The eBay seller Jordan Thomis took the precaution of insuring the £165 shoes he was sending to a buyer. It was just as well because the parcel was collected from the drop-off point by the courier firm DPD and never seen again.
But when Thomis made a claim, DPD refused to pay because, it insisted, the parcel contained a prohibited item.
“I was prompted to check the list of prohibited items when filling out the online order and footwear did not appear,” he says. “Nor was it flagged as prohibited when I identified footwear in the item description box.”
Lists of prohibited and restricted items are supposed to prevent customers sending hazardous, illegal or fragile substances, or lodging large claims for lost valuables. Couriers reserve the right to refuse to carry such items or, if they discover the contents of a parcel are illegal or unsafe, to destroy them.
UK consumers need clear idea of cost of EU purchases, Which? saysRead more
It is no surprise that couriers balk at carrying human flesh, firearms and old master paintings. Less expected is their objection to confectionery, designer goods or photos. Some exclusions appear so vague customers are left baffled by what qualifies.
UPS and DPD ban “personal effects”. Hermes says it will not offer compensation for “composite items of any description” and “items which can be exchanged by themselves, or with any other item, for money or goods or services”.
The lists provide an opt-out clause for some delivery firms to deny liability if they lose or damage parcels of a wide range of everyday goods – even when customers have paid extra for insurance.
Hermes and UPS accept online orders and invite customers to pay extra to increase the compensation threshold even, it seems, if a customer identifies banned contents in the mandatory description box. Both appear to rely on a line of easily overlooked small print directing customers to check the list of prohibited items.
Yodel doesn’t require customers to specify what they are sending, so matches to the prohibited list cannot be flagged. It is only halfway down the terms and conditions that “plant derivatives” and “composites” are alongside ammunition and radioactive materials on a long list of banned or restricted items.
The other big couriers do, at least, stop an order in its tracks if a banned item is identified – but only if the wording matches. Filling in a form and saying you are sending trainers, for instance, would not flag up a shoe ban, and the prohibition of liquids, creams and gel imposed by most couriers may catch out anyone specifying a gift set of toiletries as the contents of their package.
Thomis had checked DPD’s prohibited list for footwear. It wasn’t mentioned but shoes were excluded from cover.
View image in fullscreenYodel doesn’t require customers to specify what they are sending. Photograph: Alex Maguire/Rex/Shutterstock
When asked by Guardian Money why the company prohibits shoes and, as a result, will not pay compensation for their loss, it claimed that the category had been listed in error and agreed to pay Thomis the full value of his missing parcel.
Shoes have since been removed from the list but any customer sending an ornament, or cheque, or any of the 160 items ranging from bulbs to seat belt tensioners that DPD prohibits will find themselves without recompense if they go astray.
Because the extra cover sold by delivery firms is a built-in extension of their conditions of carriage rather than an insurance policy, it is outside the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service, so customers can’t seek arbitration.
The prohibited lists have allowed firms to avoid liability for inadequate security at drop-off points, and for mistakes by overstretched drivers.
Linda Burke White chose Hermes to deliver a £75 Le Creuset casserole and paid for extra insurance cover. “While I was sitting outside the drop-off shop, the courier collected all the parcels, balanced them on a low wall and the whole lot fell off,” she says.
The cast-iron casserole was badly damaged, as was a second identical one posted days later, but Hermes refused to pay out for either item, claiming they were prohibited.
It then ignored four emails from Burke White demanding to know where the exclusion was stated. Only when Guardian Money intervened did it backtrack and pay out. “The claim was rejected incorrectly as these items are covered, and the customer service representative involved has been made aware and will be undertaking additional training to ensure this doesn’t happen again,” it says.
Complaints about courier firms to the website Resolver have tripled over two years, with inadequate communications and the refusal to accept liability for loss and damage common issues. “Delivery company exclusion lists are often ludicrous and incomprehensible,” says the marketing manager Martyn James. “What’s particularly galling is the fact that delivery firms are happy to take your cash but fail to highlight what you can’t send, then sell you insurance you can’t claim on either.”
Hermes told Guardian Money that it is amending its website to prevent customers unwittingly placing orders to send prohibited or restricted items, and removing some of the more bafflingly worded bans. It is also looking at cover that pays out if a prohibited item is lost, rather than damaged, in transit.
“In the meantime, our customer services team will make goodwill payments in clear-cut cases where loss is the primary issue,” it says.
DPD says it prohibits items that, if not adequately packaged, might break or put workers at risk. When asked why customers aren’t alerted if they try to send a banned item, it insists that the required information is on its website.
Yodel declined to comment.
