Jump to content

Its WAR

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    799
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

43 Excellent

About Its WAR

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. This topic was closed on 09 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  2. The posties chose their course of action through deliberate negligence. I am assuming they have in depth training to cover such deliveries and their actions will clearly be shown to be deliberate choices against every word of their training, rather than negligence by mistake or not exercising sufficient care. Still hoping to find out what that training might be (the chapter in the training manual?). I am aware of the fact RM have limited their liability. That is their defence. I am looking for an attack. It may or may not win a court case but it might enable RM to decide not to risk defending or suffer the embarrassment of social media to examine the issue. And yes, I have been using special delivery since the days we had to draw a blue line around the parcel. Yet despite this, I remained unaware the liability was reduced for 9am delivery. It was a total surprise when we found that out. It was not specified at the point of sending. Indeed the assumption is that a £23 charge being so much more expensive than standard, implies you do not get a lower level of service. I imagine RM are fully aware that 9am deliveries have an increased risk. Therefore the extra charge covers the extra work and the reduced compensation reflects the extra risk of a claim. Therefore , if they are aware of this and have reduced their cover because of it.......then the posties will also be aware and trained to take even more care of falling prey to the risk.
  3. Yes you pay extra for earlier service, but why is the compensation level less? And at what point does a business get away with reducing their liability to basic levels of care. I am a retailer but cannot charge my customers less in order to remove my liability to them or their product. We are not talking about whether I should have been paying more for higher level of compensation. We are talking about RM wheedling out of liability and being able to get away with it, despite appalling lack of care. Regardless of the price paid, RM breached the contract. Still hoping to find out what (if any) guidlines or training is provided for their posties, anybody ?
  4. So RM have made a breach in contract by failing to deliver, plus failing to obtain signature, plus losing the parcel. Two posties , two addresses, two days. But they don't have any liability apart from £50 each ? Since when would any other business be able to sell off its liability to offer care. You could argue that if you pay a lower fee you will get a lesser service, but in fact the fee was nearly three times the cost of the standard fee. and I had no idea whatever that the service was reduced. In any case, a lower fee does not imply you can get away with such breaches in care.
  5. Just re visiting this problem. Eventually, my insurers settled the cost price of the goods. So I am left with the uninsured losses. I accept the points mentioned above will form an argument RM will use against me. My defence might well have to rest on not being advised at the post office counter that the compensation limits were reduced. In fact, because we are daily visitors to the post office, they rarely ask us whats in the parcel or values anymore (although that depends on who is behind the counter). £500 compensation was understood, not £50. It seems to me that both posties failed to abide by any training policy. Is there a training policy which is taught to the posties regarding how they should conduct the delivery of these parcels? If so, can I get a copy of these instructions? Or, if they are not instructed, do they rely on a pep talk from their trainer or supervisor? Is it a couple weeks of seminars at the office or on the job, ad hoc? I am trying to add weight to my argument that such careless behaviour, so far removed from solid written training policy, will allow me to make RM seem so negligent a judge will support my claim. Afterall, this is not a matter of insuring against a parcel being damaged as it passes through the machinery or lost in the bottom of a sack, or even stolen by the postie. It happened twice at two different locations. Why is the compensation level for pre 9am reduced to £50? Is it because RM recognise the risk of a postie being intercepted is higher? If not, does anybody know? I am expecting to make a court case over the next few months so any help would be great. Now, I know many points suggested above are not what I want to hear. They explain why I don't have much of a chance. I would like to hear of ideas that will give me a chance, please.
  6. I would have thought the same. Are you saying there are Delivery Security Standards? It would be good to review these to see if the postman are trained or not in such scenarios and whether he followed procedure. I guess though, from the other posts, the contract allows the RM to be as negligent as heck as long as they are happy to pay out £50.
  7. Not particularly fishy. Simple credit card transactions, posting to cardholders authorised and registerered address. The fraudster waits for the postman and convinces him to hand over the package. I guess nothing lost if the postman refuses to handover in the street and correctly delivers to the address......in which case the cardholder gets a surprise when they open the post and find a Rolex.......until they eventually read their card statement and find out they bought it. But, they get their money back and I get the watch back. In this case it appears the fraudster is the same person. It seems wrong that we have to buy security. We expect the postmen to do their job right. We pay them to deliver to the address and they didnt do it. They should be liable for their failure. Yet, still so far, their contract limits their liability to £50. I need something else to attack them with rather than defending against their contract.
