Thieves steal £150k worth of Pop Mart toys
The toys retail from £30 but have sold on eBay for as much as £1,000. The most valuable is the £164 Monsters Zimono I Found You doll, according to the Pop Mart website.
A spokesman for Pop Mart said he was 'deeply saddened' by the 'recent rise in toy theft', adding that he was 'working diligently' to ensure it didn't impact the launch next month.
A spokesman for Hertfordshire Constabulary said: 'Police are investigating following a theft from a motor vehicle in Hemel Hempstead.
'Between 1.30am and 5.27am on Tuesday April 8, a trailer curtain was cut on a HGV parked on Eaton Road, causing extensive damage. A large number of items were reported stolen.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Courier
3 days ago
- The Courier
Angus pensioner went on Orkney knitwear shoplifting spree
An Angus pensioner went on a summer shoplifting spree in Orkney. Allison Anne Marnie has been ordered by a sheriff to pay more than £1,300 to compensate the losses suffered by four craft and gilt stores. The 67-year-old had travelled with her husband and were staying in an AirBnB when she carried out the thefts. Marnie was sentenced at Kirkwall Sheriff Court earlier this month, having previously pled guilty by letter to thefts of knitwear from four outlets. The court heard she had later sought to sell some of her haul on eBay. She took goods totalling nearly £1500 from Starlings gift shop and Judith Glue's store in Kirkwall, on July 7, and from Orkney Souvenirs in Kirkwall and The Quernstone in Stromness, on July 12. Sheriff Robert McDonald had continued the case for a background report and to establish the extent of the losses incurred by the businesses. Procurator fiscal Sue Foard said none of the traders had made an insurance claim due to the high excesses they would have had to have paid. While many of the items had been recovered undamaged, she said by the time they were returned, they were viewed as old stock and out of season, meaning they could not be sold at the original price. The knitwear included cardigans, scarves, mittens, gloves and socks. Defence solicitor Fiona MacDonald said Marnie suffered from adverse mental health which had been exacerbated by the death of a close family member and believes she had 'some form of breakdown.' The accused had accepted responsibility at the earliest opportunity and was willing to recompense the retailers, she said. The Orcadian newspaper reported shop owners were unhappy with the result of the case. One, Fiona Mitchell of Castaway Crafts, said she had first reported the stealing spree after noticing goods on eBay. A not guilty charge to stealing from her store was accepted by prosecutors so she is not included in those receiving compensation. Judith Glue said she had expected a punishment element from the court, as well as the repayment order. Marnie admitted an analogous recent offence in Edinburgh. Her attendance at the hearing was excused. Sheriff McDonald said in fixing compensation orders, he took into account the items recovered would be heavily marked down when put on sale again. He set the figures at £250 for Starlings, £550 for Judith Glue's, £300 for Orkney Souvenirs and £240 for The Quernstone. Marnie, of Dishlandtown Street, Arbroath, was ordered to pay at £100 per month.
Economist
5 days ago
- Economist
Myanmar's scam empire gets worse, not better
For Samuel, a sports teacher in Sierra Leone, a Facebook message promising a similar job in Thailand at ten times his salary was irresistible. Yet his dream curdled when he landed in Bangkok. Spirited across the border into Myanmar, he was tortured and coerced into the online-scam industry, and confined for ten months in a vast compound secured by barbed wire, high walls and armed guards. His job was to pose as an affluent Singaporean woman to defraud victims on eBay.
