Thank You Parcelforce, for ridding the world of a PRS.

tone1

It will cost me hundreds of pounds by the time it's done and dusted.......

Creed_Clicks

One of the reasons I play bolt on guitars as much as possible is this nightmare scenario.

TINMAN82

ICBM said:

TINMAN82 said:

I’d have thought the strings slacken momentarily when the neck flexes forward (shortens) on impact, rather than pull it further.

To stop it being pulled further than the movement due to the inertia alone, the strings would have to go down to fully slack, or there is still a force pulling the neck forwards. See how far you have to bend the neck to achieve that . Don’t try this with your best guitar .

Not to get bogged down in semantics, but if the neck flexes forward, it shortens and the strings slacken slightly. That’s why the pitch lowers with a headstock/neck bend in that direction right? I’m not suggesting the strings are so slack as to lose their pull, but they will momentarily be pulling less until which point the neck recoils back into a straight position. I’m just wondering at which point the neck snaps! Not that it really matters in the scheme of things, but it may have a bearing on why detuning helps.

pjf

Creed_Clicks said:

One of the reasons I play bolt on guitars as much as possible is this nightmare scenario.

Do people often send electric guitar necks and bodies separately? By that I mean, in the same package, but with the neck taken off from the body.  

DefaultM

UPS did almost exactly the same to mine, but it was a CE so the neck was fine and the pocket shattered.
It was similarly double boxed and really well packed but all they did was ask for photos of the packing and then reply saying "we don't damage packages, and if we do they mustn't have been packed well enough".

duotone

pjf said:

Creed_Clicks said:

One of the reasons I play bolt on guitars as much as possible is this nightmare scenario.

Do people often send electric guitar necks and bodies separately? By that I mean, in the same package, but with the neck taken off from the body.  

@pjf ;;

Have bought 3 bolt on neck guitars online (1x Squier /1x Ibanez / 1x Line6) & 1 bass (1x Ibanez) over the years and they all came with the neck attached to the body.

dcg

You have my 100% sympathy; some years ago, Parcelforce did the same for me with a G&L George Fullerton Signature Legacy.  I ended up settling with the buyer, who fortunately was very kind about the whole episode.  But for this to happen to a set neck guitar means PF are truly the special ones...hard to not see this as maliciously bad handing on their part

richh

If you buy a new bolt on neck guitar, it will be shipped to you in one piece.  But I've taken a Tele apart to ship in a suitcase on international flights, with the body in a suitcase and the neck in hand luggage.  Then easily re-assembled at the other end.  You don't have to do this, but it is an option, and as @Creed_Clicks says, you've generally got a lot less to worry about with a tele or strat surely.

DeeTee

Johnnyseven said:

If it was deemed to be missold surely all you're likely to get back is a refund for the cost of the insurance?

Yes, usually. The only argument I might make is that, in giving me insurance that's unsuitable, they've denied me the chance to get insurance that would have been suitable, and would have paid out in this case.

Johnnyseven

DeeTee said:

Johnnyseven said:

If it was deemed to be missold surely all you're likely to get back is a refund for the cost of the insurance?

Yes, usually. The only argument I might make is that, in giving me insurance that's unsuitable, they've denied me the chance to get insurance that would have been suitable, and would have paid out in this case.

I think that'll be a difficult argument to make but hopefully it works out.

JezWynd

DeeTee said:

Johnnyseven said:

If it was deemed to be missold surely all you're likely to get back is a refund for the cost of the insurance?

Yes, usually. The only argument I might make is that, in giving me insurance that's unsuitable, they've denied me the chance to get insurance that would have been suitable, and would have paid out in this case.

Either way it’s worth taking the case to the small claims court; minimal outlay for the seller and the possibility that RM will roll over rather than face bad press.

In my experience it’s standard practice for the Post Office to ask what’s in the box and for its value. Once they know the value they always try and get you to take out appropriate cover. ‘Appropriate’ is the key word here. Could be cut and dried at small claims if it’s presented in the right way. Definitely worth a punt imo.

tone1

@JezWynd That’s exactly what happened.. they ask me what’s in the box, I tell them it’s a guitar, they ask me it’s value, I’ll tell them, they say to cover it’s value they sell me an insurance policy without explaining what it is I’m buying which is not allowed when you sell insurance products...what’s the process for small claims court? 

