Stolen Limelight Precision...

[knicknack]

Just helping out my friend Mark of Classic & Cool Guitars/Limelight basses. Hope this is the best place for it but feel free to move it!

 

It was last seen in a tweed traditional-style case. I don't know if the new owner is a member here!

 

Hoping to make it too hot to handle... Here's what Mark has to say:

 

On the 29th/30th December this bass was stolen on route to its new owner in Nuneaton.

It was collected by Parcelforce, arranged via Interparcel.

The bass is a one off completely unique instrument and won’t be easy to off load for cash. It is a custom made Limelight bass in Ice Blue Metallic, made to look like a bass used by Coldplay.

An investigation into its disappearance was made, but it was declared “as lost”, and couldn’t be found. I’m not happy with this as ParcelForce know which driver was collecting that day, and the depot it should have been delivered to next.

This has cost me over £1000 personally. The Police will be informed.

If you see this bass offered for sale, do not buy it as its stolen goods and will be confiscated.

 

 

 

[wateroftyne]

That's bloody lovely.

 

Shocking behaviour by Parcelforce. I hope it surfaces soon.

[Kev]

Not the cleverest theft, shouldn't be top easy to sell on!

 

Hopefully insurance has covered it though and no-one is out of pocket?  If Parcelforce are declaring it lost, they've accepted liability for it.

[Jakester]

34 minutes ago, Kev said:

Not the cleverest theft, shouldn't be top easy to sell on!

 

Hopefully insurance has covered it though and no-one is out of pocket?  If Parcelforce are declaring it lost, they've accepted liability for it.

That sucks, sorry to hear that. 
 

I don’t think Parcelforce offer any enhanced compensation for musical instruments unfortunately, despite taking the money for it. 

[Kev]

1 minute ago, Jakester said:

That sucks, sorry to hear that. 
 

I don’t think Parcelforce offer any enhanced compensation for musical instruments unfortunately, despite taking the money for it. 

 

It was sent through interparcel, who sell their own insurance rather than rely on the couriers, or at least used to.  You'd have to pay for it of course, but can't imagine any shop would send anything uninsured, surely?

[knicknack]

Slightly related but a little too late for this case... i insure my valuable packages through Secursus. £10 per £1000 value roughly, and i've had them pay out before for a damaged speaker. Cheaper and more dependable than the broker/courier scammy insurance with a ton of clauses. Worth a look for sure!

[RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE]

Have you condemned both parties on all social media outlets ( Trustpilot,farcebook, X etc ) ?? If not I’d do that asap ! 

[Sean]

No opinion here, just facts and the assumption that this bass bears "that logo":

 

1. Stealing counterfeit goods is a crime, no doubt and this incident undermines our confidence in couriers. 

2. Buying counterfeit goods isn't a crime in the UK.

3. Making and selling counterfeit goods is an offence. 

 

Here's the conundrum just as an observation.

If the seller/maker of the counterfeit goods reports a theft of those goods to the police they will have to give a description of the goods, which should include some facts about them not being genuine but "replica". If it bears an unlicensed, unauthorised trademark. We've had the conversation on BassChat about the IP and whether or not it's wrong many times over the years but as far as I know the police haven't. 

 

Counterfeit goods are generally confiscated, they aren't returned because they breach intellectual rights. 

 

Interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Sean

[miles'tone]

It's kind of Basschat lore to always opt for UPS Premium when using Interparcel as musical instruments are covered that way.

I hope that there's a happy ending to this tale...🤞

[Bass Direct]

So sorry to see this, if we get offered anything here I will let you know immediately

[knicknack]

Thanks @Bass Direct

 

Not getting into the more complicated aspects of this, just sad that someone waited a few months for their custom order and NBD was a washout. I’d be gutted, and it’d be awesome if we managed to find it for them. 

Edited 7 hours ago by knicknack

[ossyrocks]

Lots of people use Parcelforce. Bass Bros shipped a vintage '73 Jazz to me via Parcelforce.

[Kev]

15 minutes ago, ossyrocks said:

Lots of people use Parcelforce. Bass Bros shipped a vintage '73 Jazz to me via Parcelforce.

 

I would assume they arrange insurance elsewhere for the shipment.

[jonnybass]

16 hours ago, Jakester said:

That sucks, sorry to hear that. 
 

I don’t think Parcelforce offer any enhanced compensation for musical instruments unfortunately, despite taking the money for it. 

If you are declaring whats in the package and they take the money, I would think its insured.  My understanding would be if you said its a bass guitar worth £1,000 and they said its £20 for insurance for that, its insured, regardless of terms and conditions, as you have entered into a contract and exchanged money based on the information given.  

 

Jonny

[jonnybass]

bloody lovely bass too, hope it finds its way to the rightful owner.

 

Jonny

[Kev]

5 minutes ago, jonnybass said:

If you are declaring whats in the package and they take the money, I would think its insured.  My understanding would be if you said its a bass guitar worth £1,000 and they said its £20 for insurance for that, its insured, regardless of terms and conditions, as you have entered into a contract and exchanged money based on the information given.  

