Parcel 2 go / Evri painting stolen and sold on @John_Pye Auctions site

[BankFodder]

Okay it is up to you. You can either claim them all in one go or one by one.

You choose

Maybe you should start off with simply a couple of them as a bit of practise

[jk2054]

I think for this its best to do them all as one because the paintings have a similar value to the claim issue fee, and its pointless spending so much on issue fees.

Were they all sent by P2G?

 

[Complete Misfit]

Yes all of them were sent by P2G.

[jk2054]

Ok your target here is P2G.

Have you drafted a letter of claim yet?

[Complete Misfit]

I haven't started the letter yet as I was unsure about whether to claim individually etc, but as you mentioned claim issue fees it seems best to do them all. Is there a template letter I can use? Thanks.

[jk2054]

There isn't a template letter but I'd do something like this.

"

Parcel2go

1A Parklands

Lostock

Bolton

BL6 4SD

Letter Of Claim

Dear Parcel2go,

I write in relation to the following parcels [parcel numbers].

As you will be aware I used your delivery service to send these parcels and they have become lost. Despite this, you have failed to reimburse me for my losses.

As such, please take this communication as notice that I intend to issue proceedings against you after 14 days if this matter is not resolved.

I look forward to hearing from you with a resolution.

Kind Regards

[name]

_______

It need not be anything detailed, just need to detail the parcel numbers, what happened (lost) , the problem (failed reimburse) and set the deadline (14 days)

[Complete Misfit]

Ok thanks, should I mention one was stolen? they refunded me £10 for it, even though it was £100.

[jk2054]

No, you can't say stolen. You just need to say lost.

 

Whilst theres evidence it was likely stolen, it can't be proved. EVRi have a right to sell lost goods to an auction house. They class it as lost and sell it that's within their rights, so throwing stolen around really isn't a good idea.

[Complete Misfit]

Ok thanks, I'll send the letter tomorrow.

[BankFodder]

14 minutes ago, jk2054 said:

 

EVRi have a right to sell lost goods to an auction house. 

I'd like to see the source for this please.

I doubt very much whether they acquired these rights automatically

[jk2054]

Watch this BF. It's an exact copy of what';s happened here.

The selling to auction stuff is in this too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDV3wUVlwoc

[BankFodder]

Thank you – I saw that video a few years ago but in your post you said that they had a right to sell these items and the video doesn't tell me the source of that right

[jk2054]

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean?

 

Your post doesn't make sense to me?

[BankFodder]

You said that EVRi had a right to sell lost goods in an auction house.

I don't think they do – or at least not in these circumstances – but I have asked you to tell me the source of that right.
 

I don't think the video helps anybody very much and very importantly, it doesn't tell us what EVRi do with the money they get from the auction sales. That would have been really interesting to know

[jk2054]

they can sell/dispose of goods they cant deliver. That video says it exactly.

[BankFodder]

Sorry. The video says that they do do this – it doesn't say that they have the right to do it.

I would still like to see where they get the right to do this from. As I've already said, I don't think this is a right which automatically accrues to them.

[AndyOrch]

Quote

According to the show, a delivery schedule said that EVRi dropped parcels off at JBiddle and Webb auctioneers three or four times a week.

Delivery companies can sell items but can only do so after a reasonable amount of time and effort has gone in to track down and contact rightful owners.

 

EVRi couriers caught sending packages straight to auction houses 'three to four times a week' | Daily Mail Online

WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK

---

In tonight's episode of the Channel 4 show Joe Lycett's Got Your Back, the team discover delivery service EVRi are sending packages straight to...

 

[jk2054]

yes thats what i was referring to, thank you

[BankFodder]

Yes I understand that – but the video is wrong and the daily mail is very woolly about the amount of effort which needs to be taken and the amount of time which needs to be waited.
There is also absolutely no reference at all to what should happen with the money once the items are sold.

You should start looking up the law relating to abandonment of goods.  Res nullius - and although there isn't so much of a developed law in terms of terra firma abandonment, you can get some idea by looking at maritime law in relation to abandoned goods at sea – specifically flotsam jetsam and langam.

That lot for a start.

I think the bar would be raised somewhat in respect of parcel delivery companies treatment of loss parcels as they are the profit taker. It's not as if these were found goods in which case I think there will be lower standards.
These companies are the bailees of other people's property and frankly I think that there should be an accounting of the goods, the advertisement of the goods nationally and not limited to some local auction with very little publicity as to the items for sale.
"Reasonable time" should be generally speaking identified and then if a decision was taken to sell the goods, I think that after expenses had been met the money should be kept in an interest-bearing account for a period of time – probably a number of years – in much the way that banks operate suspension accounts – before eventually being applied to some agreed purpose.

Don't forget that the parcel delivery companies have received money to take the goods, to look after them while they are in their care and then eventually to deliver them.
It is clear from the video that many of the goods still bear addresses of the sender or of the recipient – and there is no way that the parcel delivery company has a right to sell those.
In respect of other goods which no longer have a label or the packaging has become damaged the contents of the parcels should be listed and publicise and an opportunity given to senders to make a claim.
I would hope that the parcel delivery companies maintain at least a database of items which people have attempted to claim – even if the parcel delivery companies haven't paid out.

