£1600 of Items, paid via PayPal Credit - not fit for purpose - returned but damaged by DPD - Also purchased Secursus parcel insurance

[MrsSl]

The broken item retails at £2199 brand new, but he bought it from the retailer as a pre-owned item (this is not unusual as there are a lot of trade ins in this market given the high value of items).

He’s estimated the value at £1200 based on how much they sell for on the second hand market 

[BankFodder]

Okay well you are going to sue DPD for £1200. You better start accumulating a fair amount of evidence to support your estimate of the value of this item.

I've lost the plot a bit. Have you written a letter of complaint to DPD and have they responded?

If you haven't then this is your next step and you should do it straightaway. Post a draft here

[MrsSl]

Hi, no complaint sent to DPD as yet, just the initial communication with them when they refunded the postage cost and gave £50 compensation. At that point we had thought Secursus would pay up.

Will start drafting a letter tonight.

Will also ask retailer for their estimated costs based on the price of their bundle.

I had wondered if we might be covered via PayPal Credit given he paid using that?

[BankFodder]

I don't know enough about PayPal credit to comment.

I don't think the retailer's got anything to do with it anymore.

More than eight hours ago I did ask you whether there had been anything signed or any conditions or anything attached to the payment of £50 and I don't think you addressed that question. Is there a reason for that?

[MrsSl]

Sorry, I advised earlier that I couldn’t answer at the time as my husband dealt with that and he was at work today.

He accepted the £50 via DPD’s online portal. It was a case of clicking “accept” - there don’t appear to be any T&Cs visible in the portal or in the emails they sent him 

[BankFodder]

Okay I missed that. Please let us know when you can.

 

[MrsSl]

Hi - here is my draft letter of complaint for review - thank you very much for the advice and assistance received so far.

please note two things

- firstly

I need to add in some date/address details so I have highlighted them in here.

Secondly

I need to contact the retailer to request their pricing for the damaged item (this is the item my husband estimates to be valued at £1200).

However, I do have a concern that he has also paid for the item that was not damaged but the retailer will not refund this due to being sold as a bundle so he is still out of pocket for that, unless he can sell it second hand.

I’m therefore wondering if it is best not to proactively include this detail unless DPD specifically ask for it in their reply? 

many thanks again though. All advice on the draft complaint letter is appreciated:

Quote

 

Dear DPD

Complaint re claim: ref XXXXX 

On XXXX I sent two parcels via DPD to a retailer, Guitar Guitar (add address here). The parcels contained a Suhr guitar amplifier head and speaker cab, sold as a bundle valued at £1,599. 

I had purchased them from Guitar Guitar a couple of weeks before and enclose a copy of the receipt showing the price paid for the goods. Guitar Guitar couriered them to me via DPD. I received them on XXX date, but unfortunately found they were not suitable for my needs and so I arranged to return the items to Guitar Guitar for a refund in the original packaging that they were sent to me in.

This was two separate boxes due to the size and weight of the items concerned. Each parcel weighed approximately 16kg. I can provide dimensions and exact weights if required. Due to the value of the parcels being £1,599 I also took insurance through a third party company, Secursus. 

I arranged for the parcels to be collected by DPD Door2Door from my place of work on XXX date and they arrived at Guitar Guitar on XXXX date. I received an automated notification from Guitar Guitar stating that they had received my items.

Approximately 30 minutes later they contacted me by email to advise that one of the items, the guitar amplified head, had been badly damaged in transit. The outer casing is broken, meaning there is also a likelihood of damage to the delicate electrical components inside.

As such, they could not accept my return or issue me with a refund and have sent both parcels back to me as they were sold as a pair. They advised the items had been well packaged and sent photographic evidence of the breakage.

I immediately contacted Secursus to claim on the insurance I had taken with them. On their advice, I also raised a claim with DPD as courier. This claim was raised on 6 December 2023 and I provided copies of all information requested, including photos of the damaged item. DPD approved my claim and offered a payment of £50 as well as a refund of £21.29 for carriage costs on 7 December 2023. 

I notified Secursus of this offer. They advised that I needed to accept as this would confirm DPD’s liability as courier and would allow them to process my claim. I therefore accepted DPD’s offer and it was processed on 8 December.

Secursus are now denying my claim and are refusing to make a payment. I have sought consumer advice to deal with the matter as I obviously cannot afford to be £1,599 out of pocket, and it has been brought to my attention that Section 57 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 makes it clear that any term or contract which excludes or limits the liability of the company towards its customer is invalid.

As DPD’s terms and conditions state that “the Company’s liability… for the loss or damage to any goods… shall be limited… unless the Customer has purchased ‘Extended Cover’” I believe that not only are your terms unfair, but they are specifically prohibited by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

This Extended Cover insurance requirement removes my rights under the Consumer Rights Act that the service paid for by me, and provided to me, should be carried out with reasonable care and skill. The requirement to take out Extended Cover effectively grants me that right only if I pay an additional fee.

This amounts to an attempt to restrict or exclude your liability, which is contrary to Section 57 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The rights conferred by the Consumer Rights Act are ‘rights’ and therefore do not need to be bought or paid for in any way. This is specifically prohibited by Section 47 of the Act.

I would further argue that as a service provider, it cannot be correct that you expect the customer to have to bear the cost of compensating for negligence arising when the parcels were being transited by DPD employees. 

