Polish Regulator Opens Proceedings Against Furgonetka Over Parcel Surcharges

Key Takeaways

• UOKiK Opens Proceedings: Poland’s consumer protection authority is challenging nine provisions in Furgonetka’s terms and conditions over potential unfair contract terms.
• Post-Delivery Charges Under Scrutiny: UOKiK is examining provisions that allow additional fees to be imposed after delivery based on information supplied by carriers.
• Evidence Behind Surcharges Questioned: The regulator said consumers are not guaranteed reports or other documentation supporting a carrier’s verification and the resulting additional charge.
• Complaints Process Raises Concerns: Consumers contract with Furgonetka, but disputed charges are ultimately reviewed by the carrier, while customers may still be required to pay the contested amount while their complaint is pending.
• Potential Fine of Up to 10% of Turnover: If UOKiK upholds its objections, it may prohibit the contested provisions and impose a fine of up to 10% of the business operator’s annual turnover.

Deep Dive

Poland’s consumer protection authority has opened proceedings against parcel-shipping platform Furgonetka over contract terms that allow additional charges to be imposed after delivery and require consumers to pursue complaints through carriers with which they have no contract.

The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, or UOKiK, is challenging nine provisions in Furgonetka’s terms and conditions. The proceedings will determine whether those provisions constitute unfair contract terms. The regulator’s concerns are about how Furgonetka handles additional charges when a carrier determines that a parcel differs from the specifications provided by a customer at the time of booking, and what happens when the customer disputes the resulting bill.

Consumers arranging shipments through Furgonetka select a carrier, but they do not enter into a contract with that courier company. Their contract is with Furgonetka, which commissions the selected carrier to perform the transport on its own behalf.

That arrangement becomes important when a carrier determines after a shipment that the parcel was heavier, larger or otherwise different from what the customer declared.

When booking a shipment, consumers provide information including the parcel’s dimensions, weight, shape and packaging. Furgonetka’s system uses those details to calculate the price. If the carrier later determines that the dimensions were different or that the parcel qualified as a nonstandard consignment, Furgonetka can charge the customer an additional fee.

UOKiK said Furgonetka does not verify the information supplied by consumers and does not require carriers to check those details when accepting parcels for transport. The company also does not guarantee that consumers will receive a report or other documentation supporting the carrier’s verification and the resulting surcharge.

According to the regulator, that means an additional charge can be based solely on information provided by the carrier, without the consumer having an opportunity to accept the revised price beforehand or withdraw from the contract.

“A parcel may pass from hand to hand, but responsibility must not disappear along the way,” UOKiK President Tomasz Chróstny said. “Consumers should know what they are paying for and under what circumstances.”

Chróstny said charges for handling oversized parcels should be applied only with the consumer’s consent. He also said consumers should not be referred, once a dispute arises, to a carrier with which they did not enter into a contract.

Consumers Question Post-Delivery Charges

UOKiK said it continued to receive complaints from consumers questioning additional charges after parcels had been delivered, including cases in which customers said they received no reports, photographs or other evidence substantiating changes to the specifications of their shipments.

In one complaint cited by the regulator, a consumer described sending five paintings to Spain for an exhibition and arranging their return through Furgonetka using the same declared dimensions and weights because the paintings were returned in the same packaging.

The customer said a 50-złoty additional charge was imposed on the outbound shipment. After the paintings were returned, the customer received another charge of 402.58 złoty, attributed to exceeded limits, additional services and parcel weights. The consumer questioned why the charges differed between the two journeys and said it was unclear what additional services had been provided. The complaint also questioned how two parcels declared as weighing five kilograms each had subsequently been recorded as weighing more than 30 kilograms.

UOKiK said it had previously taken action concerning Furgonetka, after which the company introduced several changes. Those included allowing consumers to upload photographs of parcels, providing links to carriers’ terms and conditions and changing the presentation of price lists on its website. The regulator said complaints concerning additional charges consumers considered unjustified or unsupported nevertheless continued.

Regulator Questions Complaints Process

UOKiK is also challenging provisions governing how customers dispute those charges. A consumer who disagrees with a surcharge submits a complaint through Furgonetka. According to the regulator, Furgonetka then forwards the complaint to the carrier and states that it is neither the addressee of the complaint nor responsible for handling it. The carrier decides the outcome even though the consumer’s contract is with Furgonetka rather than the carrier.

The regulator has also raised concerns about the deadlines established under Furgonetka’s terms. Consumers are required to submit a complaint and the necessary documents to Furgonetka no later than three days before the deadline established by the carrier. UOKiK said Furgonetka does not specify a binding deadline for forwarding the complaint to the carrier and provides in its terms that it is not liable for delays in doing so.

If the carrier rejects a complaint because it was submitted too late, the regulator said, the consumer may be left to pursue their rights in court against Furgonetka. The disputed terms also provide that filing a complaint does not suspend the consumer’s obligation to pay the contested amount. Customers must therefore pay the additional charge while disputing its amount or the basis on which it was calculated and wait for the carrier’s decision on the complaint.

The proceedings do not constitute a finding that the nine provisions are unlawful. UOKiK will determine whether they qualify as unfair contract terms. If the regulator upholds its objections, the President of UOKiK may issue a decision declaring the provisions unfair and prohibiting their continued use. The business operator could also face a fine of up to 10% of its annual turnover.

The GRC Report is your premier destination for the latest in governance, risk, and compliance news. As your reliable source for comprehensive coverage, we ensure you stay informed and ready to navigate the dynamic landscape of GRC. Beyond being a news source, the GRC Report represents a thriving community of professionals who, like you, are dedicated to GRC excellence. Explore our insightful articles and breaking news, and actively participate in the conversation to enhance your GRC journey.