Royal Mail taking my earnings away from me - advice please

[Overdrawn]

Hi everyone, I could do with some advice about problems with Royal Mail please.

 

I'm registered as a business seller on ebay and in recent weeks (at time of postal strikes) I have had 2 parcels go missing.

 

A few days ago I put in a claim for the first parcel/item with a value of £16 (excluding postage costs) I submitted the claim form and enclosed a copy of the proof of postage, a copy of the item page and a copy of the Pay Pal payment. I have already refunded the buyer in full.

 

Today I got a letter from Royal Mail telling me they can only reimburse me what I have paid for the goods and they require a purchase invoice or receipt - not a problem I have one...BUT...I feel this is VERY unfair.

 

The item cost me £6 to purchase so I had made a profit of £10 on that item and Royal Mail are in my opinion taking away my income. I am a single mum and I rely wholly on ebay for an income to feed my family and pay my bills. I entrusted Royal Mail to deliver that parcel and they have failed to so. How would someone at Royal Mail like it if I decided to withold £10 of their wage??

 

I really am very, very annoyed about this and I intend to seek advice from Trading Standards but I was wondering if anyone else either felt as strongly as me about this or if anyone else had discussed or raised this issue with Royal Mail?

 

I am about to submit my second claim form, it's for an item that cost me £10 that I sell for £39 thus giving me a £29 profit (again, I have already refunded the buyer in full) - if Royal Mail will not pay out the market value for that item either, they will have in effect taken a total of £39 of my income away from me through a loss of two parcels

 

I have also incurred other costs (packaging materials) postage costs, not to mention the amount of time it takes to communicate with buyers and process refunds and fill in the claim forms!

 

Does anyone know if there are any legal issues regarding this matter as I would be more than willing to take Royal Mail to the small claims court for my loss of earnings. I've got a bee in my bonnet now and I won't rest until I take them on...

 

Thanks for your time, it's much appreciated, I know so many people put in so much of their time and expertise to help out the underdog on this site xx

Edited November 19, 2009 by Overdrawn

[pompeyfaith]

hiya although i cant help with advice on this issue can i just say as it is getting late now if u do not get a reply bump the post back to top in morning PF

[Overdrawn]

Hi PF, Thanks for your reply, I'm bumping this thread as you suggested

[pompeyfaith]

Bump anyone out there with commercial legal knowledge please.

 

Thank You

 

PF

[barracad]

If Royal Mail were to refund the price you sold the item for, then this would be 'betterment'. It is standard for couriers and carriers to refund only the 'cost price' of the item because that effectively puts you back into the position you were in before you had the item - you no longer have the item but you have been paid back the amount you paid for it. To pay you the full amount, you would be making a profit via a compensation payment received from them. Insurance companies etc always pay out like for like to avoid betterment.

 

Unfortunately any small claims action against Royal Mail for loss of earnings would almost certainly lose - exposing you to further costs - due to the indemnity they have under the Postal Services Act 2000.

[buzby]

As Barracad notes - it is your purchase price that matters, not what you sell it at. (Think about it, we could all set up a business selling thingswe bought for 99p at £33 and hope to profit on the diffefrence as part of a claim. Also court action would fail, they have Crown Immunity, and if you refused to accept their settlement when offered, the court would reject your argument and you'd lose even more money - the cost of raising the action, and RM's defence costs (capped at £100). When arranging insurance, it should be the value you paid and can substatiate that is claimed for, not the selling price.

[Overdrawn]

As Barracad notes - it is your purchase price that matters, not what you sell it at. (Think about it, we could all set up a business selling thingswe bought for 99p at £33 and hope to profit on the diffefrence as part of a claim.

I wasn't hoping to profiteer from my claim - I had already made my legal, honest and legitimate profit through my sale which I have now lost. I certainally did not set up my business 4 years ago based on a business plan which gave me earnings/income/wage from Royal Mail claims.

It seems that I have to accept the fact that Royal Mail are lawfully stealing from me. In my eyes they are no better than a shoplifter in a high street store. I shall be seeking alternative ways to deliver my goods to my customers. Royal Mail are an absolute disgrace.

[buzby]

Sorry, you're being totally irrational.

 

Insurance is just that - insurance. If you still want to cover your profits, you take out additional (specialist) insurance for loss of business/profit, to cover the profit element within the cost of the goods.

 

I wasn't suggesting you were trying to [problem] them - just proving that IF they did what you expected them to do, a significant minority would use it to fund a profitable sideline.

 

Following your reasoning - let's asume you had a shop, and for one reason or another it burst into flames, or got broken into, or got swept away in a flood.

 

What you want, is for you insurer not only to pay for the cost of your goods, but the price you were selling it at as well, vastly inflating the price of it as a result. This IS betterment, and not allowed, not just by RM, but any company trading responsibly.

 

You buy concert tickets and they get lost in the post. Clever you, you sent it Special Delivery, so the £120 face value for the tickets is covered. But, you paid £240 for them - not the printed ticket price. Again, RM will not pay this - ONLY the actual ticket price, UNLESS you paid extra for something called 'consequential loss'. It's been around for awhile - but just because you don't understand the process, is no reason to assert that RM are somehow 'lawfully stealing' from you. They're not.

[barracad]

I shall be seeking alternative ways to deliver my goods to my customers. Royal Mail are an absolute disgrace.

