In December 2025, a woman sent a £500 Christmas gift through courier Evri—only for the parcel to vanish without explanation. The package, containing makeup and other items for two teenagers who had lost their parents, was meant to arrive before the holidays. It never reached its destination, sparking a dispute over responsibility and communication failures.
The parcel that disappeared
The sender, who volunteered with a charity supporting the teenagers, bought an Evri label at a Post Office counter for £12.70. Two days later, she received a text: the driver couldn’t find the address. A second delivery attempt was promised but never happened.
By February, Evri claimed the parcel had been left on the recipient’s doorstep on December 30. A month later, the company revised its account, stating the package had been returned due to damage—though the sender never received it. She had already replaced the gifts at her own expense.
She assumed the parcel had been stolen.
An incomplete address—and a twist
Evri later informed consumer journalist Helen Crane that the original address lacked a critical line, making it impossible to identify the correct building. The courier returned the parcel to the sender’s home, leaving it in a designated safe place while she was away for the holidays.
The company provided a photo and geotagging data showing the driver at her address. Crane noted that while leaving a parcel outside was disappointing, the driver had few alternatives given the invalid recipient address and the sender’s absence.
Related: Drivers Face Varying Speed Awareness Course Fees
Evri admitted its customer service agents could have handled the situation better. The case took an unexpected turn when the company accused the sender of verbally abusing its staff, a claim she denied. She insisted all communication had been through email.
Crane said the conflicting accounts made it difficult to determine the truth. Given the parcel’s return and the sender’s conduct, she concluded compensation was not justified.
Evri’s track record—and the limits of accountability
In October, UK regulator Ofcom ranked Evri as the worst of nine couriers for customer service. Crane’s column has documented complaints ranging from lost baby items to damaged collectibles. She acknowledged the rest of the industry had also struggled with similar issues.
The sender thanked Crane for her help but disagreed with Evri’s version of events. Evri said the address was missing a line, which made it impossible to know which building on the street it was intended for. This could have been flagged by the Post Office when it accepted the parcel and affixed the Evri label, but ultimately the onus is on the customer to get it right.
The truth remains uncertain, but the £500 gift is gone.
