Hello,

Being based in Eastern Europe, I recently asked a UK-based relative to send me an expensive mobile phone which is not on sale here.

She used Royal Mail's International Signed For service, with additional insurance of up to GBP 400 which was roughly the cost of the phone.

The item never arrived, she reported the loss, only to receive a formal answer refusing to pay on the grounds that the item is on the recipient's country's list of items prohibited from posting.

I am working with the post office here to clarify the meaning of 'valuable item' as I had never had problems receiving items of value before.

However, I feel that RM should never have sold us the insurance in the first place if it did not intend to honour it. They do state in a remote corner of their website that no compensation will be paid for lost items which are prohibited in the destination country, and suggest that the sender consults RM as to the respective country's regulations. However, this information was not offered to the sender at the counter, and the issue remains open: if RM is charging for a signed for service and effectively guaranteeing delivery, is it not their duty to check the shipment for admissibility? I know this is done - at least by asking the sender - here.

There are more unclear questions here (e g shouldn't the recipient's postal service have returned the 'prohibited' item to the sender's postal service upon finding out its contents) but the main is - do the experts here believe my claim has a chance against RM?

Thanks,

toli

The item isn't prohibited. There is a seperate list of items that are not permitted to be sent, as there is a list of items that cannot be covered by stipulated services. It's not as arbitrary as you think, the Post Office Guide and leaflets offer guidance on what items are covered by which services - so if Mobile Phones, Diamonds and Cash cannot be covered by a particular service, then it would be fooling to pay for enhanced compensation if the item being sent is on the list of contents that cannot be covered.

The RM websaite is good at explaining what items are covered by the compensation scheme, and often because of thefts of high risk items, they are completely excluded, leaving the sender to use either a different service or different courier.

Let's say you posted steroids, legal in the UK, to a country the prohibits them. RM will state on thewir website to the best of their knowledge what they have been told are prohinited items. If you send anyway, the distant postal authority will pass it to Customs, who will refuse admittance and it will not be sent back, but probably destroyed.

As the package should not have been sent, RM are correct in their rejection. If the country was not within the EU, then there are import considerations too....

Thread moved to Postal and Delivery Services Forum.

Hi

I too have received the same response from RM upon trying to claim compensation for a mobile phone sent to Italy. At no point during the sale over the counter was I informed that Italy prohibited mobile phones being received and the only thing different I was told was that International Signed For would not cover mobile phones for above £41. Therefore, I chose to send by regular Airmail as the compensation was going to be the same - £41. The lady at the counter said that this was true, but would not offer tracking, which I thought would not matter that much anyway because items are only tracked up until the point they leave the UK!

So while the information might be available on their website or in leaflets, surely the staff has a duty to inform you of this? And besides...who is likely to contact the postal authority of the destination country to check the prohibited items list?!

This just seems outrageous.

Regards,

You need to present your case.

If your complaint cannot be resolved to your satisfaction, the licensed postal operator can issue a ‘deadlock’ notice that will allow you to ask the independent postal redress scheme to investigate your case. The independent postal redress scheme will only investigate complaints about products and services provided by postal providers under their operating licence. Although this scheme was not operational until 1 October 2008, it will be able to accept cases that have reached deadlock before this date.

Making a complaint about a postal operator - Postcomm

Unfortunately, it is not 'reasonable' to expect counter staff to be experts in the restrictions and or prohibitions for each and every postal administration a package is going to.

Since the bulk of Post Offices are now run under contract, counter staff are mostly employed by the shop the PO is located. Therefore it falls to the sender to evaluate the services required and the counter staff to provide the service requested and take payment for same.

Unfortunately, it is not 'reasonable' to expect counter staff to be experts in the restrictions and or prohibitions for each and every postal administration a package is going to.

 

Since the bulk of Post Offices are now run under contract, counter staff are mostly employed by the shop the PO is located. Therefore it falls to the sender to evaluate the services required and the counter staff to provide the service requested and take payment for same.

While I fully agree with the first paragraph of your argument, I would at least expect them to make you aware that such restrictions or prohibitions may apply - not to know the exact countries. To not even tell you of this is what I deem to be unfair.

They are more then willing to sell other services at the counter, maybe they should get the basics right before they embark on a sales pitch.

While I fully agree with the first paragraph of your argument, I would at least expect them to make you aware that such restrictions or prohibitions may apply - not to know the exact countries. To not even tell you of this is what I deem to be unfair.

I've no issue that it is indeed unfair, but them this does not bring with it any liability/ Fairness is a civil benchmark that indicates the culpability of the parties involved and their potential losses as a resault. A very different thing from actually assigning blame and being able to pursue a successful claim for compensation!

Any action would hinge on what was reasonable. Since every tin pot foreign administration can decide what it does and does not wish to allow to be imported across its borders, the risk will always be with the sender if thie item is on 'the list'. It could be argued that it was really up to the exporter to discover if there would be issues with the package, and whilst it might be comforting that the good ol' Post Office has some duty of care, they actually do not. That belongs to a different entity, the Royal Mail - whom you never see. In the days of joined-up thinking the GPO was a one-stop shop... not now, with retail counters, parcels, telecomms and general mail all seperate businesses, the consumer is expected to know all this and act accordingly.

They are more then willing to sell other services at the counter, maybe they should get the basics right before they embark on a sales pitch.

I've been served with Food, Newspapers, Petrol as well as postal services as Post Office retail ensure they divest themselves of having any need to own property and deal with the great unwashed at public counters. Having lost much of the need to service TV Licences, Pensions etc, their importance is becoming less and it shows with the lack of experiences and specialist staff who know the wrinkles. We get what we pay for...? OR do we get what we deserve? I'm not sure. But just as I wouldn;t take what a DSG salesman told me as gospel, I certainly wouldn't believe sub-PO conter staff don't make it up as they go along, or at worst, don;t know enough to advise properly.

For many years I have been sending valuable items overseas using the Royal MAil International Signed for service with additional payment for compensation for up to £500. If a packet was lost in the past they have always paid up, sometimes with a little conflict but it has always been settled. The latest packet I sent to Germany went missing for a few months so we raised a claim and have been through all the appeal proceedures. In the final appeal it is interesting they changed their defence which has created a very interesting situation. They stated that the signed for service is not an insured service, indeed that the Royal Mail does not offer any international Insured service at all.

According to the UPU and the German Postal authority Germany does not accept valuable itens including Cash , coins, Jewellery etc, etc) except in the Insured post. (Germany has 2 services a GLS which is like our recorded - non insured service, and DHL which is their Insured Service). The Royal Mail states that the International Signed for service does not offer insurance but only compensation in the case of loss or damage. (I personnally do not see a difference but they do). I have now also received an email from David Gee (Chairman and Chief Executive Office) confirming that their legal department has concluded that the International Signed for service is not an insured service.

The point here is that any International signed for postal item sent to Germany (And presumably other countries) is not Insured so is transferred to the German GLS service which is equivalent to our recorded service. The Germans say the item is not insured so any valuable items are prohibited. The Royal Mail say that the valuable items are prohibited by the UPU/German postal service so they refuse to investigate or pay compensation.

My feeling is that this is mass mis-selling of the service, as anyone using the signed for service is going to be sending valuable items which by the post office definition will be prohibited by the German Postal service and the Royal Mail can and does reject claims on this basis. Even the Royal Mail website states that cash and valubles should be sent by the International signed for service. They do exclude some countries but not Germany.

I feel this is mis-selling and everyone who has used this service should be due a full refund from Royal Mail.

What do you think?

Mis-sold mail