Complaints.com

Consumer Message

From: Message Author
Date: Wednesday, 08-Aug-07 15:04:40 CDT

Business Info

Name of Business: The UPS Store

Address: 9530 Hageman Road RM B

Bakersfield, CA. 93312

Name of Business: United Parcel Services

Address: 55 Glenlake Pkwy NE,

Atlanta, GE.

 

Dear Complaints.com,

Complaint History and facts concerning the same:

On July 17, 2007, I paid the UPS Store at 9530 Hageman Road, in Bakersfield

California to insure and ship a cell phone to Dyersburg Tennessee. On the

20th of July the cell phone was returned damaged to me. When I informed the

owner of the UPS Store of the damage, I was told to contact UPS and report

the damage. Upon contacting UPS, I was told that I was not the shipper and

therefore the UPS Store would need to file a damage claim. When I contacted

the owner of the store concerning what UPS told me, I was then told that the

UPS Store as a courtesy to their customers, did in fact file claims for

their customers, if the UPS Store chose to do so. The claim was filed on

the 20th of July and I was notified by the UPS Store that my claim was

denied by UPS on the 25th of July, due to what UPS claims was "insufficient

packaging." The UPS Store owner at that time told me that they had no

control over what UPS did and that there was nothing that I nor they could

do about the decision of the claims department at UPS.

On the 25th of July I contacted UPS again and notified their claims

agent/employee that I was not satisfied with their denial of my claim and

that regardless of who I collected the money for insurance and shipping, the

cell phone belongs to me and I would expect UPS to honor the claim as I was

not advised to purchase additional packaging and was never advised that the

packaging I shipped the phone in was "insufficient." The agent/employee

responded by telling me that the UPS Store was their customer, as I paid the

UPS Store to ship and insure the phone. Furthermore, I was told by said

agent/employee that UPS has no affiliation whatsoever with The UPS Store and

that the UPS Store should of told me that the packaging was insufficient.

The agent/employee gave me the phone number to the UPS Store's corporate

offices, which I called today August 8th, 2007. During my conversation with

the customer service agent/employee of The UPS Store / Mail Boxes Etc., I

was told that the UPS Store maintains the position that their franchises are

engaged in the packaging business and that they do not advise customers on

rather the packaging they are shipping something with is sufficient or not.

She further advised me that the UPS Store is not responsible for telling a

customer that when a customer pays The UPS Store to ship an item, that by

doing so, the customer becomes a customer of the UPS Store, not UPS. The

agent further stated that The UPS Store / Mail Boxes Etc. is not a UPS

company. It is interesting to note that The UPS Store / Mail Boxes Etc. was

purchased by United Parcel Services in 2001 and that many of The UPS Store

franchise owners are joining together in California and suing United Parcel

Services over contract issues involving shipping costs. The UPS Store /

Mail Box Etc. corporate consumer relations avers they are not owned by

United Parcel Service shipping, but refuse to comment on their affiliation

with United Parcel Services.

 

Cause of Action:

I aver that any reasonable person visiting a business called "The UPS

Store" would believe by seeing UPS trademark logos, that they were in fact

doing business with UPS. It is interesting to note that The UPS Store

franchises do not ship with any other carrier. Any consumer has the right

to expect that a company engaged in packaging item(s) for shipment would

advise the consumer of the risks associated with shipping an item or items

using insufficient packaging; as deemed by the chosen shipping company. I

would also expect that any reasonable person would expect to be advised,

either verbally and or in writing, that the customer would have to rely on

the courtesy of The UPS Store to resolve their claim with UPS. In a

nutshell, I am not a shipping expert. I paid The UPS Store to insure and

ship my package. I had no idea that I was dealing with a business that was

not owned by UPS; much like the implied relationship between FedEx and

Kinkos. I was not told, either verbally and or in writing, that if there

was a problem with my shipment, that UPS would refuse to accept a claim from

me. Should a consumer expect to be advised and or warned by a packaging

company, regardless of what the business name is, concerning what a shipping

company considers and or deems sufficient packaging? Should a packaging

business that displays the corporate trademark logo and uses the name of a

well known shipping company, advise their customers that they are not owned

by the shipping company? In my opinion, I believe that I should have been

advised and or warned concerning the packaging of my cell phone and the fact

that I was not doing business with UPS directly and thus if a problem arose,

I would have to deal with the UPS Store to settle the problem, who by secret

policy, does not accept liability for shipping damages.

Conclusion:

I believe that The UPS Store should display a notice in a highly visible

place, notifying their customers that they are not technically* owned (*with

emphasis) by UPS and that anything a customer ships in their stores,

regardless if insurances is purchased or not, is shipped at the consumers

own risk. Furthermore, regardless of the legal technicalities that The UPS

Store and or UPS enjoy, I paid for shipping and insurance through UPS.

Simply because UPS bills the account of the UPS Store for the shipping and

insurance expenses, I nevertheless still paid UPS and therefore, in my

opinion, UPS is as liable to me as they are to The UPS Store. It is also

important to consider that when a consumer pays any packaging company to

ship and insure an item or items, a consumer has the right to expect that

they are paying the company not only for the service, but for their

expertise in shipping and insuring item(s). For a packaging company to

claim that they are simply a conduit or third party, with no responsibility

to their customers in reference to informing their customers of the risks

associated with said shipping, should not be deemed by any court of law as a

defense to a claim of liability. Furthermore, using General Motors Company

as an example, regardless if you buy a car that is trademarked Chevrolet,

Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Cadillac, Buick or GMC, they are all still manufactured

by General Motors Corporation. Simply because United Parcel Services and

United Parcel Services Shipping are separated by legal jargon that creates a

loophole for liabilities and or tax purposes, when a consumer does business

with the UPS Store they are doing business with UPS and should expect UPS to

be responsible for shipping services provided through the UPS Stores.

Comment On This

From: Message Author
Date: Monday, 12-Nov-07 15:06:16 CST

Business Info

I have dealth with several claims in regarding The UPS Stores. It is important to have the stores pack the item. If you have any questions regarding the claim and your options, please feel free to e-mail me at: trs7778 AT yahoo.com. The UPS Store has some liability when shipping your item for you. Take care. - Travis Stephens