e-Bay, proof of posting.

[electron99]

I have seen this on an e-bay item.

 

All items are sent first class and proof of postage is obtained for all items, 
if an item is lost by Royal Mail proof of postage will be sent to the buyer for
them to make a claim with Royal Mail, i will not be held responsible for any 
loss in post.
if you want an item sent recorded delivery please add 75p to your invoice or
request a revised invoice from me.

Could someone confirm that it is in fact the seller who should chase the Royal Mail for

non-delivery, and not the buyer, and these terms and conditions are meaningless.

[hightail]

This is a silly seller. Without proof of delivery the seller would have to refund if a buyer claimed the item hadn't arrived. Suggesting that the buyer pay extra for recorded delivery is a joke. It's for the benefit of the seller, not the buyer. There are dishonest people who trawl ebay listings looking for sellers like this as they can get the goods AND get their money back through an ebay or paypal claim.

[buzby]

Agreed. His T&Cs are also against eBays own terms and completely unenforceable.

[andydd]

Either the sender or recipient can put in a claim for to RM for lost post, although obviously only the seller has the proof !

 

As pointed out getting proof is purely in the interest of the seller, otherwise the buyer will find it quite easy to get a refund via Paypal if an item doesn't arrive, Ebay is full opf silly T & C's that sellers often tag on at the end and most of the time that don't conform to Ebay/Paypal T & C's nor general law.

 

Andy

[buzby]

RM should not accept a claim from the recipient, for the obvious reason they are not the customer. It is the sender who must provide the evidence to RM, who then contact the recipient to confirm non-delivery. It is then the sender to recieves the compensation payment.

[andydd]

RM should not accept a claim from the recipient, for the obvious reason they are not the customer. It is the sender who must provide the evidence to RM, who then contact the recipient to confirm non-delivery. It is then the sender to recieves the compensation payment.

 

Not sure i agree, I've attached a claim form that I happened to have on my desktop, it says Are you the sender or recipient ?, therefore implying a recipient can put in a claim.

 

I see no reason why a sender could not send any proof of posting to the recipient who then goes on to make a claim (I was in the process of doing this myself regarding an Ebay item).

 

Also note that the claim form doesn't specifically say you need proof of postage, although you do if you require compensation (although I'm not sure why you would make a claim if you wern't after some sort of compensation)

 

Andy

Mail Claim Form.pdf

Edited June 23, 2010 by andydd

[hightail]

I see no reason why a sender could not send any proof of posting to the recipient who then goes on to make a claim (I was in the process of doing this myself regarding an ebay item).

 

Why should the intended recipient bother? Unless the sender can produce proof of delivery they can get their money back through ebay or paypal. Claims always succeed against sellers who don't abide by ebay's t&cs, one of which is to send items by a method whereby delivery can be tracked online. Proof of posting is not proof of delivery as many occasional sellers find to their cost.

[buzby]

There are occasions where the sender may not be able to initiate a claim, and this is why it is not specifically excluded, but to recieve any benefit of compensation, there needs to be statements from the sender AND intended recipient that it was posted and not recieved.

 

As for proof of posting, it is not mandatory, but without it any payment is at the discretion of RM. A CoP speeds up the process.

[andydd]

Why should the intended recipient bother? Unless the sender can produce proof of delivery they can get their money back through ebay or paypal. Claims always succeed against sellers who don't abide by ebay's t&cs, one of which is to send items by a method whereby delivery can be tracked online. Proof of posting is not proof of delivery as many occasional sellers find to their cost.

 

I bought an item that didnt arrive (twice) so i suggested to the sender that he send me the posting details an I'd do the RM claim process.

 

I did believe the sender when he told me he had posted the items, he even sent them recorded delivery, but nothing ever arrived at mine, nor did any 'while you were out' cards, I suspect that the item was addressed wrongly.

 

In the end he refunded me, I'm not sure if a Paypal claim would of been successful as he claimed he had recorded delivery proof of postage, but to whom was never discovered.

 

Numerous vists to RM sorting center or to RM helpline didnt sort out the problem.

 

Andy

[buzby]

If it wasn't signed for, Paypal would have refunded you.

[andydd]

If it wasn't signed for, Paypal would have refunded you.

 

Actually its coming back to me now, initially Paypal refused to refund me as the seller had proof of posting (that I never saw), I appealed to Paypal and pointed out that he had proof that something was sent to someone (and I assume, signed for), but it wasn't me. They then refunded me.

 

The whole process was a nitemare as neither the seller nor RM nor Paypal were helpful.

 

Andy

[buzby]

Do remember, proof of posting means nothing in a eBay or Paypal claim. It is proof of DELIVERY that matters which is why they specify tracked services. He would have to provide an RD or SD tracking number, that would let PayPal see if it was signed for. If it wasn't, you win. If it was (even if it was not your signature!) you lose. You just have to hope a neighbour didn't get it in error!

[andydd]

Do remember, proof of posting means nothing in a eBay or Paypal claim. It is proof of DELIVERY that matters which is why they specify tracked services. He would have to provide an RD or SD tracking number, that would let PayPal see if it was signed for. If it wasn't, you win. If it was (even if it was not your signature!) you lose. You just have to hope a neighbour didn't get it in error!

 

I'm sure you have prob seen the online RD page, very often there is no signature or if there is its often a unreadable mess, I know that whenever I sign for something using their lil electronic pad thingie it looks nothing like my signature, on top of that how on earth do Paypal know what my signature is like ?

