I have had an ongoing problem with Royal Mail now for over 1 year, which has led me through all of their complaints procedures, then onto POSTR's and finally small claims. I made a small claim application against Royal Mail in April and have just received a copy of their 'defense' through the post. I'll attempt to summarize a VERY long story below.

In April of last year I posted a parcel to Belguim via RM's International signed for service and took out extra insurance up to the value of £500.00. The parcel never arrived.

The parcel was a toy/replica pistol and even though it was marked as a replica and boxed inside the original packaging the parcel was confiscated at the airport and sent for 'testing' to the N.I police service via RM's depot. When I was eventually informed of this (some months later) I called N.I Police who confirmed that the parcel was never handed over to them (they record all items received from Royal Mail for testing and give them a reference number).

I made a claim for compensation but was refused. At first RM argued that the item was a 'weapon' and was on their list of 'prohibited goods'. I successfully argued that this was not the case, and so RM changed its argument and told me that it had a right to refuse any item that they considered might be harmful or dangerous to their customers or employee's. I commented that the item had been sent for testing but had been lost before it could be ascertained whether it was dangerous or harmless, however this point is never acknowledged.

POSTr's response basically said that it could not respond to allegations of theft as it did not fall within the scope of the scheme?! I hadn't accused RM of stealing the parcel , just losing it!! It also said that although it accepted the parcel was not a banned item it observed that RM had the right to refuse any item that it felt was a danger to it's staff or the public. They offered me £10 compensation for my trouble.

I filled in a small claims application in April and received their defense last week (summary below).

1. The defendant reserves the right to refuse and item that in its opinion may be harmful or dangerous. Liability for such items is not accepted.

2. No contract was entered into between parties for the delivery of the parcel (they mention Harold Stephen & Co V's RM 1978 as reference)

3. The defendant has immunity to a claim in tort in respect of the transmission or delivery of post.

4. The defendant may only be liable to pay compensation to the claimant if the conditions of a scheme known as the overseas letter post scheme are satisfied.

5. The defendant is not liable for consequential loss

6. The claimant has not particularised the sum being claimed ( the small claims application form didn't allow a breakdown of the sum being claimed other than 'court fees'??)

Basically I'm not sure whether or not to continue with the claim. It appears from reading this forum and others that RM can do whatever it likes and is immune from the usual laws and responsibilities.

Any and all advice welcome.

1. The defendant reserves the right to refuse and item that in its opinion may be harmful or dangerous. Liability for such items is not accepted.

Surely in that case it should have been refused at the point of sending! It would appear you were quite honest by advising what you were sending and they not only accepted it, but sold you extra insurance for the item.

Not when they are being asked to pay for it's loss.

Hold tight for a couple of days and wait for others to have a look at what the PO have submitted. They might have other suggestions.

This is a small claim isn't it ?

yup - it's a small claim (I'm claiming for just under £300.00 which is the price of the item posted, cost of the postage + court fee's).

As I understand it the next phase is for the court to issue a questionaire to gain further info from both parties?

Yes, an Allocation Questionnaire will be sent to you both - this will need to be completed and returned to the court by the due date, after that a hearing date will be sent to you.

Even though the item should have been refused when posted, sending anything like a firearm, even a replica through an airport is a bit irresponsible with current security concerns.

Anything that can be used as a weapon and airlines is a serious no no without prior clearance. Royal Mail do state firearms are a prohibited article, deactivated/replica or not. You need to consider continuing with this claim as costs will be an issue.You would have been better sending through a carrier such as fed ex who will clear the item through customs themself

*We reserve the right to refuse any other item banned by law or that in our opinion may be harmful or dangerous to our customers or employees. If you send dangerous goods and do not comply with the applicable terms and conditions and legal requirements then we may deal with the goods as we see fit including destroying or disposing of the relevant goods.

