Originally Posted by hafle
Indeed. There are always scrotes but stuff gets through. It wasn't far previous to this that Ryan sent me a Speedmaster using DHL with zero issues.
Ryan V started this thread on Nov 3rd and had already reported the disappearance of the watch.
Nobody is asking the insurance company to just shell out money but I would have expected them to have done the investigation by now.
I would be careful about that. There was a post on here a while ago about RM not paying out for lost items if the value was more than the insured amount, on the theory that high value goods are too likely to be stolen/damaged to be covered, so the insurance limit is also a limit on the max value of goods you can send and be covered at all. I called them to clarify and they (a) would not give me a straight answer and (b) could not point me to any written policy document with the full terms & conditions of the insurance cover.
So I don't know the truth of the matter, but the way they described their claims process did not instil me with confidence that this could not happen. It seems to boil down to "whatever the claims adjuster feels like on the day goes".
You do however have evidence of the exact value of the specific watch, which is whatever you sold it for. Assuming it was paid by bank transfer you can just provide that line of the bank statement (and corresponding refund) as evidence. If they want to check for forgery, they know who the buyer is (and his address!).
Of course if it was insured for less than the sale value you might still have the same problem. Don't know if DHL policies differ from RM, but would seem like a good idea to proceed with caution regardless.
I interpreted the RM insurance thing as they insure up to a value, if your shipment is worth more the insurance is null and void. I would be worried if this was mine that DHL say that the insurance valuation was incorrect and therefore invalid. I'm a worrier so always go with a worst case scenario..
As a comparison point, Royal Mail's view of suitable evidence of value includes things like PayPal receipts, credit card receipts, bank statements, etc. that show actual value paid. In addition, the full paper trail (even though it's now electronic) is useful, i.e. emails, PMs, and so on. It's all evidence backed by your statement that it is true.
As a general point, when officialdom says "we want an invoice", don't just say "I don't have that" but point out what you do have (e.g. final confirmation PM or email, which is most certainly equivalent to an invoice in that it shows who is involved, the price, date, etc.) and bank/CC/PP statements showing payment sent/received, and so on).
Last edited by markrlondon; 21st November 2017 at 23:50.
The more evidence the better, in my opinion. Having a screengrab of the transaction to back up your actual bank/PP statement is ideal.Every time I make any kind of payment by Bank Transfer I take a screengrab of the transaction's confirmation, so I have a jpeg that has a datestamp within a minute of the payment itself.
Though presumably I'm not recording any information that isn't going to appear on my bank statement, and so am just merrily wasting my time.....
It is worth noting that bank statements are increasingly online only, so increasingly in the future you're only ever going to have print outs of screengrabs or PDFs or similar.
The courts are fully aware of this reality, from what I have seen. And it is important to think about what courts would think because they are the final arbiter of any dispute between a customer and supplier. But also remember that payouts from compensation-style services (and what the courts can enforce) depend as much on the Ts&Cs you have agreed to as on the value of the item lost/stolen.
I don't think so. This is pretty much the timeframe that I'd expect. It's a large sum of money and so they must quite reasonably be sure that what they are being expected to pay out is justified.
This is the investigation. It takes time, and understandably and reasonably so.
Part of it, I suspect, is waiting a bit to see if the claimant just gives up.
Last edited by markrlondon; 21st November 2017 at 23:39.
I think there was a mini discussion on the draft thread a few weeks ago regarding the Royal Mail not paying out if the value was more than £2500.
Can't remember who but one member phoned to enquire about the details of this and was informed that this was an older policy and that he wasn't aware of any such conditions of insurance in place now.
If you go on their website there doesn't seem to be any information on this so I'm not so sure on this anymore.
