parcels2go.com damaged a brand new RS6 wheel

[David's8]

This business of having to purchase "extra" insurance to cover the responsibilities of the provider and the carrier is beyond belief. It means that they can absolve themselves of all the consequences of THEIR actions by making you pay for the cover they should be paying for. If that were the case they would probably take greater care of their products.

How can that work?

[HPsauce]

Something of that size and mass and vulnerability needs special protection.
Audi seem not to have provided it, so that would be my first "port of call".

I'm often amazed just how much packaging is used these days, but having worked in distribution businesses for many years I know exactly why.

I had a package arrive today containing 70cl of some very valuable Scottish fluid (a birthday present to myself) and it would have needed a steamroller going over it to cause any damage!

[Dan]

This is all very interesting. I, like David am of the view that it is wholly unacceptable that, in effect, you're forced to shell out to insure against them not performing the contract with reasonable skill. It's madness. They presumably have public liability insurance. Insurance is a normal expense of running a business, and is reflected in the end price. In short, why should you have to pay extra to protect yourself against their incompetence? This is a nonsense. In a business contract, you can (generally) agree what terms you like, fair or not. In a consumer contract, you have the protection of the raft of consumer protection legislation, including the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

They are obliged to carry out the performance of the contract with reasonable skill. Of that there is no doubt. There can also be no doubt that dropping the box fails that test. They are therefore liable because they have breached a fundamental term of the contract. The remedy for breach of contract is a claim in resulting damages. Here, the resulting damage is the cost of a new wheel. The question is whether their T+C's, seeking to limit liability to £20 or £50, is "reasonable". There are arguments both ways.
If you spend a tenner to send a package of diamonds worth £1m and they lose them, would you expect them to have to fork out £1m? Common sense dictates probably not. It would probably occur to you that you might need to consider specific tailored insurance.
However, in this case, they were aware of the value of the wheels as that was declared. They were aware that no additional cover was selected. Despite all this, they accepted the business. It is at least arguable that in doing so, they assumed the risk up to the value known to them in the event they were negligent. No-one forced them to take the order. They could have refused. They could insist that insurance to the value is mandatory and give you the price. They however seek to limit their liability. The issue is whether to do so is a breach of the Unfair Contract Terms Act. The danger for them is that to test this by allowing a punter to take them to Court risks a finding that it is a breach. That would have serious consequences for their business model, and the industry generally. I suspect a finding at first instance may be appealed, given the wider policy issues. It might be for example, that for such a model to be sustainable, their prices would have to increase significantly. Complex actuarial evidence would be required.

My personal view is that if they knew the value of the goods, and chose to take the business, but did not clearly and specifically draw the customer's attention (despite knowing) to the fact that their goods were only insured to 2% of the value (over and above the usual "tick here to confirm T+C's have been read - 99% don't and they know it) then they ought to be liable if they then damage the goods though their negligence. I think this is a reasonable UCTA argument. I think they would not want that tested in Court. I think the commercially sensible thing for them to do would be to pay for the damage they have caused. If they want to claim that back on their own insurance, that's a matter for them.

[David's8]

There you go Roberto, "pro bono" advice from the forum's legal eagle. It cant get better than that - tho' we havent heard Dezzy's point of view yet!

I would use the points laid out by Dan to submit a claim for a new wheel. Good luck.

[M-A8]

Morning boys

Only thing I would say is the way you place the order for anyone who haven't use them before

You fill the usual until you get to page where you describe in two words your parcel and VALUE of your parcel.

Then you go to next page which says: Standard cover for your parcel is £50, to insure your shipment for the full value of £xxx you can purchase additional cover for £xx. We strongly recommend this option.
If you click NO message pops out saying, are you sure?? If you do not purchase additional cover you would be covered for the full amount bla bla bla being responsible for any damage bla bla bla.

Thast how they try to cover them self.

Same as royal mail, you wouldn't post your passport just by second class without a tracking or a 500quid iphone with a second class or even frist class stamp, would you?? You wouldn't because it does not cover you for the full value of it. Its your responsibility to choose if you want to take the risk or not, that why post office lady will always ask you whats your parcel worth, and give you relevant options and tell you if you choose one which does not cover you for the full amount..
For iphone or passport we use special delivery, why, because it has relevant cover and we know that !!!

You wouldn't come back to this lady if your phone gets damaged or missing and ask for a full compensation if you asked for a basic 41pounds cover, would you??

I'm not saying it is right at all, thats why Audi would be first on my list, they have send you an egg in a jiffy bag.

[roberto]

first of all
the wheels retail at £711 each plus vat
they were brand new old stock which i discovered
so i snapped them up for £250 each plus vat (bargain)
i arraigned the courier

so having a go at audi ? im not sure, the supplying dealer? or audi uk?

[Dan]

I think they mean the supplying dealer from whom you bought them. Did you take any photographs of the packaging (or have you retained it)?

I agree there is a potential argument that if they were damaged from being dropped, that alone is evidence that they were not sufficiently protected.

Will email you later mate when I get a minute..

[mannyo]

The damage does look easily fixable should things get difficult, hopefully the compensation payout would cover the repair.

[HPsauce]

Given they were old stock at a knockdown price the repair option seems to be the most pragmatic, relatively hassle-free, way to go.

[roberto]

trouble is i already have a set of 4 wheels (refurbished repaired painted)

and the colour never looked right like originals

so i thought 4 brand new wheels is the way to go for me

i have now got 4 brand new wheels after buying the last 2

but pacels2go have took me back to 3 again

the chances of finding another brand new one is slim

i dont want repaired painted wheels

i want original

thats why i bought them