Royal Mail

[Agathachristie]

I took Royal Mail to court for £36 and won yesterday.

I sent a letter "signed for" and stated on the back of the receipt the amount of money. Royal Mail argued that I need proof of the value that I could not give them. I emailed postcom and asked them how do consumers proof the value. They stated that receipt would be enough.

Royal Mail did not come to the court hearing but sent more than 100 pages as defense.

I won the amount of money plus £1.39 interest and they have to pay £50 court fees.

Brighton County court: 8QT52277

3rd February 2009

[bedlington83]

Well done. But what morons for defending it in the first place - it must've cost them more than the £36 to create the 100 pages of documents

[davey77]

Nice work! And yes.. 100 pages, printer ink, electricity, staff time printing and posting. Clever thinking Royal Mail.

[Agathachristie]

Postage was probably £3.80 for them, and then one pack to the court as well. £2 for printing and the best is £50 court fees!

So they had to pay £60 in addition towards the compensation.

So I encourage everybody to do the same is a recorded letter is missing.

[MARTIN3030]

You were probably home and dry by their failure to attend.

In almost all cases,judgement favours the one who turns up.

Ultimately its the tax payer who will be footing the bill.

You should consider submitting a wasted costs order.

[Agathachristie]

How does that work? Wasted cost order?

[Mr Pipps]

Congratulations on your win - and for sticking it to Royal Mail!

[buzby]

They may very well appeal - as they have been rather sloppy in their defence. In my action (for theft) we went to court on 4 occasions, and their lawyers had an estimated bill of £4,800. I sued them for £220.

 

In the end, I lost - but only due to their crown immunity - Royal Mail are specifically protected should their staff be dishonest. They then attempted to seek full costs from me, which was limited to £150. However the Sheriff stated that their actions were in bad faith and refused their application for costs.

[legalpickle]

As buzby says, Royal Mail have Crown Immunity, so you were really lucky in this case. Had they submitted a real defence showing the law, you would have lost and possibly received a costs order.

 

A request for a wasted costs order should be submitted at the hearing. I wouldn't risk it at this stage in case one of their staff gets wise and you lose the whole thing because of their immunity.

 

Well done.

[Mr Pipps]

Royal Mail's supposed immunity is not as wide-reaching as they would like you to think.

 

Read the finer points of the Postal Services Act and the case law which Royal Mail attempt to rely on, and you'll see that it's not all as sewn-up as they would like to think it is.

[legalpickle]

Royal Mail's supposed immunity is not as wide-reaching as they would like you to think.

 

Read the finer points of the Postal Services Act and the case law which Royal Mail attempt to rely on, and you'll see that it's not all as sewn-up as they would like to think it is.

Interesting. I'll read the PSA tomorrow, but please can you point us in the direction of the case law that they rely upon?

[Mr Pipps]

For a case of this specific nature, Agathachristie (OP) would be in the best position to quote this from the statement of case which Royal Mail served.

 

I can then offer more general citations if needed.

[legalpickle]

For a case of this specific nature, Agathachristie (OP) would be in the best position to quote this from the statement of case which Royal Mail served.

The OP stated that their defence was only on the basis of disputing the value of the item, not on the basis of claiming immunity, so it's likely the relevant citations wouldn't have been quoted.

 

I can then offer more general citations if needed.

Please do.

[Mr Pipps]

Very well!

 

I will start a new thread on this particularly important tangent.

 

I will call it the 'Royal Mail - Penetrating the purported 'immunity'

[buzby]

From memory - the decision of 'value' remains with the Royal Mail and the PSA does allow them to be the final arbiter in these matters. Their offers of compensation need to be verified (just like any insurer) and when the figures cannot be, the battle commences - but from what I have seen (with people submitting eBay auction pages) RM are known to pick and choose sometimes agreeing to settle based on this information and at other times, not.

 

I don't think this particular issue is relevant to the 'immunity' debate - as they have not refused to pay compensation for loss, simply that they want verifiable proof - which is a different argument.

 

Mr P - I'll add to your other read later.

[BankFodder]

How long ago did you sue them and come up against the Crown immunity defence?

 

I am almost certain that this no longer applies and that they have a normal public liability both in contract and in tort

[MrShed]

BF, I was not aware that the appropriate statute law had been rescinded...?

[Mr Pipps]

Allow me to point out at this point, that the supposed 'immunity' so frequently claimed by the Post Office, has only historically ever been immunity in tort, and not necessarily in contract, where it can be established that contractual obligations do exist.

[buzby]

How long ago did you sue them and come up against the Crown immunity defence?

I am almost certain that this no longer applies and that they have a normal public liability both in contract and in tort

 

It would require the abolition of the Act of Parliament that created it - and you can be sure you would have heard of it. No, there is no change to their immunity - indeed, it was amended to take account of their change of status in 2000, and it was pretty much the continuation of what went before.

 

That said, the immunity does not cross all their business, their specialised and courier services - basically anything that does not impinge on the standard letter post and traditional services - are exempt from the Postal Services Act 2000.

 

Do also remember there is no VAT chargeable on services provided by Royal Mail, you'll know when they lose their 'immunity' as that's when VAT will be fully applied, so that they will be providing services on a level playing field with their competitors.