Ms. Wu, a Jiangsu consumer, lodged a complaint with the SF Express platform in early April, believing that the courier used “uncivilized language” when communicating with the courier. Subsequently, she communicated with SF Express many times over issues such as changes in claims work orders. Recently, Ms. Wu reported to The Paper that after going through the above process, on April 26, she discovered that her SF Express account was abnormal and was suspected of being banned.
On May 2, a phone recording provided by Ms. Wu to The Paper showed that in response to the account being blocked, a staff member on duty at SF Express headquarters said: "During the previous service process, SF Express has caused many bad experiences. We have decided to suspend cooperation with you in order to avoid causing more bad experiences. Enterprises have the right to choose each other with customers, and the ban cannot be lifted. In addition, multiple accounts associated with you will also be blocked."
On May 2, The Paper inquired about SF Express’s online customer service. The customer service confirmed that “according to our company’s express risk prevention requirements,” it is currently unable to provide collection and delivery services for this number.
In response to consumer complaints, The Paper has inquired from SF Express, but has not received a reply as of press time.
In this regard, some lawyers said that if the user does not commit any substantive breach of contract (such as fraud, refusal to pay, delivery of contraband, etc.), the platform will only ban the account due to subjective "unpleasantness", lacking factual and legal basis, and is suspected of breach of contract.
Consumer: A "foul language" caused a dispute, and the account was abnormal after the complaint was settled.
Consumer Ms. Wu said that on April 7, she placed an order for second-hand goods to be mailed to a different location through the SF Express platform. She said the courier who took the order did not pick up the package, but transferred the order to a colleague. Because she needed to inspect the goods on site and provide feedback on physical photos, Ms. Wu asked the courier for the WeChat ID of the colleague who came to pick up the package, but the courier refused to provide it.
Ms. Wu said that because she raised her voice and insisted on asking for WeChat, the courier swore. Ms. Wu said that no recording was kept of the first call. Later, the two parties communicated by phone again, and the courier involved denied using uncivilized language.
Ms. Wu subsequently reported the matter to the person in charge of the SF Express outlet and initiated a complaint on the official SF Express platform. After her repeated questioning and urging, the person in charge of the outlet informed her on April 10 that the courier involved would be suspended from work starting from April 11.
Chat records provided by Ms. Wu with the person in charge of the SF Express outlet
However, on April 14, Ms. Wu called the outlet and asked other couriers and learned that the courier involved had only "heard that he would be suspended." Ms. Wu therefore questioned that the courier involved had not actually been suspended.
Ms. Wu said that after she submitted a complaint on the SF Express platform on April 7, the complaint was changed to “claim settlement” by the responsible customer service officer without authorization. Since the goods sent were not damaged, she was unable to submit claim-related materials, and the complaint case stalled.
On April 13, Ms. Wu said that she called the official customer service of SF Express and complained that the staff privately changed the cause of the complaint. Unexpectedly, the complaint was still assigned to the same customer service for follow-up, and the rights protection process was stuck again.
On April 22, Ms. Wu called the official customer service of SF Express again to complain to the customer service she had previously handled and urged the handling of complaints related to the courier's service attitude.
According to the complaint worksheet provided by Ms. Wu, the platform feedback processing results on April 24 stated that the courier's qualifications have been re-examined regarding the service attitude of the courier. If the review is not passed, he will not be allowed to return to work; SF Express stated that it has zero tolerance for such service issues, will strengthen employee management, prevent similar situations, and welcomes users to continue to supervise.
On April 26, Ms. Wu found that her SF Express account showed "Account Abnormality (3)" and was suspected of being banned. Ms. Wu asked the customer service she had previously contacted for the reason, but did not receive a specific reply.
One of the complaint work orders provided by Ms. Wu showed that SF Express said it would re-examine the qualifications of couriers.
The screenshot provided by Ms. Wu shows that her account shows "account abnormality (3) and cannot send mail normally"
SF Express staff: Enterprises have the right to make mutual choices with customers, and the ban cannot be lifted
According to the call recording provided by Ms. Wu, on April 29, an SF Express customer service called and said that judging from historical service records, Ms. Wu was dissatisfied with the regular express delivery service and made demands that were beyond SF Express’s reasonable service scope. The call recording showed that the customer service quoted the relevant provisions of the voluntary principle of civil activities in Article 5 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, saying that enterprises have the right to choose independently whether to provide delivery services, and suggested that Ms. Wu could switch to other express delivery companies in the future.