Daily Mail
6 days ago
- Daily Mail
Parcel Compare won't pay for broken £500 synthesizer because the BOX was reused: CRANE ON THE CASE
I work in the music industry and in March I sold a vintage synthesizer for £500 on Ebay. I bought the postage on the price comparison website Parcel Compare. I chose a 24-hour Parcelforce service which cost £39.70. This included £22.50 for 'parcel protection' insurance up to the value of £500. Unfortunately when it arrived it was damaged beyond repair, appearing to have been dropped or crushed on one corner. The plastic casing had broken off, exposing the electronics, and some of the keys had fallen off making it unusable. As the item didn't arrive in the condition promised, Ebay has taken the money back from me to refund the buyer as per its policy. But Parcel Compare rejected my insurance claim, a decision made partly on the basis that I packaged it in a reused box. I strongly dispute that my packaging was the cause of the damage. B.B, Nottingham Helen Crane, This is Money's consumer champion, replies: Ebay and Vinted sellers, people with friends and family far away, and other regulars of the Post Office queue will know that packaging can be expensive. Many elements, such as bubble wrap and foam pellets, also can't be easily recycled. So, as countless parcel senders do every single day, you reused a cardboard box. This was a box you'd previously received a keyboard in, which was the right shape and size to fit the synthesizer. It was wrapped securely, with bubble wrap, folded cardboard and screwed up brown paper inside to protect it. But Parcel Compare rejected your insurance claim because it said you had not packaged the item properly. What happened to reduce, reuse, recycle? You sent me a picture of the packaging and it looked perfectly secure. The buyer agrees the item was properly packaged, and has also told Parcel Compare this - but to no avail. So can you send something in a reused box, or not? As someone who sells things online from time to time - and has never thought twice about an old Jiffy bag - I wanted to find an answer. When I contacted the company, it pointed to its 'labelling and packaging criteria'. Not following these to the letter can result in an insurance claim for damage being denied, according to Parcel Compare. This is mentioned in the booking process, but you must follow a link to see the full criteria. Fair enough in principle - but I'd argue some of these conditions are so obscure that they could catch a huge number of parcel senders out. It states any box used must be 'new, rigid and with flaps attached'. But this is a bit confusing as, on another page on Parcel Compare's website, called 'packaging guidelines,' it describes a good box is 'ideally one that's new'. That implies a new box is preferred, but not required. Another rule you got caught by was this: 'If you're sending large fragile items such as electronic equipment or machinery, the product should be fully suspended inside the box, using moulded polystyrene that's specifically moulded to the product you're shipping.' You were selling a vintage instrument which is nearly half a century old. You didn't have the original foam moulding, and even if you did it's unlikely it would have held up to 50 years of wear and tear. I can't imagine where someone would procure a single piece of custom-made foam moulding - or how much it would cost. Senders who want their insurance to be valid must also remove all labels and markings from the box, make sure the items aren't touching the walls of the box, and place a duplicate address label inside the package, and put the label on the outside using a 'documents enclosed pouch'. They could also invalidate an insurance claim if they encase their box with paper or plastic, or use string. Customers are fed up of their items being treated shoddily in transit, whether that's a £500 Game Boy game that goes missing or a mobile phone that gets replaced by a face serum. But even you admitted that you don't blame the delivery driver, as they are often under pressure to hand off as many parcels as they can, as quickly as possible. However, you think Parcel Compare should do the right thing and reimburse you for the £500 gadget. What's worse, the person you were sending the synthesizer was due to use it to record a track with a band - work which they then lost. Sadly, the company did not agree. It told me: 'When customers take out extra parcel protection they are immediately given a warning that appears in a large onscreen box that, in the case of damage, the cover does not protect: "Goods not packaged in accordance with our labelling and packaging criteria".' 'Unfortunately, B.B's shipment was damaged during its transit. When we asked for photographs to assess the damage for his parcel protection claim, the images appeared to show a lack of internal packaging sufficient to meet our packaging criteria. 'Also, our customer appears to have re-used an old box, rather than a new one as specified in our criteria. Re-used boxes lose their strength and integrity.' It said it asked you to send further images, but you couldn't provide any as the buyer had thrown away the packaging. Its claims guidance advises not to do this until the claim is completed. The spokesman continued: 'In this case, as the packaging did not meet our criteria—specifically due to insufficient cushioning—we maintain that our initial assessment was fair and accurate.' I also contacted Parcelforce. It said that as your contract was with Parcel Compare, it couldn't investigate fully or consider reimbursing you. Its spokesman did clarify its packaging rules regards reusing boxes - though perhaps clarify is the wrong word, as I still don't feel I am any the wiser. Parcelforce's general packaging guidelines state that senders should 'use a new rigid cardboard box which is strong enough for the weight of the contents.' However, its longer, full packaging guidelines say it 'strongly advises that cardboard boxes are used for a single despatch only.' Strongly advises isn't the same as being banned, though. Interestingly, Parcelforce also cautions against using new boxes made from recycled carboard. I'm sorry I wasn't able to help here, and I do still think Parcel Compare's decision was unfair. If anyone can enlighten me as to whether reusing a box is really banned by parcel firms or not, do get in touch.