DeeTee

With my professional hat on, small claims court wouldn't be the way to go. The Financial Ombudsman Service handles complaints about insurance. You used to have to go through the complaints process with the seller of the insurance first, but you can go directly to the Ombudsman now.

Lodious

tone1 said:

@JezWynd That’s exactly what happened.. they ask me what’s in the box, I tell them it’s a guitar, they ask me it’s value, I’ll tell them, they say to cover it’s value they sell me an insurance policy without explaining what it is I’m buying which is not allowed when you sell insurance products...what’s the process for small claims court? 

I think you have a good case (sorry, that wasn't meant as a tasteless pun), surely they can't sell insurance and if it's not covering the item then say 'soz, here's your money back'. 

DB1

You could very reasonably argue that if they had told you that the insurance didn't cover guitars (instead of telling you that it did) then you would have used a carrier that did insure it and would therefore not have suffered a financial loss. I don't know if that's a legal argument, but it seems a reasonable one. 

tone1

Thanks Guys...

sixstringsupplies

I have 500 Switchcraft switches due to arrive tomorrow via Parcelforce. It's in 2 boxes. Recipe for disaster. This thread means a sleepless night!! Hope you get the guitar fixed and back to you ASAP. I'm sure @IvisonGuitars will sort it right out.

77ric

tone1 said:

@JezWynd That’s exactly what happened.. they ask me what’s in the box, I tell them it’s a guitar, they ask me it’s value, I’ll tell them, they say to cover it’s value they sell me an insurance policy without explaining what it is I’m buying which is not allowed when you sell insurance products...what’s the process for small claims court? 

I am not entirely sure that will work purely on the technicality that they don’t sell ‘insurance’ but ‘enhanced compensation’, I’ve got a feeling deep in the back of my mind somewhere that it’s not regarded as insurance in the way you would normally consider it. Still always worth a shot of course. 

Musical instruments are excluded from the enhanced compensation, but I can’t see anywhere in the literature that says musical instruments are excluded from the basic compensation that is included, so you may at least get something back to cover or at least offset the cost of the repair. 

Either way the difficulty I see is in proving that the hard case it was sent in was actually suitable for the intended purpose. So be prepared for that angle. 

I do think that it is a little unfair to expect the post office staff to be aware of all the restrictions and exclusions for upwards of a dozen different services especially with regards to Parcelforce which on average forms fewer that a couple of percent of the offices entire throughput, most of which will be prepaid services. After all it is Parcelforce that cant handle a parcel carefully that is the issue. 

JezWynd

77ric said:

tone1 said:

@JezWynd That’s exactly what happened.. they ask me what’s in the box, I tell them it’s a guitar, they ask me it’s value, I’ll tell them, they say to cover it’s value they sell me an insurance policy without explaining what it is I’m buying which is not allowed when you sell insurance products...what’s the process for small claims court? 

I am not entirely sure that will work purely on the technicality that they don’t sell ‘insurance’ but ‘enhanced compensation’, I’ve got a feeling deep in the back of my mind somewhere that it’s not regarded as insurance in the way you would normally consider it. Still always worth a shot of course. 

Musical instruments are excluded from the enhanced compensation, but I can’t see anywhere in the literature that says musical instruments are excluded from the basic compensation that is included, so you may at least get something back to cover or at least offset the cost of the repair. 

Either way the difficulty I see is in proving that the hard case it was sent in was actually suitable for the intended purpose. So be prepared for that angle. 

I do think that it is a little unfair to expect the post office staff to be aware of all the restrictions and exclusions for upwards of a dozen different services especially with regards to Parcelforce which on average forms fewer that a couple of percent of the offices entire throughput, most of which will be prepaid services. After all it is Parcelforce that cant handle a parcel carefully that is the issue. 

I take your point and you may well be right. Looking at the .gov site for small claims, they state - You can apply to a county court to claim money you’re owed by a person or business. On reflection, it might not be the right venue for a claim even though it could be presented as such (presuming they deny payment).

I think it is reasonable to expect Royal Mail staff to sell you the correct cover, especially for a costly item. At the very least the counter staff should be able to ask a manager or similar for the correct information.

Headphones

Surly the word "negligence" must enter here?

If the guitar was damaged by PF, while reasonably well packaged...  Then they are liable - regardless of their "terms".

Their care of the item has not been, in any way (as demonstrated by the arrival state) reasonable.  So they should surely recompense the victim.

Maybe there's some rather unusual precedent here, but that seems a simple "reasonable" argument.