Royal Mail - No Compensation (Don't Use Royal Mail)

Crabman

1) Item was sent by Royal Mail

2) Item was stolen by Royal Mail staff/lost due to Royal Mail staff incompetence whilst in their care

3) Compensation claim was submitted with evidence of value (letter from retailer to confirm value of item)

4) Royal Mail apologised for losing item but denied compensation claim because they feel evidence has to be a receipt showing the item had been purchased.

What happens where a gift is given to you by friends/family and you then send that off to someone?

You wouldn't have a receipt and thus Royal Mail would claim that you can't be paid compensation.

Yet you would still have lost the item and it would cost money to replace the item.

In any other situation where someone caused loss or damage they would have to pay for the item to be replaced/repaired. So why does Royal Mail feel it has some special exemption?

Does anyone know whether Royal Mail has been successfully sued in the small claims court for damages?

It is not right that Royal Mail should be able to sell consumers' lost items at profit yet insist on unreasonable rules with regard to the consumer claiming reasonable damages for items lost.

P.S: Those sending parcels may find that this is a much better service than Royal Mail and cheaper too: http://www.parcelsplease.co.uk/

Update: There is an MSE Article on Parcel Delivery

fluffnutter

It sounds like they're having trouble establishing the intrinsic value of your item. How about I send something that's worth 35p through the mail. It gets lost and I try to claim compensation of £50. I'd have to have some sort of proof that the item was actually worth £50. That's what the receipt provides.

What's the item?

POPPYOSCAR

Have you used parcelsplease for a while?

wealdroam

fluffnutter wrote: »

It sounds like they're having trouble establishing the intrinsic value of your item. How about I send something that's worth 35p through the mail. It gets lost and I try to claim compensation of £50. I'd have to have some sort of proof that the item was actually worth £50. That's what the receipt provides.

Not really Fluffnutter.

How about I send something that's worth 35p through the mail.
It gets lost and I try to claim compensation of £50.

I have a receipt that shows I paid £50 for something.
It does not show that I paid £50 for the thing I posted.

Crabman

fluffnutter - They're not having trouble "establishing the instrinsic value of your item" - they're trying to get out of paying the claim on a technicality. I will not roll over and accept this nonsense.

Whether a receipt is provided or a confirmation of value from the retailer is provided, that is still no guarantee that the item in question was in the parcel, is it? That seems to be what you're getting at. They have the option to inspect the contents when an item is sent at the post office.

The retailer has confirmed the value of the item. Unless Royal Mail have proof that the retailer is being less than truthful, they must pay the claim.

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Have you used parcelsplease for a while?

I've used them on three separate occasions and I was very pleased with the door-to-door service (better than Royal Mail), their fully trackable service (better than Royal Mail) and their excellent customer service (again, better than Royal Mail).

arcon5

Personally I don't see the problem with RM selling items found after reimbusing you the cost of the item.


Proof of value isn't necessarily the price you paid for the item. If you paid £10 for a £100 item then you would be entitled to your £10 back, not the value of the item of £100. In the same way retailers and manufacturers can only claim what it cost them and not the amount they sold it to the customer for.
This is where the problem lies, you haven't provided them with evidence of what it cost you.


The retailer that gave proof of value, i'm assuming it's not the same retailer to originally sell whoever the item?

Also parcelsplease doesn't look cheap at £8.34 (inc VAT) for next day service, try ParcelMonkey at £7.02 or Hermes for 3-5 day services.

Crabman

Good spot arcon5, I just found the MSE article for cheap parcel delivery - added it to the first post too.

The issue here is that Royal Mail have by their own admission been negligent/incompetent and they should put the consumer in the position they were in before the negligence occurred.

This means paying compensation that is sufficient to cover the value to replace the item and thus restore the consumer to the original situation.

custardy

you cannot take RM to small claims so I'll save you some money there

Crabman

custardy wrote: »

you cannot take RM to small claims so I'll save you some money there

I see you're an ex-postie - how would you suggest resolving this?

If someone gave you a gift today which you sent to someone else for Christmas but RM lost it, would you deem it reasonable to buy a replacement without RM paying for it?

arcon5

Crabman wrote: »

I see you're an ex-postie - how would you suggest resolving this?

If someone gave you a gift today which you sent to someone else for Christmas but RM lost it, would you deem it reasonable to buy a replacement without RM paying for it?

Can you not speak to the person who gave you the item and see where they purchased it from and perhaps getting a copy of the receipt?

The problem is royalmail have to reimburse you the cost of the item and not the value. Proof of value doesn't proof how much it cost you.

Or go hunting around the house for any receipt of similar value and make a new claim.

agrinnall

arcon5 wrote: »

The problem is royalmail have to reimburse you the cost of the item and not the value. Proof of value doesn't proof how much it cost you.

I'm not sure that's correct, this is from the RM website:

• The claim should also include any available supporting information / evidence relevant to the claim;

• Evidence of posting with Royal Mail
• Evidence of the item’s value (for loss, part loss & damage claims only) 4

[I don't know why that point ends with a 4, I assume it's a mistake building the page rather than anything significant].