When Keith Fletcher sold a set of football cards on eBay he chose delivery by Hermes, buying insurance online in the process. The package was never seen again and tracking suggested it had never left the drop-off point. But Hermes refused to compensate him. It declared that the item was “memorabilia”, and thus excluded for compensation under its terms and conditions.
“I’d checked the list of exclusions and couldn’t find any reason for these cards not being covered,” says Fletcher. “It defines memorabilia as ‘photographs, signed items and vinyl’. How could anyone know kids’ football cards are included?”
Hermes backed down following intervention by the Observer and revealed that its staff had been similarly bewildered by the vagueness of its exclusions. The company admitted it had confused “memorabilia” with “collectables”, which are covered, and paid out the £90 Fletcher had to refund the buyer.
He is one of several Observer readers to have been left out of pocket when insured goods went missing in transit. Delivery companies absolve themselves of liability with long lists of prohibited and restricted items, some so ill-defined that those who do trouble to read them can’t know if their package is included or not.
Banned goods include obvious items such as explosives and “human flesh”, but also some unexpected things. Yodel, for instance, refuses to deliver fur-trimmed clothes, costume jewellery or mobile phones.
Confectionery, clocks, cheques and “personal items” are prohibited by DPD, while TNT forbids 123 categories – from aftershave to wheels – and refuses to pay for the loss or damage of 63 more, such as chocolate and posters. None of the major players will carry liquids, pastes or gel in any form.
It appears that to keep costs down, couriers exempt anything remotely likely to suffer through manhandling, along with hazardous cargo. While customers might accept that fragile items are more susceptible to damage, there’s no reason why they should be more liable to getting lost.
“There is no greater risk of losing a football than losing football cards,” says Fletcher. “Hermes was negligent in losing the item, misleading in using vague undefined terms in its insurance exclusions, and dishonest in taking money for insurance on excluded items.”
Whereas DPD and TNT flag up goods that are noncompliant as soon as they are specified on their order forms, Hermes allows customers to book delivery and offers insurance cover for a prohibited and restricted item, even though they are required to describe the contents of the package on the order form.
Small print tucked discreetly at the bottom of the web page merely advises “there are a few items we can’t carry” and invites customers to click through to two lengthy lists, including baffling catch-alls such as “composite items of any description”, “plant derivatives” and “items that can be exchanged by themselves or with any other item, for money, goods or services”.
Stewart Monks was caught out when he used Hermes to deliver a £169 pair of binoculars. The firm informed him that the parcel had been lost, but that the insurance was invalid because items containing glass are excluded from cover. “I would accept breakage of glass is a reasonable risk,” he says. “But how does that affect them being lost?”
The binoculars, in any case, had plastic lenses, a fact Hermes only conceded when the Observer intervened. The company apologised for the “misunderstanding and inconvenience” and finally paid out.
Critics suspect that firms such as Hermes, which use shops as drop-off points, are using insurance exemptions to dodge liability for theft and loss due to inadequate security.
EBay seller Martin Toll used Hermes to send a £270 camera lens but it was never even logged as leaving the drop-off point in a Londis store.
“The pile of parcels for collection by the courier regularly extends some three metres beyond the counter in front of the wine shelves,” he says. “Any small parcel is vulnerable. The day I dropped off my parcel, there was just one young man at the counter serving parcels and general customers. Not a secure arrangement.”
Three weeks after he dispatched the item, Hermes confirmed it had been lost, but said he was not entitled to compensation because it contained glass elements. “Nowhere on its list of exclusions was photographic equipment mentioned,” he says. “It isn’t as if I sent something fragile and it arrived broken. The parcel appears not to have left the shop premises.”
Hermes, which now specifies cameras and lenses as excluded items, eventually refunded the £270 as a “goodwill gesture” after the Observer got involved, and ordered the Londis branch to improve security.
“Our team makes regular scheduled visits to every ParcelShop to review all aspects of the operation, which includes security and storage,” it says. “Our strict criteria state all parcels should be placed in a secure area away from the general public. Any internal or external reports of noncompliance are addressed immediately. As a result of Mr Toll’s allegations we visited this ParcelShop to reiterate the way parcels were stored is not acceptable. We will continue to review the situation.”
DHL also fails to alert customers who enter a prohibited item on their order. Its website unquestioningly accepted my dummy booking for narcotics worth £2,000 and offered insurance for £30. A “Prohibited Items” tab in grey print next to the description box is the only clue I’d be wasting my money. The invitation to check a list is on another part of the page.
DHL says: “Customers can view prohibited items at several points in the booking process. Prior to payment, the customer has to select a declaration to confirm the shipment does not contain any of the items listed. We’re always looking to ensure customers understand the terms.”
Fletcher, Monk and Toll all paid the price for ruthless cost-cutting that allows courier firms to undercut rivals. Sending a 500g package via Hermes’ next-day delivery is £2.85 compared with £14.88 at Parcelforce, which has minimal restrictions, more generous insurance and flags up any order included in its prohibited items.
Complaints about insurance sold by delivery firms has soared, according to Martyn James of complaints website Resolver. “We’ve seen 2,087 cases in a year,” he says. “The terms of these policies are often horrendous and it’s hard to see how they might ever pay out in some circumstances. You may as well stick a fiver on the package and hope for the best.”
Yodel told the Observer it prohibited items to “minimise risk”. DPD explained it was to protect customers from the consequences of their own poor packaging skills. “We know that if certain goods are incorrectly packaged, there is a higher possibility of damage or loss,” it says.
Hermes says it is reviewing its policy of excluding listed items from cover if they are lost or damaged.
“We do assess this on a case-by-case basis,” it says. “In the meantime our advice remains to carefully read the excluded list at the point of order.”