On May 2, another on-duty leader of SF Express contacted Ms. Wu for further response: For customer service personnel who had previously turned service attitude complaints into claims work orders without authorization, the company will impose salary and performance sanctions in accordance with customer service management regulations, and arrange off-duty training. After reinstatement, they will enter the assessment period. If similar problems occur again, they will be dismissed directly. Although the courier involved has been issued a regional penalty notice for the service attitude problem, it has not been strictly implemented locally. The headquarters will continue to supervise and follow up for rectification.
In response to the ban on Ms. Wu's account, the leader on duty said that due to multiple service disputes that caused bad experiences, the company decided to suspend cooperation with her to avoid more bad experiences in the future. In the recording of the call, the leader said that companies have the right to make mutual choices with customers and that the ban cannot be lifted. And multiple accounts associated with it will also be banned.
Regarding the handling of the account ban, Ms. Wu told The Paper that her account was banned due to her reasonable complaints, and SF Express refused to issue a written ban notice, which she could not accept.
On the afternoon of May 2, The Paper consulted SF Express’s online customer service on this matter. The other party responded that in accordance with the company’s express risk prevention and control regulations, it was temporarily unable to provide collection and delivery services for the numbers involved.
Screenshot of the conversation between a reporter and SF Express’ official online customer service
The reporter then called SF Express’s customer service to ask whether the user’s account would be blocked due to multiple complaints. The customer service denied it and explained: “Only when the account is shared by multiple people, places an unusually large number of orders, is suspected of fraud, makes malicious claims, etc., the number will be marked for risk. Generally speaking, it will not be (banned).”
The Paper inquired about the "Electronic Waybill Contract Terms" in the SF Express Shipping Mini Program and found that the terms stipulate: If SF finds that you have violated the principle of good faith and provided false materials (including but not limited to proof of value, damaged photos, etc.) or other If you apply for claims or defraud other rights and interests through improper means, SF Express will have the right to take one or more of the following measures: refuse to accept claims and/or assume liability for compensation without liability for breach of contract; stop providing delivery services to you without liability for breach of contract.
"Electronic Waybill Contract Terms" on the SF Express Mini Program Shipping Page
Is the ban a breach of contract? Lawyer analysis
Can a company ban a user's account due to "unhappiness during the service process"? Where is the boundary between complaints and malicious complaints and claims? The Paper consulted Duo Xiangyu, a partner and lawyer at Shanxi Jinzhi Law Firm, and lawyer Duo Xiangyu said: Whether the account ban is legal depends on the contract and the specific circumstances. If SF Express blocks the account in accordance with the terms clearly agreed in the service contract signed by both parties (such as serious breach of contract by the user, illegal operation, etc.), and the procedure is proper, then the behavior has a legal basis and is a reasonable performance of the contract; however, if there is no contractual basis or the treatment is obviously unfair, it may constitute a breach of contract or infringement.
Lawyer Duo Xiangyu introduced that according to Article 24 of the "Express Delivery Market Management Measures", companies operating express delivery services that provide express delivery services should enter into a service contract with the sender to clarify rights and obligations. This means that any penalties or restrictions, including account bans, should be contractually based. If the contract does not stipulate that the account can be blocked due to "unpleasant service", and the company unilaterally implements the ban, it is expanding the right of interpretation without authorization and violates the principle of equality in the contract.
In addition, Articles 577 and 578 of the Civil Code stipulate that if a party fails to perform its contractual obligations or performs its contractual obligations inconsistently with the agreement, it shall bear liability for breach of contract such as continuing to perform, taking remedial measures, or compensating for losses. If one party expressly states or shows by its own behavior that it will not perform its contractual obligations, the other party may request it to bear liability for breach of contract before the expiration of the performance period. The reverse application shows that companies must also act in accordance with the contract and must not terminate services at will.
Lawyer Duo Xiangyu said that if a user has no substantive breach of contract (such as fraud, refusal to pay, delivery of contraband, etc.), but his account is blocked just because of subjective "unpleasantness", there is no factual and legal basis, and he is suspected of breach of contract.
In addition, lawyer Duo Xiangyu said: Complaints are behaviors in which consumers request administrative agencies to resolve disputes about goods or services for the purpose of daily consumption; malicious complaints are complaints that abuse rights, fabricate facts, or exceed the scope of normal consumption for the purpose of profit. If the above-mentioned customer's complaint is true, it obviously does not constitute a malicious complaint.
In response to this matter, The Paper has asked SF Express about this matter, but has not received a reply as of press time.