Re: royal mail exempt from cc claims

[Jedflorex]

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?

[barracad]

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?

 

Yes, assuming you have some kind of contract with Royal Mail and there is a legitimate reason for your claim i.e. you are one of their suppliers and they haven't paid you.

[Helford]

Hi,

 

Royal Mail is now actually only a trading name of Consignia Plc. [PLC = Public Limited Company]

 

H

 

From Companies House:-

 

WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information

Edited May 9, 2008 by Helford

[barracad]

Consignia Plc ceased to exist a long time ago (maybe 6 years or more)

[Weird Al Yankovic]

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?

 

 

Of course you can.

[Hobbie]

Civil action can be brought almost against anyone, but criminal action is something different, and Royal Mail fail within an excemption for certain offences and of course for reasons that I doubt need explaining.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Civil action can be brought almost against anyone, but criminal action is something different, and Royal Mail fail within an excemption for certain offences and of course for reasons that I doubt need explaining.

 

Royal Mail are subject to both civil and criminal laws. They only enjoy an exemption, in certain circumstances, for non-delivery of mail.

[Hobbie]

Yes RM are subject to both civil and criminal proceedings, but do have excemtions to criminal law.

 

An example,

 

X sends a firearm through the post to Y, Postman has parcel in his delivery bag, postman can not be charged for posession of a firearm, nor is RM liable for transporting a firearm.

 

It is Y who is ultimately responsible, not X. as X has legally handed possession and all rights of the parcel over to RM.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Yes RM are subject to both civil and criminal proceedings, but do have excemtions to criminal law.

 

An example,

 

X sends a firearm through the post to Y, Postman has parcel in his delivery bag, postman can not be charged for posession of a firearm, nor is RM liable for transporting a firearm.

 

It is Y who is ultimately responsible, not X. as X has legally handed possession and all rights of the parcel over to RM.

 

So what?

 

If X sent the firearm by DHL the same would apply.

 

The sender is committing the offence and it is not a case of a carrier being exempt!

[gyzmo]

This reminds me of a joke on Have I got News For You last week.

the Queen "owns" all mail when it is in the hands of RM. If someone sent drugs by post, would the Queen get done for possession?

(note - taht is a joke and does not require an answer!)

 

Back to topic!

[Hobbie]

Weird Al Yankovic,

 

DHL Don't have the same excemptions.

[buzby]

To be precise, it is the Postal Services Act of 2000 that decides whether an expmption applies, certain exclusions are being removed as they prepare for full competition (whatever that is), but this should be taken asd your only valid reference.

[Jedflorex]

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 them.

 

Instead, I formally informed Royal Mail of my intention to introduce my own new storage and handling charge in relation to certain items delivered by Royal Mail to my address. I also informed Royal Mail at that point that the responsibility to inform its employees about my intention to levy this new £1 handling chargebelonged solely to Royal Mail, and that there would be no exceptions.

 

I informed Royal Mail that any of the following items received from Royal Mail after Thursday, 01 November 2007 would be subject to the new charge.

 

* Parcels, and other over-sized mail, addressed to immediate neighbours and held by me for delivery,

 

* Advertising fliers, and other assorted unadressed “junk mail”.

 

Royal Mail had the opportunity to choose at that point whether to desist from further deliveries of those items, or continue delivering them and accept the new storage and handling charges.

 

Royal Mail chose to continue to deliver those items after 01 November 2007, and so as far as I was concerned they had accepted the new charges as applicable.

 

On 02 April 2008, I submitted an invoice totalling £56.00 covering the period 01 November 2007 - 31 March 2008, followed by a letter dated 30 April 2008 seking settlement of that invoice.

 

Interestingly, delivery of the aforementioned chargeable items only ceased following the 30 April 2008 letter.

 

On 05 May 2008, I received a reply full of standard sentences and paragraphs stating that Royal Mail "cannot accept any reciprocal surcharges that are not authorized by the postal services commission or by act of parliament". Adding, "we will not enter into any further correspondence concerning this matter".

 

We shall see... ;-)

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Weird Al Yankovic,

 

DHL Don't have the same excemptions.

 

Ok, then why don't you send a shotgun via DHL and, if it is discovered, find out who will get their collar felt!

[Weird Al Yankovic]

 

I informed Royal Mail that any of the following items received from Royal Mail after Thursday, 01 November 2007 would be subject to the new charge.

 

* Parcels, and other over-sized mail, addressed to immediate neighbours and held by me for delivery,

 

* Advertising fliers, and other assorted unadressed “junk mail”.

 

 

Interesting, apart from the facts that-

 

1 Royal Mail do not and cannot leave parcels, or any mailings, with you to hold them for your neighbours. They are not allowed.

 

2 Every household in the UK can simply opt-out of receiving junk mail from Royal Mail.

 

I fear your intentions are seriously flawed and your letter to RM probably received a wee chuckle.