 

Jonny

 

Unfortunately its like any other insurance policy, if there's an exclusion excluding something it doesn't matter if you've paid for it or not, that's on you to check the coverage is suitable.  If you specifically ask the question and the Parcelforce employee or whoever tells you it would be covered, whole different story.  Otherwise, the website links to you Terms and Conditions before you buy.

[Lozz196]

16 hours ago, Jakester said:

That sucks, sorry to hear that. 
 

I don’t think Parcelforce offer any enhanced compensation for musical instruments unfortunately, despite taking the money for it. 

Yes, it’s up to the buyer to read their small print, which specifically states no musical instruments. They’ll take the money and then when they lose it say it was in the T&Cs, this is a reading issue.

[fretmeister]

2 minutes ago, jonnybass said:

If you are declaring whats in the package and they take the money, I would think its insured.  My understanding would be if you said its a bass guitar worth £1,000 and they said its £20 for insurance for that, its insured, regardless of terms and conditions, as you have entered into a contract and exchanged money based on the information given.  

 

Jonny

 

 

No - the terms specifically exclude enhanced compensation for musical instruments. When you buy it you tick a box saying that you fully accept the terms as presented - including confirming you agree to exclusions and compensatory limits.

 

They did give the information and they get the customer to tick the "I read it all and agree" box before paying. It's just that customers never bother to read it. It's not PF's fault that the customer decided to not read it, especially as the act of ticking the box saying "I've read it" when they haven't is clearly a lie.

 

I never use them for instruments.

[jonnybass]

Sorry but I dont think this would stand up to challenge, if you tell the employee its a bass worth £1,000 they either accept the risk on behalf of the insurer and insure or refuse, a firm cannot knowingly sell insurance which is not applicable.  This is what happened with PPI.  I would be interested to see how this would stand up to the FCA or the relevant ombudsman.  I think its more likely that the firm rely on not asking and agreeing and instead referring people to the T&C's.

 

Jonny  

[Kev]

22 minutes ago, jonnybass said:

Sorry but I dont think this would stand up to challenge, if you tell the employee its a bass worth £1,000 they either accept the risk on behalf of the insurer and insure or refuse, a firm cannot knowingly sell insurance which is not applicable.  This is what happened with PPI.  I would be interested to see how this would stand up to the FCA or the relevant ombudsman.  I think its more likely that the firm rely on not asking and agreeing and instead referring people to the T&C's.

 

Jonny  

 

Working in insurance, I can tell you that it would very much stand up to challenge.  The same way that if you buy a home insurance policy in a flood plain and your insurers exclude flood damage, there is zero chance if you get flooded you will be able to make your insurer pay you. Exclusions are exclusions, and it is not reasonable to expect a salesperson to read out every single exclusion to check it suits your needs.  These are what are called non-advised insurance sales, where the customer is provided with the information to make a decision.  The onus is on you to check if it suitable and tick the box.  Its why Insurers have to offer cooling off periods, to allow you time to do this, though this obviously doesn't apply with cover like this.  There is a separate, highly regulated type of insurance sale called Advised, where the onus is on the broker to take a risk presentation and find the most suitable policy, but this is mostly commercial and certainly wouldn't apply here.

 

Again, if you have evidence that you asked the specific question of a salesperson and they told you that the exclusion would not apply for whatever reason they could give, its a different matter and misselling may raise its head, but if I read that exclusion I'd want something in writing off them explaining why it doesn't apply, as otherwise I'd be buying something I can read is not suitable.

[fretmeister]

34 minutes ago, jonnybass said:

Sorry but I dont think this would stand up to challenge, if you tell the employee its a bass worth £1,000 they either accept the risk on behalf of the insurer and insure or refuse, a firm cannot knowingly sell insurance which is not applicable.  This is what happened with PPI.  I would be interested to see how this would stand up to the FCA or the relevant ombudsman.  I think its more likely that the firm rely on not asking and agreeing and instead referring people to the T&C's.

 

Jonny  

 

 

I did 20 years in insurance related litigation and other stuff.

 

It stands up in court. The only time they ever have a problem is if it's done over the phone or counter and a RM/PF employee doesn't answer questions properly.

If it's online it is actually impossible to pay the money until the customer has stated they have read it and accepted the exclusions and limits.

 

They have been very careful in the drafting of the terms - setting compensation amounts at zero would be a lot harder to defend, so they don't do that. IIRC the amount is £200 no matter what. In doing so they already admit they have liability BUT the customer specifically agrees that the amount is limited to £200.

 

RM/PF do not lose these cases: the customer bought a service that was clearly explained and the customer accepted that explanation. They specifically tell the customer then specifically ask the customer if they agree and they don't take payment until the customer says they agree.

Edited 1 hour ago by fretmeister
Spelling

[jonnybass]

I think we are talking about two different things, i am talking about the employee and customer interacting, not the designed process.