As DPD have already admitted liability for the damage, I request that you compensate me for the losses I have incurred in full under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. 

I would not have accepted the compensation already paid had I not been informed by Secursus that I needed to, and I should not be £1,599 out of pocket due to negligence caused by DPD employees.

 

 

 

 

[jk2054]

which dpd website was this sent from?

 

You need to be careful here because DPD is two companies

[dx100uk]

IMHO thats far too detailed and too long.

dx

 

[BankFodder]

I have made some substantial edits to your letter.

Elsewhere on this thread I have already sent you to forget Secursus but you keep on going on about them in this letter.
You don't seem to understand that your relationship with Secursus has got nothing to do with DPD. It is your own problem. You walked into something where you been ripped off. By referring to it all the time, you are simply making things more complicated and in fact I can imagine that DPD might even come back and say that you are insured elsewhere in that is your business.

Leave it alone!

Elsewhere you have referred to section 47 of the consumer rights act. I'm afraid that this makes it clear that you are simply copying stuff blindly without understanding what it is about. Do you know what section 47 refers to?

Bringing this claim against DPD will be relatively straightforward but you must understand what you're writing rather than simply copying stuff directly from previous posts and without understanding it.

Have a look at the edits which I have made and post up another draft of the letter and we will see. It is nearly good to go but it needs a bit of tweaking – but you need to understand what you're writing.

Also, I notice that at the end you haven't actually put a value of what it is you are seeking and why you are seeking that value. So basically your complaint is almost – that they damage the parcel and you want some money – and that's it.

In need to be a bit specific about what you want. And how you come to that figure

[MrsSl]

Many thanks BankFodder and sincere apologies as I had added a comment to this yesterday morning thanking you for the feedback on your edit and advising I would work on a redraft last night. 

I have now updated the letter and we have also had written confirmation from the retailer that the items are sold as a pair and not individually and therefore the claim needs to be for the full value of £1,599 and not the estimate we had of £1,200.

The new draft is as follows - any further guidance is gratefully accepted.

Quote

 

Dear DPD

Complaint re claim: ref XXXXX 

On XXXX I sent two parcels via DPD to a retailer, Guitar Guitar (add address here). The parcels contained a Suhr guitar amplifier head and speaker cab, sold as a pair valued at £1,599. 

I arranged for the parcels to be collected by DPD from my place of work on XXX date and they arrived at Guitar Guitar on XXXX date. I received an automated notification from Guitar Guitar stating that they had received my items.

Approximately 30 minutes later they contacted me by email to advise that the guitar amplifier head – which contains delicate electrical components – had been badly damaged in transit. The outer casing is broken, meaning there is also a likelihood of damage to the components inside.

As such, they could not accept my return or issue me with a refund and have sent both items back to me as they were sold as a pair. They advised the items had been well packaged and sent photographic evidence of the breakage.

I raised a claim with DPD on 6 December and was offered a payment of £50 as well as a refund for the costs paid for carriage.

DPD’s terms and conditions state that “the Company’s liability… for the loss or damage to any goods… shall be limited… unless the Customer has purchased ‘Extended Cover’”

Having investigated further, I now believe that not only are your terms unfair, but they are specifically prohibited by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

As a trader providing a service to a consumer, this requirement to take Extended Cover insurance removes my rights under the Consumer Rights Act under a number of criteria:

1. The requirement to take out Extended Cover amounts to an attempt to exclude or restrict your liability, or limit its extent, unless I enter a secondary contract and pay an additional fee. This is specifically prohibited by Sections 57 and 72 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Liability that cannot be excluded or restricted and Supplementary Provisions on secondary contracts)

2. That the service paid for by me, and provided to me, should be carried out with reasonable care and skill (Section 49).

3. Section 57 clearly states that a term of contract to supply services is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would restrict the trader’s liability arising under Section 49.

4. Section 57 also clearly states that unfair terms apply if this would prevent the consumer from recovering the price paid or the value of any other consideration; and if a person was put at a disadvantage as a result of pursuing such a right or remedy.

The rights conferred by the Consumer Rights Act are ‘rights’ and therefore do not need to be bought or paid for in any way. 

I would further argue that as a service provider, it cannot be correct that you expect the customer to have to bear the cost of compensating for negligence arising when the parcels were being transited by DPD employees. 

The item that was damaged in the consignment retails at £2,199 new (see attached evidence), but was sold to me as pre-owned at a price of £1,599. The retailer has confirmed that the items are logged as a pair and are not sold individually (see attached email from them advising this).

As DPD have already admitted liability for the damage, I request that you compensate me for the losses I have incurred in full, at the value of £1,599, under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. 

 

 

[BankFodder]

You have only done a lot of homework. It's a very thorough and competent letter.

I would suggest that you approach the retailer immediately and get written confirmation that they are only sold as a pair.

It is going to be very unfair that this was a second hand item and I suppose you will have difficulty replacing it for the same price – but fingers crossed.

Send the letter. Let us know what response you get by about the second or third – probably 3 January.

If you don't hear anything by then then send a letter of claim.

I'm quite sure that they will knock you back anyway so start preparing your letter of claim and post a draft here.

The letter of claim can be fairly short as it can refer to the letter above which are proposing to send so you can simply lay on the line and give them a deadline.

I think that you can expect to issue a claim by about 18 January