Why should my parcel have been refused, its not a restricted item or dangerous? It was clearly marked as a replica, it was in the original box with the original instructions; a cursory inspection would have shown it to be a plastic/tin replica and not real? Before this inspection could take place however Royal Mail lost it?!

In September 2012 Royal Mail started a public consultation on proposals to ban the transportation of firearms, replica's and their component parts using the mail service. This idea was opposed by various organisations and individuals who succesfully argued against the idea.

In December 2012 Royal Mail informed BASC (British Association of Shooting and Conservation) that low powered airguns, their components and accessories, imitation, antique and deactivated firearms would continue to be carried in the post and agreed that they would allow the carriage of airgun and airsoft pellets in the post too.

To summarize, Royal Mail may not like carrying these items but until they successfully lobby to have them excluded from the service they are duty bound to treat them like any other item in the post.

The terms of carriage dictate that if they consider an item may cause a hazard to any third party, including staff, they can refuse carriage

If Royal Mail have lost an item, and you can prove postage, and the value of the item, then you will have a civil claim.

If an item has been seized/destroyed or lost as it contravenes the business own terms and conditions of carriage, that then will be a for judge to decide. I do not rate your chances

Royal Mail are unable to open the packages , unless it is the RLB in Belfast They can open items in the presence of the police or government representatives such as customs and excise. They would make the decision to seize/open the item, not Royal Mail

I've already supplied RM with proof of postage (original receipt) and value of the item (copy of payment made) and they haven't (to date) disputed this.

Royal Mail sized the item and sent it to N. Ireland for testing.

They informed me that they had handed it over to the Police for inspection, however the police deny all knowledge of ever receving it and RM cannot provide the reference number that the Police give for each item taken in for testing.

Royal Mail have the right to sieze any item that they consider dangerous to their staff or the public? Fine.

They do not however have the right to lose the item whilst in transit to the Police for testing! My God! Imagine if this had been a real firearm!?!

I think the basis of your claim is that

Royal Mail (post office) knew what the item was when it was despatched and even offered you extra insurance for this item.

At some point, they have lost it and are now trying to wriggle out of compensating you via the insurance.

They claim to have handed it to police for testing - if this is true, then there will be a record of this.

If they really believed this item was dangerous to their staff, then it should never have been accepted in the first instance.

I've managed to find the Harold Stephen & Co V's RM 1978 case details which I've tried to post a link to but I don't have enough posts yet to do so?!?

Not entirely sure the relevance to my case other than the fact that RM appear to be able to do whatever the heck they like and get away with it!?

tomo, do you want to private message me with the location of this information and I will post a link for you

Thanks CB, I've sent you the links.

thanks tomo, I will get those posted on the thread for you

Sorry for the delay.. done now.

http://imageshack.us/a/img40/2540/hs1f.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img822/7660/hs2o.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img11/9997/hs3t.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img16/5464/hs4zx.jpg

JIC there is a link issue, I have converted the 4 documents into one pdf file below.

Harold Stephen & Co V's RM 1978

Well today I had my day in court against RM.

I WON!!

RM's solicitor didn't really try to use the 'restricted item' or 'dangerous item' angle but instead kept banging on about the "no contractual relationship" clause.

Basically it appears that Royal Mail does not enter into a contract with you when you post something with them and so can't be held accountable if things go wrong. They spent ages going through Harold Stephens case (above) and discussing immunity in tort which to be frank was a little over my head.

I'm by no means an expert in law but to me it seemed to come down to this simple question that the judge asked RM's solicitor:

" if there is no contract between Royal Mail and it's customers then why does it charge them extra money for enhanced insurance? For fun?!?! Why do Royal Mail charge extra for loss or damage when, if an item is lost of damaged there is no intention on Royal Mail's part of honouring the agreement?"

The Judge found in my favour stating that even if you considered Royal Mail's normal service was not 'entering into a contract' he felt that because I'd been charged extra for enhanced compensation against loss or damage I had entered into a separate contract of insurance which Royal Mail WERE accountable to.