 

I can kind of understand where you're coming from to a certain degree - but just as you are running a business, so are they. And I can assure you that every carrier will work in the same way when it comes to compensation claims, so the only way you can avoid this is to deliver the goods yourself I'm afraid.

[danielr]

on the other hand this could work in your favour?

 

the only thing I've sold on ebay in the past few years was a games console. (an old mega drive).

 

this sold, with about 10 games for about £30... if this had gone missing do I say I want £30 back, or do I say that a want a few hundred quid back as that'd be the original purchase price? (£120 for console and £20 per game?)

(I could easily gather historical evidence of the cost of the system when it was last sold and the games as well).

 

price is what an item is worth, and that worth is considered by the buyer as a market value...

if an item sells for £30, that item is worth £30. regardless of whether you've bought it for £1 or £300.

 

my old mega drive and handful of games is worth £30 because that is what the market would bear... it is not worth the original sale price because the market would not bear this price.

 

I think you should provide them with the receipt from your auction to reflect the true value of the item at this point in time.

[buzby]

I think you should provide them with the receipt from your auction to reflect the true value of the item at this point in time.

 

The OP did this and it was rejected. It is the price that the OP paid that matters, not the selling price.

[danielr]

so if I carve ornate ornaments from scrap wood and sell those on ebay for hundreds of pounds RM will give me precisely nothing in the way of insurance for the items?

because the cost to me was nothing?

[buzby]

No - you will have to previously have the value assessed independently. This is no different fom sending a brick in the mail. You may have donle something to increase its value - but you would need to have this corroborated as a statement from yourself that it was unique and worth 100's could not be substantiated otherwise.

[danielr]

I'd need some sort of proof?

like a receipt from a legal transaction?

showing the price that it's worth?

something like a document indicating the price that someone had 'Just' paid for it?

a receipt that would indicate it's value in the right here right now?

 

 

The op tried that and it was rejected...

[buzby]

You're arguing with the wrong person. Yes, you need proof to satisfy the loss adjustors, as for what you mean by a 'legal transaction' eludes me. Do you think if the transaction was illegal it would be different?

 

The principle remains - betterment is not allowed in ANY insurance settlement. Where a precise value cannot be ascertained, then it still falls upon the poster to show the cost by verifiable means, the price it sold for is immaterial. If the buyer subsequently sold it on, it would be his buyers receipt that would be valid for a claim.

[Mr Happy]

Where there is a will there is a way, send a printout of an identical/similar item for sale in the shops or at a recognised internet retailer as proof of value, RM cant expect you to have receipts for everything you buy and sent through the post.

[Overdrawn]

Thanks to those people who have offered support/advice, it's much appreciated.

 

Buzby: If my stock set on fire I would expect my insurers to cover the cost of my stock - NOT what I could potentially sell it for - I wouldn't expect fire insurers to pay out for what I had already sold in previous weeks/months!?

 

When RM accept a parcel from me they merely ask if the item is worth more than £39, they never tell me that I am only "insured" up to the value that I paid for the item.

 

I have just returned from holiday to find that I have now got a 3rd parcel missing and I am now considering referring the matter to the police. I find it very difficult to believe that 3 parcels in the space of a month can simply get "lost"

 

I now have two more quieries regarding these claims if anyone has any knowledge from experience that may help me:

 

1) what do I do about sending RM the original proof of value that they require - my accountant needs the originals for my bookeeping/accounts. I have sent a copy of the original to RM for the first parcel so I guess I will find out and will hold fire on the other claims until I know their response to the copy.

2) what documentation do I provide to RM if I am unable to provide a receipt (this 3rd missing parcel was purchased well over 12 months ago and my accountant will have the receipt along with hundreds of other pieces of paper/receipts that I have passed onto him and it would be a HUGE job to sift through it all not to mention time consuming)

 

With regards to me seeming "totally irrational" I would appreciate you taking a moment to see things from my point of view - I work very hard to support myself and my family. I am honest and trusting. I came here for some advice and support and yes to have a rant about RM but I would prefer you to express your opinions of me in a more respectful manner.

[Overdrawn]

Update: 4th parcel now missing

[buzby]

I can tell you with absolute certaintly, the police will tell you to report the matter to Royal Mail, they will initially be reluctant to tell you this, but ultimately - as RM has it's own Investigation Branch, and direct reporting to the CPS, the police will not act on public complaints.

 

As for RM, copies of documents are fine - they have no requirement for originals. As for the the possibility of NOT having substantiation of price/value, you'll have to work round this as best you can. The same holds true of any insurer, they need verifiable proof, or reserve the right to reject the claim - on the basis that if you annot prove you had the actual goods in the first place and have in verified, they will treat each case on its merits - refusing payment if they feel the claim is unrealistic or unreasonble..

[Mr Happy]

I used to use ebay a lot and sent parcels regularly, parcels sent from eBay orders were 10 times more likely to get lost in the post when compared to orders from my website (make of that what you will).

 

I had a whole sack of items go missing once and I sent a bulk claim form with printouts from independent online stores showing the price (retail) and they paid the compensation, they did not ask for the price I paid for them they asked for the value of the item, that was a while ago (2 or 3 years) cant see what would have changed since then.

[buzby]

This proves the point though. If you supply evidence of the price YOU paid to obtain the goods, then that is all they seek. The price you SELL the items at is irrelevant. If you supplied printouts they would have expected this to represent the price you paid to obtain those goods. If you said you didn;t actually pay those prices, then they would not have paid out.