15/04/2026
This wasn’t the first time.
It has happened to me three times.
Each time, the parcel contained something valuable:
a handmade mirror,
a pair of table lamps with sculpted angels,
and now — a Murano glass chandelier.
Each time, the story ends the same way. The parcel disappears.
There is another detail worth mentioning.
With every shipment, you are required to provide full documentation: a precise description of the contents, materials, and declared value. In other words — the system knows exactly what is inside.
Which makes the situation… interesting.
Because it is difficult not to notice a pattern when the items that disappear are not random. They are the ones clearly identified as valuable.
A fragile chandelier was shipped. Glass and brass.
Carefully dismantled, individually packed, placed into multiple internal boxes, and secured inside a custom-built wooden crate — fully insulated, immobilised, even fitted with rope handles for safe handling.
In other words: not improvised, not careless — deliberately and professionally packed.
Documentation provided. Photos provided.
The shipment was created via Packlink using UPS.
Collected. Transported. It reached the United States.
At one point, it was officially marked: Out for delivery
Which, in most interpretations of reality, implies imminent arrival. It never arrived.
Instead, the parcel re-entered the network.
Tracking became inconsistent.
Cologne appeared, disappeared, and appeared again.
An investigation was opened.
The first response was immediate:
> “The claim is rejected… prohibited items… no compensation.”
A clarification followed:
> “This is not about compensation. This is about locating a missing shipment.”
Repeated requests were made for:
— confirmation of a physical search
— operational updates
— tracing activity
Detailed descriptions were provided multiple times.
All of this was done by me — not by them.
While I was actively trying to locate the shipment, their system had already marked the claim as “resolved.”
The shipment itself was clearly identifiable:
a rigid wooden crate with rope handles.
Still:
— no confirmation of a physical search
— no operational details
— the case marked **closed**
while the investigation was still ongoing.
No resolution. No location. Just closure.
Meanwhile, UPS confirmed:
> “Documentation has been received and is under review.”
So:
— the parcel existed
— the investigation existed
— the process existed
But the responsibility did not.
The final position was as follows:
> “The parcel was not found… classified as prohibited item… no compensation.”
Then the argument shifted.
From: “Prohibited item”
To: “Prove it is NOT from the 1940s.”
No proof was provided that it was. Instead, the burden was reversed.
At some point along the way, another line appeared:
*“We sell shipping labels, not courier services.”*
And suddenly, everything made sense.
Shortly after this dispute began, additional charges started to appear.
Not related to the lost shipment.
Separate shipments. Different carriers.
March 26 — FedEx
+73.56€
Declared: 16 kg
“Actual”: 33.8 kg
April 9 — UPS
+60.89€
A few centimetres difference in dimensions
→ significant surcharge
April 15 — TNT
+100.36€
Reason:
“Not transportable via conveyor belt”
Supporting data: **none**
Three carriers. Three explanations.
Same outcome: Additional charges.
Before this dispute, it had only happened a few times over three years.
After this dispute, it happens repeatedly.
At this point, this is no longer a coincidence.
A system where:
— shipments can be lost
— responsibility can be declined
— proof can be demanded without evidence
— and additional charges can be issued afterwards
And so the question becomes:
If a company can lose a shipment, deny responsibility, require proof of the impossible, and then issue multiple charges across unrelated shipments — what exactly is the service being provided?
Because behind all of this there isn’t a “case” or a “shipment.”
There’s a person.
Someone who moved countries, rebuilt everything from scratch, learned a new language, a new system, a new way of surviving in business — and does so without the luxury of passing risk upwards.
There is no safety net here.
Only responsibility.
Which is why it is always a little striking to encounter systems in which responsibility appears to dissolve at precisely the moment it might otherwise become relevant.
Because when a parcel disappears, it does not merely fail to arrive.
It quietly takes with it time, planning, effort — and replaces them with forms, conditions, and a most curious absence of anyone actually in charge.
And yes — that part is not abstract. That part is personal.
P.S. Interestingly the carrier confirmed that the claim is still under review and may be compensated — while the intermediary has already closed the case with no responsibility.