See the many threads I've posted on this subject. :-)
Maximum compensation amounts and all Ts&Cs are documented by Royal Mail (and are all available on their website, in fact) and what applies to what depends on the specific product/service you're using and on what you're sending. Maximum compensation for loss of or damage to an item sent by RMSD is £2500. RM staff should have been able to give you a straight answer to this effect. They should also have been able to point you to the Ts&Cs and 'Scheme' documentation (the latter being set out in statute). The information is all available, even if not very clearly set out.
As for paying out if the value of an item is over the maximum compensation value, the full Ts&Cs make it crystal clear that RM is under no obligation to pay out a penny under such circumstances.
There are anecdotes (and I do not doubt the veracity of these anecdotes) about RM actually paying out the maximum compensation value for lost items valued at over this level but RM were and are definitely under no obligation to do so. They were just feeling nice that day, it would seem.
Rest assured, I've done the research with references to source documentation. :-)
It's been a while since I've updated it and I'll do that in due course on my own blog. But don't hold your breath.
And on how persistent and assertive the claimant is!
Yes, this is suitable evidence of value.
Last edited by markrlondon; 17th December 2017 at 19:58.
The OP said earlier that they were just completing a search of the warehouse in the last couple of days.
That would seem very slow to me.
What I'm saying is a good insurance company would put your mind at ease rather than stress you out even more.
Ok. I can only say that it's exactly in line with what I would expect from what I have read and experienced myself (albeit not with DHL).
They are not an insurance company.
Instead it's a courier company that is being asked to pay out on its own compensation scheme (which is most likely not insurance-backed, i.e. they probably self-insure). They are not in a hurry.
Remember also that the primary job of the people doing the investigation is most likely to avoid making any payout or to minimise any payout that must be made.
Last edited by markrlondon; 22nd November 2017 at 00:08.
They're big areas search. There isn't a high tech way of looking for a small item like a watch in a huge building full of small items like watches. Whilst still working.
But it's not like the parcel actually went missing
The parcel was delivered but had been opened and the watch removed.
Do you honestly think that they have spent umpteen days searching a warehouse for a long gone watch.
I agree with Marks assertion that it is a delaying tactic but as stated earlier if this didn't end well what would be the point of using DHL.
AIG Europe are the providers of the insurance policy for DHL according to the website.
I believe they will have checked the possibility of it still hanging around. It's a lot of money that they will be paying because someone they already pay appears to have stolen it. Of course they don't want to pay out and will be looking for a reason not to, but they'll want to know what happened too and won't want to leave it at 'it got nicked'
Interesting, thanks. And actually quite surprising to my mind.
There's an interesting PDF here: http://www.dhl.co.uk/content/dam/dow...vice_guide.pdf
In my opinion it is not entirely clear from the PDF if the insurer (AIG Europe) is insuring DHL or is insuring DHL's customers. The implication of the document is that the customer of DHL is being insured but the document nevertheless requires that claims by the customer be sent to DHL, not the insurer.
As always in these things blurred lines don't tend to favour the claimee!
Good grief. Very poor advice given there!
It's bad advice in this case, with such high value watches, but there are many instances where I elect to self-insure over taking out insurance.
Up to what value do you chose to self insure?
For watches? Only those under £100-250. For other things (event tickets in the mail, refundable train tickets, gadget insurance, extended warranties etc) I do it far more often.
That's covered by base level RMSD at that value. But this thread is about a several thousand pound watch, so you wouldn't have self insured in this case, correct?
Quite so. ;-)
Not comparable.
Correct, which is why I say it's bad advise in this case. I'm just saying I can see where his reasoning is coming from, just not applied to the extent he has.
[QUOTE=alexaff;4570222]Good grief. Very poor advice given there
Great result after a lot of stress I’m sure.
Glad it all worked out, 34 days is not that bad really, could have been a lot worse.
Great news!!
Thank the lord you didn't do what pskinner does!
Well done. From what I have heard, 34 days is indeed pretty good going.
See my various posts on this subject, e.g. http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...=1#post4559211. There are a few alternatives to using DHL.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
