rev:text
| - Wow! Here is my story. I set up an account with DHL through this office for my charity foundation for shipping goods to Tanzania. I received an agreed upon rate sheet. I shipped what was less than 50lbs of computers, that they then packed to weigh over 100lbs in their crates. OK, so maybe I pay $1000 based on weight according to their rate sheet. But wait, there's more!
I received an invoice for $2,922! One package was a 10lb package with three modems that they charged me $800 and the additional $2100 cost was for the six laptops. The laptops are used and valued at less than $1000 so I have to pay three times the value for shipping! When I asked why in the world it cost $3000 DHL told me that it was based on volumetric shipping and not weight. Do you think they could have told me this BEFORE I shipped?
I looked up volumetric and it's when by charging only by weight, lightweight, low density packages become unprofitable for freight carriers due to the amount of space they take up in the truck/aircraft/ship in proportion to their actual weight. So, they take a 3'x3' box, turn it into a much larger box with wood framing, etc., and boom, I get charged $3000. This was NEVER told to me. Why was I given a rate sheet for weight if they charge based on volume?
Maybe I'm naive to have assumed that the rate sheet provided would be what I would be charged. Not only do they add on an additional 100 pounds to the shipment for packing, they then volumize it to a ridiculous amount.
Seriously, $3000 for shipping what was originally 50lbs is unbelievable. I had heard bad things about DHL but now I know first hand what it feels like and am now $3000 poorer for the experience.
The only reason I am giving them two starts is to their credit, they offered to adjust the rate and save me about $600. He emphasized how much time and effort it would take to do this so I can envision the nightmare of getting late payment notices, reported to credit bureau, etc., so I will pay the invoice and hope I never have to ship anything with them again.
|