Royal Mail

[Agathachristie]

To make it short. I sent post "signed for" it got lost. I am suing Royal Mail for 36 Pounds compensation. Their defence is rediculous. Any chance I win this thing? Is there any case law established?

Thanks for your thoughts.

[PI Guy]

what is their defence?

[Weird Al Yankovic]

To make it short. I sent post "signed for" it got lost. I am suing Royal Mail for 36 Pounds compensation. Their defence is rediculous. Any chance I win this thing? Is there any case law established?

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

You have zero chance. Royal Mail have an immunity for this claim.

[MrShed]

Was is Special or Recorded delivery? What have they offered/paid you so far, if anything?

[Agathachristie]

Was is Special or Recorded delivery? What have they offered/paid you so far, if anything?

They sent me some stamps. Defense is wired they used case law which is not related to my problem. "Section 90 of the Act provedes that no proceedings in tort shall lie against the Defendant in respect of loss or damage suffered by any person in connection with the provision of a Universal Postal Service because of : Anything done or omitted to be done in relation to any postal packet in cours of transmission by post or any omission to carry out arrangements for the collection of anything to be conveyed by post. The exclusion from liabillity coveres the Defendant, its employees and agents...............

[MrShed]

I think the Special/Recorded delivery question is key...

[Weird Al Yankovic]

They sent me some stamps. Defense is wired they used case law which is not related to my problem. "Section 90 of the Act provedes that no proceedings in tort shall lie against the Defendant in respect of loss or damage suffered by any person in connection with the provision of a Universal Postal Service because of : Anything done or omitted to be done in relation to any postal packet in cours of transmission by post or any omission to carry out arrangements for the collection of anything to be conveyed by post. The exclusion from liabillity coveres the Defendant, its employees and agents...............

 

Which means you have zero chance of success.

 

Save your money as you will not win.

 

Regards

[tiglet]

I agree with Mr Shed.

[MrShed]

Also, what was the item and its value?

 

Al, although I see what you are saying, as Royal Mail CLEARLY advertise that they will give compensation on their website in the case of lost items, I fail to see any way they can be legally exempt from providing a service they have advertised.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Also, what was the item and its value?

 

Al, although I see what you are saying, as Royal Mail CLEARLY advertise that they will give compensation on their website in the case of lost items, I fail to see any way they can be legally exempt from providing a service they have advertised.

 

They have already compensated her. They have given her stamps. And no doubt it was a dozen 1st class stamps.

 

They are not legally exempt from providing a service either. But they are legally exempt from an action should that service fail where thay provide a universal service which Registered is.

 

Regards

[MrShed]

No. They do not advertise that they will send stamps, they advertise they will compensate "actual loss", should the item sent hold any value.

 

I cant even begin to comprehend a system where a company/organisation can have zero recourse against them should they fail to deliver on what is, in effect, a contract between yourself and them. If they are excluded from liability, they should not offer compensation in the clear knowledge that they can never be forced to pay, and the fact that they are excluded from liability should be publicised.

 

Not saying you are wrong Al, I have no knowledge in the sector myself, but if you are right it is a massive consumer injustice(and I am not usually one to say such things quite frankly!).

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Actually Recorded Signed For covers up to £36, not 'actual loss.'

 

Maybe the OP can confirm what was sent? But it appears to have been investigated and compensated for already.

 

In any event, the OP can complain to Postcomm about her issue and, indeed, should have in the first place.

 

She will get nowhere with suing RM for this otherwise. The defence shows this.

 

Thems are the rules.

[MrShed]

On their website, it states actual loss up to £36.

 

Cant find the damn link now though!!!

[MrShed]

http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/content2?catId=14000176&mediaId=3100011

 

There we go

[Weird Al Yankovic]

On their website, it states actual loss up to £36.

 

Cant find the damn link now though!!!

 

Which is what I said in my previous post.

[MrShed]

In which case stamps are clearly not acceptable compensation in a lot of cases.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

In which case stamps are clearly not acceptable compensation in a lot of cases.

 

In which case there isn't a lot that can be done I'm afraid.

 

Postcomm may have considered the compensation awarded, ie the stamps, not enough but the OP needed to complain in the first place to them for this to be decided.

 

No court will, or even can, rule on this claim.

[Agathachristie]

How about this: ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rm/Royal_Mail_general_ts&cs_29_October_2007web.pdf

page 14 Nr. 7 this is the genearl terms and conditions of RM. I will go this route. Any suggestions? I have not gotten the court hearing yet but I am angry at Royal Mail. Telling clearly online under the general conditions that they refund for loss and then telling me in the defense that they can not be liable in any case. So there is a discrepancy which I see.

[MrShed]

In which case there isn't a lot that can be done I'm afraid.

 

Postcomm may have considered the compensation awarded, ie the stamps, not enough but the OP needed to complain in the first place to them for this to be decided.

 

No court will, or even can, rule on this claim.

 

I dont dispute that you are right - I am saying that this is wrong for the consumer quite frankly.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

I dont dispute that you are right - I am saying that this is wrong for the consumer quite frankly.

 

I don't think it is wrong to any great extent.

 

Despite what the public may believe, in the context of the millions of items posted each year, only a very small amount are lost.

 

However, because so much is sent then the percentage of those lost appears very high.

 

Add to this delays and damage then if there was no immunity for RM then the amount of court claims in the system would be horrendous and I doubt whether the courts would cope. It would be chaos.

 

Also, if somebody sends valuable items then there are services available from RM that would increase the compensation if lost.

 

I can honestly say that I personally can only remember 3 items of mail I have sent have been lost by RM in my whole life. Quite impressive statistics.

 

And I am no fan of RM! I took them to an Employment Tribunal and they are the worst employers I ever worked for. However, their logistics operation is astonishingly good.

[MrShed]

I fully agree, I absolutely do not question that RM actually runs well considering the size of the organisation. I do not however feel that this has much to do with the situation. What good is this to the person who's item is lost? It is not a valid excuse to say "well, it happens - look at how many we DO deliver". It DOES happen, and this should be understood by the person involved, but also it has still happened whilst in the care of RM, and the person should be adequately compensated - at the VERY least to the amount they have stated they will! And if they cannot do this, then they should be held to account.

[The GodMother]

According to family who work for royal mail they are not exempt for liablity with certain cases but are others they could not go into detail because they are not high enough up.

 

there has been a few other cases against RM where they have claimed they are exempt but the judge has said they are not. I will have to look for the one i was reading regarding car damage and the postie.

 

will post the link later.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

According to family who work for royal mail they are not exempt for liablity with certain cases but are others they could not go into detail because they are not high enough up.

 

there has been a few other cases against RM where they have claimed they are exempt but the judge has said they are not. I will have to look for the one i was reading regarding car damage and the postie.

 

will post the link later.

 

Yes, but that thread was not a case of Royal Mail failing to deliver an item.

 

It was a case of a Royal Mail postman delivering an item in a manner outside his remit that caused damage to a car, thus negligence.

 

They are two different things.

[The GodMother]

actually if u look an this site via the search link u will find other royal mail threads.

 

I was also pointing out that the OP on both threads had said that RM were not responsible for the damage/lost under the SAME rules.

 

i was also pointing out the judge had ruled AGAINST RM at that point.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

actually if u look an this site via the search link u will find other royal mail threads.

 

I was also pointing out that the OP on both threads had said that RM were not responsible for the damage/lost under the SAME rules.

 

i was also pointing out the judge had ruled AGAINST RM at that point.

 

Yes but it is quite insignificant to this particular thread.

 

The OP here wants to sue RM for losing an item.

 

They shouldn't bother as they will not win.

 

That's all they need to know.