Disgusted at ebay/paypal/buyer...

zorber

Your item is covered upto £41 which means you can claim upto £41 regardless to the fact it was worth more.

I have several still outstanding from Christmas where it appears the item was never delivered but the seller has left me good feedback saying it has.

Unfortunately royalmail here is S*** !!!! and any switched on buyer checking the tracking number after it has been delivered and realised that it hasnt been updated, can if they wish, commit mail fraud and get away with it.

Rubbish isnt it

Uncertain

zenseeker wrote: »

Uncertain, I'm not quite sure why you are being contradictory to someone who is giving the exact same information as you.

I read their post as suggesting that the £41 cover disappears completely if the item is worth more than this so that there is no cover at all. My understanding is that this is not the case.

If I misread them then I'm sorry.

Uncertain

I think people age getting too bogged down in the legal technicalities!

More relevant (for now) is how eBay / PayPal will handle the matter. If the Royal Mail come up with a signature for delivery the OP will almost certainly get his £101 back in his account. If they don't he won't.

He MIGHT (and only might) have some legal rights beyond this. He MAY have some slim chance of defending PayPal's claim against him for £101. However, keep in mind if he goes down that route PayPal will very likely exercise their right to not have him as a customer in the future.

jasmineswhiskers

Uncertain wrote: »

I read their post as suggesting that the £41 cover disappears completely if the item is worth more than this so that there is no cover at all. My understanding is that this is not the case.

If I misread them then I'm sorry.

Am going to a different post office in a while - will ask another assistant what their take is on it.

cyberbob

There is so much dodgy missinformation on this post. The simple thing is the seller has no signature so will lose a paypal claim. Also the OP is used the wrong postal method so in liklihood will no receive any compensation at all. It's worth trying a claim but in liklihood they will receive nothing

jasmineswhiskers wrote: »

Am going to a different post office in a while - will ask another assistant what their take is on it.

They will all give you a different answer i'm afraid. The only opinion that matters is that of those dealing with the claims.

Uncertain wrote: »

I read their post as suggesting that the £41 cover disappears completely if the item is worth more than this so that there is no cover at all. My understanding is that this is not the case..

You are partially incorrect. If the item is worth more than £41 you have a very high risk of not getting even the £41. RM will frequently refuse any claim under the fact that you have not used an appropriate postal method. This has been reported to be happening more frequently over the past year or so.

As for Fraud there is no evudence of this. I'm afraid despite what some Paranoid posters think all customers aren't out to scam you and things go missing.

If we take Welshpauls obsession with the small claims court. Even if you did have evidence of a crime '(which there isn't). I'm afraid it's not the panacia he seems to think. Even if you do win your case and they rule in your favour it does no guarantee you your money back. If the person who loses refuses to pay it is up to you to enforce high ballifs etc. Which can cost up to £100 a day. So if your going to take anyone to court it's worth taking this into consideration.

I'm afraid if you break down the OPs post it all comes down to someone not understanding their responsibilities as a seller and the best way to protect themselves from loss.

The rest of the stuff on this thread is just sily speculation.

Uncertain

cyberbob wrote: »

You are partially incorrect. If the item is worth more than £41 you have a very high risk of not getting even the £41. RM will frequently refuse any claim under the fact that you have not used an appropriate postal method. This has been reported to be happening more frequently over the past year or so.

This is really important - and not just for this case.

Clearly different people employed by RM are giving different answers to the same question.

On what do you / they base "frequently refuse" and why more so in the "past year or so". Are they trying it on and assuming nobody will sue because the amounts involved are normally too small? Has the law / rules changed? If a counter clerk gives wrong information (in front of a witness) are RM then liable?

Pembroke

custardy wrote: »

which is why the figure always changes
its 100 times the cost of a 1st class stamp.
now did you think your 75p for recorded gave you unlimited cover?

So just out of interest Custardy has anyone said well that's 75p recorded fee Plus the 41p giving a total of 116p so I claim £116 ? After all it 'could' be argued that as the sender has paid extra for an enhanced first class service then they should get the higher compensation.

custardy

Pembroke wrote: »

So just out of interest Custardy has anyone said well that's 75p recorded fee Plus the 41p giving a total of 116p so I claim £116 ? After all it 'could' be argued that as the sender has paid extra for an enhanced first class service then they should get the higher compensation.

argued how?
the compensation is set @ 100x the cost of a 1st class stamp
recorded carries no additional insurance
If the sender wants higher insurance then use a service that carries it
or should i just insure my car for £50 and claim £10,000 if it gets stolen or i crash it?

Crowqueen

All this and the buyer does not have their item and can successfully launch a claim.

It comes down to the seller being irresponsible, looking after neither the buyer of their item, nor themselves, for the sake of £5.

And yet people here, if the buyer was on the thread, would be falling over themselves to say that the seller has no case and to go ahead and launch an INR.

Double standards yet again.

It's the seller's responsibility - RM will not pay out because the correct service was not used, you have no proof the buyer is lying, and you didn't do the correct homework and spent £5 extra to send it by SD.

It's your loss, OP. Nothing anyone will tell you here will change that.

Azari

Crowqueen wrote: »

RM will not pay out because the correct service was not used,

Can you back that up?

It's really not helpful that people keep repeating that the RM will/will not pay the £41 compensation when they do not know for certain.

By 'know for certain', I mean be able to provide a link where this is stated unambiguously by the Royal Mail.