[Spiceskull]

Instead, I formally informed Royal Mail of my intention to introduce my own new storage and handling charge in relation to certain items delivered by Royal Mail to my address. I also informed Royal Mail at that point that the responsibility to inform its employees about my intention to levy this new £1 handling chargebelonged solely to Royal Mail, and that there would be no exceptions.

LOL - I like it - a similar approach to the one I used with HSBC, and informing them of my intention to levy charges against them for their breaches of contract...I received similar rebuttals, and eventually took them to court for settlement...which I finally won...

 

However, Weird Al raises a couple of valid points in his last post, and notwithstanding those, your letter is effectively an amendment of terms to a contract that does not exist between you and RM...

 

It would be nice to hear that you get the money, but I think it very unlikely in the extreme...

[buzby]

Nope, this will fail - and RM are wrong too, it does not require to be specifically addressed by legistlation (Postal Services Act 2000). So your actions would be equally invalid if applied to Royal Mail, any third party postal carrier or a local leaflet canvasser.

 

The ONLY way you would be successful in your action is if Royal Mail agreed to the terms and conditions you attempted to apply. Without such agreement, then effectively you are trying to enforce a financial liability without consent, and RM would win costs against you with no bother at at all. This is not like the old 'full and final settlement' that requires someone to encash a cheque for the condition to apply - you'd need to have them perform a set again (agree to your terms) for you to have any claim against them that they broke the agreement.

 

I'm afraid that as much as I support those fighting against RM for injustices, you're actions are doomed. They also have the ultimate sanction of refusing to deal with your and removing all rights to mail delivery and you'll have to collect it yourself from the delivery office. Is it really worth that hassle?

[patdavies]

Interesting, apart from the facts that-

 

1 Royal Mail do not and cannot leave parcels, or any mailings, with you to hold them for your neighbours. They are not allowed.

 

I wasn't aware that they weren't allowed to but it doesn't stop them. they do it all the time.

 

2 Every household in the UK can simply opt-out of receiving junk mail from Royal Mail.

 

Only in the form of mail with no specific recipient. If it's addressed by name or The Occupier, then you get it. You can't opt out of the leafleting that is added to the local round - so all those annoying bits of paper from the local pizza/curry house/estate agents/etc. will continue. opt out or not.

[buzby]

IYou can't opt out of the leafleting that is added to the local round - so all those annoying bits of paper from the local pizza/curry house/estate agents/etc. will continue. opt out or not.

 

Sorry, wrong. This is called 'Unaddressed Mail' and there is a specific request you make to Royal Mail to opt out. I did so 2 years ago and now only get a few (when a relief postman makes an error).

 

To opt out, go here;

 

http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/content1?catId=400126&mediaId=500081

[Hobbie]

Ok, then why don't you send a shotgun via DHL and, if it is discovered, find out who will get their collar felt!

 

I don't have one to send, plus DHL's rates are to high.

[Jedflorex]

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 problem... ;-)

[Spiceskull]

Well they decided, and now I have submitted my invoice! I really don't see the problem...

I'm afraid that if you take this to court you will certainly lose.

 

Sending an invoice implies that there is an implied contract between you and RM, with you as the supplier, and RM as the customer. This contract does not exist in this context, and therefore the invoice itself is invalid.

 

That you wrote to them, giving them advance warning, does not alter the fact that there is still no existing contract. In my own case there was an existing contract with HSBC, and therefore my amended terms were valid amendments.

 

Their argument was that they had not agreed to them, and therefore they did not count as amended. My argument was that they had accepted, by the principle of "acceptance by conduct"

 

In your case the contract does not exist in the first place, and therefore they are not "accepting anything by conduct..."

 

My guess is this: you invoice them, they refuse to pay, you threaten court action, they counterclaim, and press for costs and damages. You will be labelled "vexatious litigant" and they will win...

[Jedflorex]

OK Buzby you are really wierding me out...

 

I support those fighting against RM for injustices, you're actions are doomed. They also have the ultimate sanction of refusing to deal with your and removing all rights to mail delivery and you'll have to collect it yourself from the delivery office. Is it really worth that hassle?

 

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-)

[Jedflorex]

OK Spiceskull I get the message... ;-)

[Weird Al Yankovic]

I wasn't aware that they weren't allowed to but it doesn't stop them. they do it all the time.

 

An item of mail is deliverable only to the address on the item-not even to the person stated on it.

I assume it is your postie who is leaving your mail with your neighbour for you to reach this conclusion? Then he is committing a criminal offence.

 

Only in the form of mail with no specific recipient. Not true. Stating a recipient is insignificant, address is all important. If it's addressed by name or The Occupier, then you get it Correct, which isn't classed as 'junk' mail by Royal Mail (as you have stated 'if it's addressed'). I assume you say 'addressed' as using your address? You can't opt out of the leafleting that is added to the local round - so all those annoying bits of paper from the local pizza/curry house/estate agents/etc. will continue If they take the trouble to address each and every flier then, yes, I agree. Hardly likely. opt out or not.

 

...