UPS not delivering AMZ returns, AMZ deny liability, taking UPS to court.

[jk2054]

Hello,

I sent some goods back to Amazon in June of this year, but they never reached Amazon's warehouse.

I sent the parcel via UPS and insured the parcel fully to their only compensation level of £1,000. The value of the goods inside was £517.46

I contacted UPS who carried out an investigation but said the shipment was acknowledged by "Complex Logistics" and so they classed the matter as closed.

So I googled who complex were and they're just a UPS partner so in effect UPS seem to be signing for deliveries themselves. I asked UPS but they re-iterated they considered it closed.

I filed a claim against UPS (using an adjusted POC from a similar experience) and received the attached defence. 

I'm aware that the next stage is DQ (directs questionaire).

However, the DQ format has now changed (Please see attached), so I'm looking for some guidance on question F1. 

Thanks

Defence (Signed).pdf N180_1023.pdf

[BankFodder]

Please will you post up your particulars of claim in PDF format

 

Also, I see that question F1 in respect of which you are specifically asking for guidance is

Quote

Have you been advised of your right to give evidence in either
Welsh or English?

And the answer is: How on earth should we know if you have received this advice

[jk2054]

Hi, will post POC soon, 

My question is more does your case only proceed if you tick yes?

[BankFodder]

I'm afraid that I really don't know.

I suppose is no harm in ticking yes unless of course that means and they start to hold the case in Welsh.

I really don't know what to say. I suppose that you had better answer correctly – which I suppose is No.

And then see what happens

[jk2054]

ok will do, thank you BF.

[jk2054]

Hello,

 

Sorry for delay.

 

POC attached.

UPS POC 2 (1).pdf

[BankFodder]

You seem to have reverted back to your narrative style which includes a lot of very unnecessary information

Quote

The defendant in this case is UPS (UK) Limited company number 01852013
I used the defendants courier service to send a parcel containing 3 keyboards to amazon
under tracking reference XXXXX.
The parcel was marked as delivered on the 27th June 2023, however the receiver (Amazon)
has, on multiple occasions, confirmed it never entered their possession and they have not
received it.
Since Amazon did not receive the parcel, despite it being marked as delivered I initiated an
investigation with the defendant.
On 10th July 2023 the defendant provided a proof of delivery that stated that the delivery
had been acknowledged by “COMPLEX LOGISTICS”. The claimant would like to point out
that In fact Complex Logistics works with the defendant not Amazon. is the defendant's own partner, nothing to do with the recipient Amazon and in fact the defendant's so-called "proof of delivery" is self-serving and serves no useful purpose as independently verifiable evidence
The defendant also provided a phone number, which when searched correlates to a UPS
depot. The defendant has tried to phone the number on multiple occasions but there was no
answer.
The parcel did not reach amazon’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.
The defendants themselves have admitted in writing that they only scan items at their depot
and that they do not scan them at the point of delivery. The evidence is clear that they did in
fact dispatch the parcel to its destination from the origin depot. The package was likely
lost/stolen en route to Amazon.
In any event the package never arrived into amazon’s possession and therefore the
defendant is liable.
Because the defendant does not scan parcels on delivery, it has no first hand knowledge
that the parcel was delivered and is relying upon conjecture. By relying on their records of the point of dispatch they are in
fact relying on a form of hearsay.
Amazon has confirmed in writing that they did not receive the package
In losing a correctly addressed and packaged parcel the defendant has breached section 49 of the consumer rights act 2015
since they have carried out a service without reasonable care or skill by losing my parcel
whilst it was in their possession.
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.
Upon further review of
The defendant is prepared to waive their exclusion if the claimant pays extra money for an
insurance policy which the defendant describes as "Higher Protection” 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 consumer rights act 2015
is contrary to section 57 and 72 of said act and is therefore unnecessary and unenforceable.
Since the claimant purchased the defendant’s “Higher Protection” the claimant is entitled to
claim the full value of the goods in the package.

Despite their insurance requirement, section 4 of the defendant’s own terms and conditions which they call “Protection terms & conditions” state 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.”
Therefore the claimant’s claim amount in relation to the merchandise is for the full value the
goods would cost to replace which is £509.97. 
Therefore the total value of my claim excluding court costs is £509.97 + 7.49 (shipping costs)
+ 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.

I suggest that you adopt the suggestions I have made above and repost the draft

[jk2054]

Hi BF,

This one was already issued - the defence is above.

 

You asked for the original POC hence what I posted

[BankFodder]

Thanks. I had misunderstood.

I was wondering why you had reverted to a previous model.

I'll have a look later

[jk2054]

Thank you.

 

[BankFodder]

Very briefly –

They say that you have sued the wrong entity however this is a mere technicality. It is clear that it hasn't prevented them from mounting a very detailed defence and in any event the terms and conditions which they have attached to the defence refer throughout to "UPS" and it is clear that their company structure is simply for their own internal purposes and they will consider themselves – "UPS".
As it is clear that the defendant and all its various corporate identities are fully informed as to the existence of the claim, the subject of the claim and the contents of the claim, the mis-naming of the defendant is a matter which is easily rectified on a recommendation or an order from the judge at trial at no cost or inconvenience to any party including the scarce-resourced County Court system.

Secondly, they say that you haven't given the details of the contract – whether it is in writing, the date, et cetera et cetera.
However, you have given the tracking number and that tracking number contains all the information they need – and clearly they have consulted the tracking number because they are familiar with the delivery contract in particular because they have constructed a detailed defence which addresses every part of it.
In other words, the defendant in all its corporate identities is fully aware and it is absurd to say otherwise.

Thirdly, they refer to the fact that he is your responsibility to ensure that the item is properly packed and that they won't be liable for its loss or damage if it is not properly packed.
Yet elsewhere they say that the item has been delivered. Clearly if they are satisfied that it is delivered then there is no question about it being incorrectly packed or addressed.
In any event it was correctly packed and addressed and in terms of the quality of the packing, there is no explanation as to why this should result in a lost parcel.

Fourthly, UPS deny that they should be responsible for economic loss. However this case is not been brought in negligence, it has been brought on a breach of contract. UPS were made fully aware of the value of the item which they accepted as bailees and therefore they realise the extent of their liability.
They were pleased to accept an insurance premium in exchange for the risk of losing or damaging the item.

Fifthly they say that the evidence is that you are not acting as a consumer.
This is the sole valid point in their defence. It is correct that you are a trader and accordingly you are not entitled to benefit from the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
However, you are protected by the unfair terms provisions contained in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and which applies to traders.
Any term which seeks to exclude or limit liability for a contractual failure must be subject to a test of reasonableness.
The test for reasonable includes such factors as:
is there an imbalance of power?
Was the contract subject to any negotiation or possibility of negotiation?
Was the contract conducted on the defendants' standard form contract or was this a contract which was mutually agreed between the parties?
Was there any alternative offered by the defendant or by the defendant's competitors by which the claimant could have avoided the risk or the cost to him of loss or damage of the item?

Finally, the defence is a "kitchen sink" defence which attempts to lump everything in to one document regardless of the circumstances and should be seen simply as a piece of legal "stonewalling".

 

 

I think that will do for the moment

[jk2054]

Hi BF-

 

Just on point 5 - the sole valid one.

 

The shipment was returning goods I bought to Amazon. Since my Amazon account is a personal account, wouldnt it mean that for the purposes of this shipment specifically I am acting as a consumer?

[BankFodder]

No

[jk2054]

ok thank you

Next step is to wait for DQ correct?

[BankFodder]

Yes

 

So far as I understand the new system

[jk2054]

Thank you