession, and the defendant is therefore liable for
the package in accordance with their terms and conditions as they have failed their
contractual obligation to deliver the item.
In losing the parcel the defendant has also acted otherwise in accordance with section 49 of
the consumer rights act since they have carried out a service without reasonable care or skill
since they have accepted that they lost my parcel whilst it was in their possession.
Upon further review of Section 4 of the defendant’s “Protection terms & conditions” it states
that “You should note that the coverage and payment in case of a damage or a loss will be
based on the value of replacing the goods that are being shipped. In order to calculate the
correct value, we need supporting documents as evidence of the prices of the goods.”
The defendant is prepared to waive their exclusion if the claimant pays extra money for an
insurance policy which the defendant describes as "enhanced Protection”
I purchased the defendant's Higher Protection despite the fact that requiring customers to
pay an extra fee in order to enjoy rights already guaranteed under the consumer rights act
2015 is contrary to sections 57 and 72 of the act and is therefore unnecessary and
unenforceable.
Furthermore, the defendant excludes their liability to reimburse their customers for lost or
damaged parcels and this is contrary to section 47 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Therefore, based on this I now claim the full value of my goods which is £1,229.00 as this is
the value of replacing the goods, as set out in section 4 of the defendant’s “Protection terms
& conditions”. I have supplied the defendant with documentation that shows the value of the
goods, and the defendant have not, at any time, suggested that there is a problem with my
evidential document showing the goods’ value therefore I have satisfied their requirements
and am therefore subsequently entitled to full compensation of £1,229.00 for the goods as
this is under the defendant’s maximum value of goods for carriage as set out in term 3.1 of
the defendant’s terms and conditions which is USD 50,000.00
Therefore the total value of my claim excluding court costs is £1,229.00 + £7.49 + plus
interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts act 1984 at 8% per annum calculated
from the date the package was lost until the date the case is settled.

 

[jk2054]

I will update and resend a POC later with a response to your query.

Thank you for your help thus far

Further to previous message, please see POC attached.

Reformatted + included things you've brought up.

Should be all good now if you can check it please - TIA

UPS POC LHD.pdf

[BankFodder]

Nearly there I suppose.

 

Quote

defendant has also acted otherwise in accordance with section 49

change to

Quote

defendant is in breach of section 49 blah blah blah

also, I did say stop using the word receiver and use the word Amazon instead. You have carried on using "receiver"

Much more powerful to emphasise the fact that it is Amazon – a highly reputable company which is saying that they did not receive it rather than some non-descript "receiver".

[jk2054]

Edit's suggested have been made. Please see attached

UPS have responded to my letter as follows:

"Thank you for your recent letter. Upon further review we do believe the goods were successfully delivered to amazon, and as such we will be taking no further action in this matter"

UPS have not yet responded to my SAR. 

UPS POC LHD 2.pdf

[dx100uk]

they can believe what they like.

amazon v UPS...that will be interesting.

they will also have to provide written evidence of this in their WS.

that wont happen

its a bluff to put you off the scent.

 

[BankFodder]

Standby for a further edit to your particulars of claim.

Check back later on today