  8. These are useful replies and give me a few hurdles to jump. However, they are all based on Royal Mails contract which is limiting their liability and (according to the earlier replies most of you consider their contract will successfully defend any claim). Is there anything out there which can actually be help me? I am a business and therefore unfair terms in consumer contracts are not that helpful. The majority of my loss (trade cost price) was covered by my insurers.......I am seeking to claim for unisured loss......ie the excess and other costs. I must say, that when the parcel was sent (costing hugely more than usuall because of the 9am delivery time), it did not occur to us that cover was reduced from £500 to only £50. We were all shocked to find that out......so there might be a case that we were never advised at the point of sending. ALSO. The postman was intercepted outside the address in London. BUT, a second Rolex also went missing the day before outside an address in Manchester. We have actually lost two watches in two seperate but identical incidents in two days.........both postmen were intercepted by a person claiming to be the addressee who was in a hurry and on their way to work. This is a huge security weakness, but I wonder if the Royal Mail were aware of it and this is why they reduce the cover for pre 9am delivery? I wonder also, if they have rules which require identification to be produced when delivering to a person but who is not at the address? or, if they have rules which forbid delivering unless it is at the address. I do accept the weakness of my position is made so, because of their contract. But I would hope any judge will see that in these two claims, the post office have been so lapse that it can be shown to be unfair that I should suffer for their negligence.
  9. I will have to check regarding whether my staff member was advised of other values. However, my contention is that regardless of the value insured, the item was lost due to negligent and careless activity by the postman. I wish to claim for my losses and not be limited by a contract which the post office issue. I consider their contract should only be useful in limiting their liability if they had performed it fully, but as they failed to perform it through negligence, I should be free to simply claim my loss.
  10. I sent a rolex watch to my customer by Royal Mail Special Delivery. The parcel did not get delivered. I reported it to the police and the postal delivery worker agreed in her statement that she gave the parcel to a person waiting outside the address. Unfortunately, the contract for 9am delivery is limited to £50. I feel the contract is null and void due to the negligence of the postman and I should therefore be free to claim to value of my loss rather than £50. Any ideas gratefully received.
  11. I sold two items in two days £3700 and £2300, to buyers with two different addresses. Both payments were made by credit card and both items sent to card holders registered addresses (London and Manchester). Sent by Special Delivery before 9am. Both persons at both the addresses claim not have authorised the purchase of the goods and made successful charge backs with their credit card provider. I assume they are being truthful and the purchases were made using their stolen details etc, both say they also failed to have received the items (for which I am insured by my business insurance policy). Royal Mail insist the items were delivered correctly because they have signatures, therefore I can't even claim the minimum compensation level from them. I find it too hard to believe that both items failed to reach the addresses unless the postmen were intercepted before reaching the front door. I know Royal Mail will try to wheedle out of this with all manner of excuses but mostly they will claim all items are sent at my risk. However in the light that it is clear they could not have delivered and the postie must have been negligent in getting signatures from people loitering outside the address etc, I wonder if I can try a county court summons for the uninsured amounts of my losses, ie £500 excess payments (two insurance claims) plus the loss of around £300 no claims bonus from next years renewal, plus the £40 postage etc. We might suppose the items were delivered to the address but the card holders were not in, and a family member may have signed (thus satisfying Royal Mail). But the card holders deny this too. I am waiting to hear (via the credit card company) that at the time of supposed deliveries 08:30 and 08:15, the addresses were empty as the householders were commuting and therefore impossible to have taken delivery. I do want to pursue this further but expect Royal Mail have been to court hundreds of times in similar cases and win. Is there anything I could find that will give me something to use. I wonder whether GPS would be useful? One of the addresses was a huge block of flats, I can just see a chap running down the stairs and asking the postie "got anything for number 4?" and posing as the addressee, in which case the gps may not record the front door. And the other guy pretending to be in the garden, knowing the occupier had gone to work. Anyway, it transpires, both transactions were linked. Which is why both parcels were intercepted and because the items were both sent before 9am, the fraudster knew exactly when to expect the postie. I wonder whether such posting (before 9am) is known to be more risky for exactly this reason, and this is why the compensation levels are only £50. Anyway, I want to issue a summons. Any ideas?
  12. Special Delivery before 9am IS only £50 compensation for some reason. But the form still only takes about 10 minutes.
  13. Now getting partial settlement offers. Should I just ignore everything?
×
×
  • Create New...