Jump to content

tomo23

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tomo23

  1. 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:-
  2. 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
  3. 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!?
  4. 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!?!
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...