I got the cost of the item, plus postage, courst fee's and expenses. RM have 14 days to pay up.

VERY happy

Great stuff! Looks like your chances should have been rated after all

Oh this is indeed excellent news. Well done for sticking with this and well done that Judge

Congratulations! A super result and an important decision to boot.

It is quite likely that the decision could influence a judge or other decision maker, in respect of any future claimant v Royal Mail/Post Office or other postal provider, so tomo23, can you please provide the name of the Judge, at which Court he or she sits and the case date, so appropriate reference can be made in any such action.

tomo, can you please confirm if RM have paid up !

Hey guys,

Yes! RM coughed up without further fuss - pity they didn't do that 16 months ago!

The hearing was at Bedford County Court before Deputy District Judge Abrahams. It was held on 29.08.13 (court 1 @ 10am)

I'd post a copy of the letter RM's solicitor sent me but I need 10 posts before I can attach photos.

Before you use my case in any action you may be considering please read this message that someone sent me regarding a query I had over setting precedent:-

"Precedent cannot be set in County Court (of which Small Claims is a part). It can only be set in the higher courts, so sadly, anyone else in the same situation will have to go through the whole process, with no guarantee that the result will be the same as this particular case."

That is correct, a County Court doesn't set a precedent but it can be seen as persuasive to another court.

You can post up documents if you use the following method but make sure any personal identifiers are removed first....

set your default scan page size to A4 less than 300DPI [150 will do]

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets - as a picture[jpg] file

don't forget you can use a mobile phone or a digital camera too!!

'

BUT......

ENSURE: remove all pers info inc. barcodes etc using paint program

but leave all monetary figures and dates.

************************* ************************* *******

{DO NOT USE A BIRO OR PEN OR USE SEE THRU TAPE OR LABELS]

try http://www.pdfescape.com TO BLANK STUFF,

************************* ************************* ***********

or

DO IT IN MSPAINT.EXE or any photo editing program

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites ...

http://freejpgtopdf.com/

..

if you have multiple scans/pics

put them in a word doc FIRST and convert that to PDF

or use http://www.pdfmerge.com

 

convert existing PC files to PDF [office has an installable print to PDF option]

..

 

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf if

you have many images too rather than many single pdfs

.

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

try and logically name your file so people know what it is.

though dont use full bank names or CAGicon in the title

i'e Default notice DDicon-mm-yyyy TSB

.

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

Congratulations. If the Royal mail has not contractual obligations and you have proof of posting where does that leave people regarding the many issues with the DVLA not receiving post. I would have thought that by the act of purchasing a stamp from the Royal mail, the moment you post a stamped letter in a letter box, a contract is formed?

Well . . . no.

The act of purchasing a stamp is really only buying some credit with a general intention . . . . The interesting bits come next.

If you use that stamp to put your letter / packet into a letterbox then RM could, and do, say that it is held hostage to factors not controlled by them.

Frankly I can see their point.

There may be little chance of loss but nevertheless there is one.

This time of year it's kids with frireworks, a couple of years ago but less so now it was letterbox thieves (oh yes, they exist!) and red pillar boxes are occasionally smashed by vehicles and the contents damaged or destroyed . . .

On the other hand, if you take even a second class letter to a counter you can ask for a proof slip to show that your letter on which you had stuck your credit was placed safely into the system.

Now, that is a 'consideration' in the form of the payment and safe entry into the system . .

. add to that what I'd argue was the contractual offer made on the website in writing where the levels of compensation are displayed and you would have the basis of a sound claim and never mind what a historical case quoted as precedent said. Circumstances change.

There are a lot of these old privileges that were accrued by the state monopolies, like the shillings in the gas meter being yours if someone else stole them, you had to replace them. If you stole them they were suddenly the Gas Boards' and you were charged with theft!

Same with the GPO, perhaps privatisation will bring more customer focus? Somehow I doubt it.