At the end of the day, once unclaimed parcels without any evidence of the owner are then designated as abandoned, they should then be treated as found goods except that unlike in the case of a gratuitous finder, the parcel delivery companies should be required to hand over the money to various designated charities.
They have already earned their money from the delivery fee – which they haven't fulfilled. The rest of it is unearned and undeserved profit – possibly as a result of the parcel delivery companies' own negligence and they should not be entitled to benefit.

I am still waiting to see the authoritative source for the proposition that the delivery companies have a right to sell goods at auction.

If it is simply this video and if it is simply the daily mail and frankly we may as well do away with Parliament and with the courts – and the Common Law
 

[AndyOrch]

Quote

In the absence of any contractual provision, the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (“the TIGA”) will generally come into play. This allows the individual in possession to both (i) issue a notice requiring the owner to collect the goods, and (ii) issue a notice of intention to sell the goods if they are not collected. Any possessor should pay close attention to the notice requirements and this is a useful tool for (i) demonstrating compliance with the “right and reasonable” duty, thus justifying disposal, and (ii) establishing abandonment where the notice is ignored.

https://www.edwincoe.com/blogs/main/finders-keepers-losers-weepers-navigating-the-law-on-abandonment/

 

[BankFodder]

And that is just the beginning of what I am saying about the right to sell at auction.

[BankFodder]

And just to add – there is absolutely no public interest at all in allowing a parcel delivery company to sell off items for which it has been made legally responsible – they accepted the risk voluntarily – and then to keep the profits.

This has to be completely wrong. The parcel delivery companies haven't even met the most basic tests/requirements, it is self-serving and it smacks of something not a million miles away from a corrupt practice.

The videos on this and the daily mail article are quite frankly pretty sad and they are simply made for popular appeal and neither of them talks about what happens to the money – which is the most important element.

If anybody comes to this forum and identifies an item which belongs to them and which has been sold at auction by one of the parcel delivery companies, we will help them claim and as long as the evidence is there and we begin the claim, we will indemnify them for the value of their lost item and also their claim fees in the event that they lose the case.
In the absence of any evidence of due diligence by the parcel delivery company, we would also put in a claim for conversion contrary to the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. Because that is what we are dealing with here.

There we are – we have never made that kind of offer before.

It is incredible that we are learning that some items are sent to auction within a month. They are not publicised. They are not listed. There is no national exposure of these items. It seems to be some quiet cosy little arrangements with some auction house and frankly it smells rather unpleasant to me.

There is not even any evidence that there is some company-wide policy/procedure which has to be followed before it is decided that an item has to be dealt with by putting it up for sale.
Even worse, there is absolutely no evidence that there is any kind of national policy or procedure which governs the way that unclaimed items are dealt with.

It all seems to be extremely arbitrary. They make it up as they go along and of course because there is no publicity relation to the identity of objects which are being treated in this way, nobody protests.
Clearly the industry needs regulation and I would expect that one of the first things that would happen would be that a proper code of practice will be put in place for the handling of unclaimed items for which people have paid the parcel delivery companies to take care of.


In the absence of any evidence it is clear that the money is simply going to enrich the parcel delivery companies on top of the money which they have already charged for looking after safely the items which have been put in their care.

Why doesn't Joe Lycett and the daily mail concern themselves with these kinds of questions? The answer is that it doesn't attract viewers – lucky for the parcel delivery industry.

Am I really to understand that the parcel delivery companies have a right to do this???

[jk2054]

Their T&C's say " we may have to dispose of your Parcel."

Taking it to auction is disposing of it. 

[BankFodder]

Law in any jurisdiction is never subordinate to terms and conditions.
First of all these terms and conditions are far too vague. It can hardly be a condition or something that somebody signs up to – "we might have to dispose of your parcel".

Secondly, and in any event there would be an implied term that proper procedures could be followed to ascertain that the item is not a res nullius and also that the money will be properly applied and will be available if suddenly an owner suddenly appeared and claimed the value of the item.

Thirdly, the term would be considered to be an unfair term within the meaning of the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 And Also the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

We really do have to get away from the mindset that we are bound by a company's terms and conditions whatever they are. They are subject to very strict rules nowadays. We really shouldn't get hung up on terms conditions – otherwise any company could basically dictate any conditions to any person weaker than them and get away with it.

The days when terms and conditions were the end of the matter are over a hundred years ago. Even the Sale of Goods Act 1893 provided for implied terms which were capable of dislodging terms which were attempted to be imposed by a trader over a contracting partner.

And as matter of interest, most of the case law relating to ownership of goods and the abandonment of goods tends to be connected with the preservation of cultural property, found objects, treasure trove, and objects found at sea.

 

[jk2054]

I'm not saying they are right to/allowed to, I'm just saying they do and its well known that they send stuff to auction houses.