Royal Mail stole Special delivery item

[jk2054]

Ok so we'll move the SD parcel they straight up stole.

 

Sent a high value shoe of 745.00 via Special Delivery Guaranteed.

They mark it as delivered with a photo of the recipients door. The signature is their covid "XP1" one even though the item was sent well after signatures were reintroduced.

The name also doesn't match that of the recipient.

 

I am of the view that Royal Mail cannot exclude their liability to reimburse me for their employees criminality no matter their protections as that simply is not fair. 

 

So my plan so far is as follows:

 

-Wait for outcome of Postal redress decision (only reason to wait is that If I issue proceedings before the deicison, and the deicision is in my favor the decision is voided)

-If redress decline (most likely given they're uphold rate is 4%) send LOC the same day

-Wait 14 days then issue court claim against them.

 

Any suggestions welcome

 

@BankFodder I think this is set out as you requested, anything you want me to change please let me know

[BankFodder]

It's up to you but I thought the plan was to claim for the cheapest one and thereby minimise your costs for the moment and see how it all worked and what their defence was before going for something more expensive and more costly to claim for

[jk2054]

Afternoon, Apologies for the delay

 

Well I am doing that in terms of the  tracked 48 cases. However given Tracked 48 are NOT covered by the scheme and special delivery ARE then my guess is the defence will be slightly different.

 

Thoughts?

 

Also I'm shortly going to send you a PM with some information I've obtained from a RM defence doc which I think may be something you'll want to read.

[BankFodder]

It's up to you but I think it would be prudent to stick with the lowest value first. We are happy to help you with the larger value if you want.

In terms of the information you have posted up in a message, please could you reproduce it here or at least link to its source – where you found it which is presumably on a post office website. In fact the link might be easier for us to manage because the text is quite long

 

[BankFodder]

Still waiting for this information concerning Royal mail legal liabilities please.

[jk2054]

Hi,

Sorry I was travelling.

Will be doing the SD thats been stolen and the Tracked 48 simultaneously albeit one SD at a time.

This is because their defences for each one will be different as they cant use their postal scheme defence for tracked 48 so I dont think the defences will be the same.

As for the thing i sent to you via DM it formed part of a RM defence to POSTRS so i cant link it as POSTRS dont publicly publish their stuff

 

Posted it below here for public reference 

Edited August 6, 2023 by jk2054

[jk2054]

RM contract defence:

 

"More technically: Royal Mail; the letter delivery business of Royal Mail Group Ltd provides the inland letters services to customers under a scheme made under s89 of the Postal Services Act 2000 (“The Act “).  Royal Mail was authorised to set up The Royal Mail United Kingdom Post Scheme to make arrangements for the delivery and collection of postal services within the United Kingdom.
 
Customers who use a service which is provided to them under the aforementioned scheme do not enter into a contract with Royal Mail for the provision of that service.  This legal status is confirmed by case law going back a number of years and which are referred to in Halsbury’s Laws of England.
 
This interpretation is confirmed by the provisions of s89(7) of the Act which permit Royal Mail to sue customers who have not paid for services, a provision which would be unnecessary if customers entered into a contract with Royal Mail.
Customers who use such a service have no claim in tort against Royal Mail as this is excluded by the provisions of s90 of the Act.
 
As such any claim for compensation for loss or damage to the contents of a postal packet must be brought under the provisions of s90 and 91 of the Act to be successful.
 
Under s91 of the Act a customer may claim compensation if an item is lost or damaged whilst in the course of transmission through the post, if he has complied with all the terms and conditions of the service as set out in the Act, Inland Scheme and information provided on the website or literature issued in connection with the same.
 
Section 90 of the Act excludes liability on behalf of the business, its employees, staff and agents in respect of any act or omission which occurs whilst an item is in the course of transmission through the post.  This in effect provides an exclusion of liability in respect of claims which could otherwise be framed in tort, for example, negligence"

 

"

 

This is Royal Mail's explanation for how there is no contract

[BankFodder]

This is their own explanation. It lacks any references to the sources of their so-called interpretation – and it is self-serving.

It doesn't follow at all that simply because Royal mail is apparently permitted to have people who have not paid for services is evidence that there is no contract.

Using exactly the same kind of interpretive logic employed by the post office, we can say that

Quote

S.90

(1)No proceedings in tort shall lie or, in Scotland, be competent against [F2the operator] in respect of loss or damage suffered by any person in connection with the provision of [F3the service] because of—

(a)anything done or omitted to be done in relation to any postal packet in the course of transmission by post, or

(b)any omission to carry out arrangements for the collection of anything to be conveyed by post.

Had it not been for S.90(1) of the 2000 Act, it would have been possible to have the post office in Tort.
There is no equivalent provision relating to contract and from that we can infer that the post office is open to actions in contract. Had Parliament wished otherwise, then they would have included an equivalent provision.

Of course the post office doesn't cite any of the sources for their interpretation (maybe they don't dare) – but if the precedents proceeded the date of the 2000 Act and that adds weight to the argument that because the Act is silent on the issue of actions in contract, that the post office doesn't enjoy any special immunity.

That's just my interpretation but so far I reckon it is just as good as what I am reading in the above passage produced by the post office.

Also, I'm having difficulty finding out exactly what is a "Scheme". Is there an interpretation of this word in the act or somewhere else?

[jk2054]

Hey BF

 

Scheme is shorthand for this https://www.royalmail.com/sites/royalmail.com/files/2022-04/UK_Post_Scheme_06-April-2022.pdf

 

Royal mails explanation for no contract is that they can sue people for no pay If they entered contract to deliver then RM couldnt sue them

[BankFodder]

6 minutes ago, jk2054 said:

Royal mails explanation for no contract is that they can sue people for no pay If they entered contract to deliver then RM couldnt sue them

I've no idea what this means

[jk2054]

from what i understand they are saying If people entered a contract with Royal Mail to deliver items, then Royal Mail wouldnt be able to sue the shipper, but since royal mail can, then apparently that means theres no contract 

[BankFodder]

Sorry but it is still as clear as mud to me.

I can't remember which particular thread this is but I think once again you should go for the smallest value and sue on that and see what happens.

You can treat it as a test case and you will learn a lot and we will learn a lot.

I expect that they will settle but at the very least you will get to see the defence and even if they just settle before child that will be interesting.

 

[jk2054]

sounds good

[jk2054]

again - this one is waiting as we test with a small value one

[BankFodder]

I'm not sure why you posted this message