Report: #956410

Complaint Review: UPS and The UPS Store

  • Submitted: Wed, October 17, 2012
  • Updated: Thu, October 18, 2012
  • Reported By: Mariam — atlanta Georgia United States of America
  • UPS and The UPS Store
    2625 Piedmont Rd NE
    Atlanta, Georgia
    United States of America

UPS and The UPS Store Completely Destroyed Package and Refused Insurance Claim No Accountability Atlanta, Georgia

*Consumer Comment: WOW

*Consumer Comment: Though I offer suggestions, you likely won't agree.

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

I shipped three 50lbs packages of glass vases to my mother in-law for my brother in-law's wedding.  They were brand new heavy duty shipping boxes weighted for an 80lbs maximum.  I carefully packed each box.  Two of them arrived as I had sent them and one box went missing for a day.  When my mother in law received it the box was COMPLETELY destroyed!  Now the UPS Store and the UPS Corporate office will not take any responsibility for the destroyed box and all the vases inside.  I have
contacted both numerous times, UPS "Damage Exception Group" refuses to discuss the case with me and said The UPS Store must contact them on my behalf.  The UPS Store said that there is nothing that they can do.  I can't understand how there is no sense of accountability on either side and that I am not refunded what I paid in shipping plus replacement value.  I even paid extra for insurance!  Please make this unethical practice known so other viewers can make more informed decisions when
shipping items.
Is this Ripoff Report About you?
Ripoff Report A business' first line of defense on the Internet.
If your business is willing to make a commitment to customer satisfaction Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation? Fix it the right way. Corporate Advocacy Program™

Set the record straight: Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 10/17/2012 06:03 PM and is a permanent record located here: The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!

Updates & Rebuttals


#1 Consumer Comment


AUTHOR: The Outlaw Josey Wales - (United States of America)

 this is about the longest rebutt I've seen
Respond to this report!

#2 Consumer Comment

Though I offer suggestions, you likely won't agree.

AUTHOR: seeworthy - (USA)

First of all most, but not everyone, understand that there has to be packaging guidelines. Most anyone would agree that you can't take a ten year old defunct laptop and insure it for $2000, then put in a claim that it's not working after it is delivered. Likewise, a person shouldn't be able to go to a thrift store and buy an old eight serving set of chipped dishes for $25, pack it in a used box with a whole Sunday newspaper for padding (any paper is horrible packing material), insure it for $500, then collect on a claim when it arrives smashed.

Is it safe to assume everyone agrees so far? I think so.

Now, to prevent a claim free-for-all, there are packaging guidelines. These guidelines are similar with all corporations in the industry. If those packaging guidelines are not met, damage claims will not be approved. The intended logic is that the industry standards for packaging was not met and therefore was the fault of the damage. Three inadequately packed similar shipments do not mean all three will have damage, or does it mean they were packaged properly if only one suffers damage. It merely indicates packaging that increases the likelihood of damage incident ratios that are unacceptable to the industry. Disagree? Refer back to the first paragraph. Without these guidelines, claims and subsequent shipping cost would sky rocket and fraud would run rampant.

This is where the disagreement may begin: No one disputes that each box wasn't "carefully packed". 'Carefully' and 'proper' often vary and are victim of opinion. That, again, is where the packaging guidelines are used. These guidelines include such details as: Distance between item and corrugate wall; type of padding used; rating/original condition of container; weight vs. fragility of contents; etc. Too complicated? Didn't read any carrier packing guidelines easily found on the web and don't ever intend to? Those guidelines come down to one simple test: Can the package withstand a 30" drop. If not, it is prone to potential damage for which a claim most likely will not be approved by any carrier.

The box in the picture appears to be one previously used for another purpose. It also appears that it was compressed, indicating inadequate internal fill or material. How that used box was determined as "weighted for an 80lbs maximum" ('maximum' is the key word) was speculative, if not possible at all. Numbers on the rating seal indicate edge crush resistance when new and have nothing to do with weight capacity. For fifty pounds, that rating should be 275ECT. With it being 50 pound of glass, the shipment should have either been double boxed or split into lighter weight shipments. Was there a minimum of 2-3" of space between the vases and the sides of the box? Were the vases in their own individual boxes? If not, were the vases filled with peanuts or bubble wrap so as to prevent them from becoming the internal support structure of the heavy shipment? Was each vase wrapped in atleast two layers of 1/2" bubble? And even if they were, FIFTY POUNDS??

At fifty pounds, the bubbles on the plastic wrap will pop under the weight, protecting the glass with only a plastic sheet. With inadequate padding, a vase would easily break. When a vase breaks, the collapsed space (if there was no fill in it) caused movement inside the box. The large box, since it was large and heavy, also will sit on the bottom of other packages. With the space developing inside, the cardboard can handle little pressure on the outside without compressing. Internal contents will also shift and may promote further breakage.

Regardless of where the fault lies, the delay of one of three boxes was caused by this phenomenon. Accountabilty is as much a responsibility of the packaging person as it is with the shipper. That independently owned UPS Store operates the same as your local homeowners or car insurance agent. They neither packaged the shipment nor shipped it. Most problems are resolved to the satisfaction of the customer but, obviously, there are cases that will not be. The information they gather is not a UPS Store's decision, but they get the joy of being on the receiving end of frustrated customers.

I operate a facility that ships with all available carriers, including FedEx and USPS. I've been in business for over a decade. If those vases were packed here and similar shipped every single week, we would not have had a single broken vase...ever. There is a reason for that. We merely package to the shipping guidelines. Glassware takes significant time and materials. If a customer wants to do it safely themselves, just pack it the same. If still confused, ask that UPS Store for a copy of the claim denial. It the same as the copy that would have come from FedEx. The form defines where the guidelines were not met. It will also give suggestions as to how to meet those guidelines, which should be applied for any carrier chosen for future shipping.
Respond to this report!
Ripoff Report Recommends
ZipBooks Accounting Software

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.