 

Im no lawyer, and havent worked in insurance litigation, but as i said, I believe that if its discussed and the agent takes the money I'd still say its insured, as otherwise the employee is taking money they are confirming cover of the insurance policy, but what your talking about is a process where that doesnt happen.  The clicks wont work that way online and id imagine the scripts for the process prevents such an occurance. like you say "if they dont ask the questions properly" that could cause a problem.  The tick in the T&C's is to show the firm hasnt hidden exclusions and the person knows, but if the agent acting for the insurer deviates from the T&C's, accepts money and confirms cover my understanding would be the FCA or ombudsman would view that as accepted to vary the insurers terms and conditions.

 

As i said if you are discussing it with the employee and they know whats in the box, they cant take money for insuring it if its not insured. That is the whole basis of the years of PPI refunds of employees accepting insurance payments for situations they knew were not insured. 

 

But as i said i dont work in insurance litigation.

 

Jonny

[Kev]

3 minutes ago, jonnybass said:

I think we are talking about two different things, i am talking about the employee and customer interacting, not the designed process.

 

Im no lawyer, and havent worked in insurance litigation, but as i said, I believe that if its discussed and the agent takes the money I'd still say its insured, as otherwise the employee is taking money they are confirming cover of the insurance policy, but what your talking about is a process where that doesnt happen.  The clicks wont work that way online and id imagine the scripts for the process prevents such an occurance. like you say "if they dont ask the questions properly" that could cause a problem.  The tick in the T&C's is to show the firm hasnt hidden exclusions and the person knows, but if the agent acting for the insurer deviates from the T&C's, accepts money and confirms cover my understanding would be the FCA or ombudsman would view that as accepted to vary the insurers terms and conditions.

 

As i said if you are discussing it with the employee and they know whats in the box, they cant take money for insuring it if its not insured. That is the whole basis of the years of PPI refunds of employees accepting insurance payments for situations they knew were not insured. 

 

But as i said i dont work in insurance litigation.

 

Jonny

 

So in the case you are talking about, you are effectively talking about the Post Office, and the salesperson there who has taken your money as an agent for the insurer, correct?  On this basis, the insurers/parcelforce will 100% decline the claim and you would stand zero change of overturning that, so I guess what you're actually left with is taking the post office to court, with any legal assistance you have have with your home insurance or similar.  The prospect of success there would be so low I doubt any no win no fee would take it on for you.  What would you be relying on, CCTV, audio recordings at the desk? You'll have nothing to prove you were told the wrong thing.  And the terms and condition explicitly state the guitar contents of your parcel are not covered for enhance protection.  Of course, there could be things in the package that are covered, the guitar case perhaps, string packs in the case etc so you have still been sold insurance for the right reasons, complicating it further.

 

Don't get confused with PPI and all that business, entirely different kettle of fish.  Here we're just talking about straightforward exclusions in an insurance product that you're choosing to buy, and are only able to buy after you have confirmed you have read the prohibited list.

 

Best advise; don't use Parcelforce if you want you're guitars covered, and definitely don't on the basis that you can challenge them if something happens.  You'll lose, sadly.

[jonnybass]

24 minutes ago, Kev said:

 

Working in insurance, I can tell you that it would very much stand up to challenge.  The same way that if you buy a home insurance policy in a flood plain and your insurers exclude flood damage, there is zero chance if you get flooded you will be able to make your insurer pay you. Exclusions are exclusions, and it is not reasonable to expect a salesperson to read out every single exclusion to check it suits your needs.  These are what are called non-advised insurance sales, where the customer is provided with the information to make a decision.  The onus is on you to check if it suitable and tick the box.  Its why Insurers have to offer cooling off periods, to allow you time to do this, though this obviously doesn't apply with cover like this.  There is a separate, highly regulated type of insurance sale called Advised, where the onus is on the broker to take a risk presentation and find the most suitable policy, but this is mostly commercial and certainly wouldn't apply here.

 

Again, if you have evidence that you asked the specific question of a salesperson and they told you that the exclusion would not apply for whatever reason they could give, its a different matter and misselling may raise its head, but if I read that exclusion I'd want something in writing off them explaining why it doesn't apply, as otherwise I'd be buying something I can read is not suitable.

I dont work in general insurance but I'd say thats apples and pears, an insurance policy that covers mulitple options with exclusions is different to a one off contract for a specific purpose. 

 

The point i made is that when the agent is presented with information on the item being transported, the exclusion shouldnt apply if they have accepted the insurance premium.  Contracts are two way, if the insurer doesnt know whats in the box the exclusion can apply but i still fail to see how if the insurer knows whats being insured, that the item cannot be insured that they can accept the premium.  that act in itself would fail to meet FCA principles surely?

 

 

Jonny

[Marc S]

Sorry to hear this. Lovely looking bass. Mark does a top notch job, I must say.

 

Sadly, this all adds to my reluctance to use couriers 😞