Jump to content

Jedflorex

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

1 Follower

About Jedflorex

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Barracad, I assure you my original question was completely genuine. I just wanted to know how far I could take Royal Mail in chasing settlement of my "invoice", which by the way was not for "genuine" mail delivered to me, but for items not addressed directly to me But why confuse any issue with the facts? As stated before, I promise in future to accept everything thrown at me by the Government, Financial Institutions, Public Services, and other large organisations, without so much as a whimper of discontent. Happy now? 8)
  2. Wierdy... Sarcasm is frequently referred to as the "lowest form of wit", which incidentally is a quote from Oscar Wilde, who was of course being sarcastic himself at the time. Some others tend to think that wit is the highest form of sarcasm, and that sarcasm has never been and cannot be a form of wit. They believe punning is the lowest form of wit and always will be. I think I prefer to go with those who think sarcasm is the lowest form of wit only to those who have never mastered the art, and those who always fall victim to it.
  3. WOW people! Are we sure this is not some kind of Royal Mail Defence Group Messageboard? Just kidding there folks... I would like to apologise to Buzby, Wierdy, and yes Hobbie too, for having the temerity to register my dis-satifaction with an individual Royal Mail practice in such an original way. The "ridiculous scenario" I presented on this thread was unworthy of such discerning minds. I obviously should never have challenged Royal Mail in the way that I did and I regret seeking advice on Royal Mail's exemption to Court action. I promise in future to accept everythi
  4. OK Buzby you are really wierding me out... Are you really simply trying to be helpful by telling me that not only am I doomed to failure, but that I could also be subject to retaliatory action? Or could you possibly be part of some Royal Mail conspiracy making subtle threats to discourage customers from even challengng Royal Mail practices? 8-)
  5. Confusing as the idea may seem to some, I was never actively seeking to refuse to accept parcels, special delivery items, and other over-sized mail on behalf of my neighbours, nor was it my aim to opt out of receiving junk mail from Royal Mail. I simply wanted to provide Royal Mail with the option of deciding whether or not they wished to continue delivering this stuff to me after my informing them of my intention to charge a £1 handling charge for each of those items delivered after 01 Novemeber 2007. Well they decided, and now I have submitted my invoice! I really don't see the pr
  6. Thanks for the interesting reponses people! Here are the facts so far, just the facts... In a letter dated 10 October 2007, I suggested that complicated changes to letter postage rates seemed to have allowed Royal Mail greater opportunity to levy handling charges on receivers of mail, based only on the shortcomings of the original customer in relation to the new rates of postage. I also acknowledged that Royal Mail was certain to have plenty of well-rehearsed explanations and arguments to justify their new procedures and associated charges, but I felt no necessity to listen to
  7. If I understand it correctly Royal Mail seem to be immune from prosecution for matters concerning non-delivery of mail, or judgements concerning compensation for damaged items of mail. My question is simple.. What about if Royal Mail owes money for a service provided by me and continues to ignore my requests for payment, can I ultimately take the matter to a Small Claims Court as I would any other non-payer?
×
×
  • Create New...