 

Anyway, its resolved now and i think my arguement must of had some merit as they reversed their decision and refunded me

 

I'm pretty sure that the item (s) were delivered to someone else, cant recall what they were, some cheap PC bits I think, nothing major.

 

Andy

[electron99]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I have just won the auction and am sure everything will go smoothly.

If not - I will be back:-D

[perplexity]

RM should not accept a claim from the recipient, for the obvious reason they are not the customer. It is the sender who must provide the evidence to RM, who then contact the recipient to confirm non-delivery. It is then the sender to recieves the compensation payment.

 

FYI, the Royal Mail accepts a claim from a recipient so long as an item was "sent using one of Royal Mail’s services".

 

Therefore, the section of the claims form to identify the claimant also includes a part to identify

 

"Who did you send the item to/receive it from?"

 

[buzby]

There are occasuins where the sender is not able to pursue a claim as they are no longer in a position to do so. This remains the tail wagging the dog, and rather than roll your eyes, don;t take my work for it - the sender only will receive compensation UNLESS the sender has agreed the recipient can recieve it, should a favourable decision be made. It is also quite likely that a recipent's claim will be rejected. but a senders accepted. So given the two situations outlined, they a NOT equal. The sender should make the claim. As ALL parties need to make statements.

[perplexity]

Fortunately, the Royal Mail's Compensation for Loss Policy is available online.

 

Compensation is not payable "where the loss has arisen due to the posting or receiving customer’s own act or omission" so a sender could thus deny the chance, by owning up to an error, which would not be quite so bad for the receiver!

 

I am not otherwise aware of a sender's right to veto the receiver's claim, but do please be welcome to cite a reference or hyperlink to anything from the Royal Mail or legal authority to that effect.

 

[buzby]

How does 30 years experience of using their service sound? Of which there were 32 claims for non delivery as a sender, and 7 as a recipient. As the sender. 90% some were paid out within 21, days - 5% within 45 days, and 5% 'rejected with regret'. As the recipient, (and no confidence that the original sender actually posted the item as asserted), 5 were denied due to not being the sender and completion of the posters declaration or CoP, 1 was settled in full, with one a compensatory book of stamps and a With Compliments slip as it was possible the postbox being used had its contents set on fire.

 

As for the sender's right of veto - how about saying he hadn't posted anything to that address. or refused to correspond and verify? I find your continuing naivety breathtaking. There are no 'rights' issues here it is not insurance, but compensation, and this remains at the sole discretion of RM and even when criminal acts have been perpetrated and proved in a different court. (See Postal Services Act 2000).

 

Play the game correctly and most of the hurdles fall away, try it as a recipient and just see how far you get. Another reason why the 'University of Life' scores over some hyperlink or 'legal' resource, clearly, you've never claimed and experienced both sides of RMs administration policies. When you do, perhaps your suggestions might be worth taking note of, but not until you've actually experienced it for yourself.

[perplexity]

How does 30 years experience of using their service sound?

 

Hubris.

 

Why purport to know so much of my experience when you don't?

 

I could cite experience from the University of Life, 40 years ago but here is now.

 

To play the game correctly I play to rules published for the present tense, because they change in the mean time.

 

Breathe deeply and try it without the ego to get in the way. If the fact of the matter is that nothing is published to a particular effect, the helpful way to say so is to say so.

 

[buzby]

Fact? You had them, but that was unsatisfactory to you. Having litigated against RM of related issues, and know how they work I note you fight shy of looking at the relevant act I referenced..

 

As for you requirig 'publication' only a fool would assert if it isn't 'written' somewhere, it cannot have happened. Indeed, there are certain well known publications that don't even stand up to scrutiny in this modern age.

 

The fact you raise an issue is all I need to know my aim is true and you're up to your old tricks again. Here, and in other posts promoting to actual experiences (AFAICT). Instead of being your usual self (not providing a solution, just perpetrating the problem, ad nauseum) why not try it for yourself? I have, and I bet your experiences will be spookily similar.

 

But then, real issues aren';t your strong point, are they. Theory rules.

 

(Or not, as the case may well be).

[perplexity]

The convincing way to deal with the real issue would be to desist from inventing.

 

To know what really happens, I follow for instance the Payments & Postage Board on the eBay Community Forum. Not only do the users report their first hand experience, members who work for the Royal Mail offer their own advice.

 

The Forum is polluted by eBay employees who pose as consumers in order to brainwash unsuspecting novices but it is not so difficult to spot, which is which.

 

[madison85]

i know you try to save as much money on ebay but its sometimes best to get the best postage you can as not to risk it, i sell things now and again and thats what i do because i had trouble the first time.

[buzby]

'convincing way' ? This advice coming from a Cagger with a single reputation blob? To be convinced, most users might rely on three blobs and above, but with a record of 2years and only a single blob does speak volumes. It has me convinced.

[perplexity]

Without a doubt, most users might rely on three blobs and above.

 

It is therefore especially important to refute mistaken advice by referring to verifiable information, a reference to an actual statute for example, in view of a mythical version of the legislative basis.

 

The shame is then that albeit that a person may have posted on 50 thousand previous occasions, their credibility evaporates as soon as the impartial observer sees a truth for himself. Nor would it be so much of a bad thing, in my opinion, if they never again return to an internet forum to look for advice, preferring to think for themselves.

 

[buzby]

Nothing mistaken here. Are you now saying that the reason for ytour lack of reputation is due to your lack of recognition by ungrateful respondents? Surely not!