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

visidigi

also, use a parcel reseller at your own risk, if you think RM are trying to pull a fast one you aint seen nothing on the parcel reseller market.

They get massive discounts, charge you a massive premium (100+%) on the cost they pay and the benefits are usually MUCH less than going to the delivery company direct...if price is your thing use a reseller, if service is your thing, go direct and pay the minor premium.

What is the item you are claiming for?

wealdroam

agrinnall wrote: »

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].

The '4' is significant.

The reason for the '4' is at the bottom of the page...

4This evidence must show what it cost the claimant to acquire, purchase or manufacture the original item (or repair in the case of damage).

Which does seem to support Arcon's earlier post.

Oliver14

Crabman its quite simple you have to provide proof of what was paid for the item. Not sure why you cant understand that simple concept.

molerat

http://www2.royalmail.com/customer-service/complaints-process

Where an item is lost then it is the amount it cost the customer to acquire, purchase or manufacture the item subject to adjustment to take account of condition, age and depreciation.

Strange how an item can only depreciate.

So if I found something valuable in granny's attic and entrusted it to RM I could not claim for it because I did not purchase the item ?

pendulum

Oliver14 wrote: »

Crabman its quite simple you have to provide proof of what was paid for the item. Not sure why you cant understand that simple concept.

What if I sent something for which it is not possible to work out what it cost me? For example, if I break a car and send the wing mirror, the only evidence I'd have to show what I paid for the wing mirror would be the invoice for the whole car when I bought it.

It strikes me as an unfair contract term if they are insisting on proof of what it cost the sender and that information is impossible to produce or very difficult.

paddyrg

Out of interest, what is the value of the item? Did you use an insured service or regular post? There is a limit on the value regular post is suitable for. £40-something pounds I believe, which will be the absolute maximum you would ever be able to claim anyway

agrinnall

wealdroam wrote: »

The '4' is significant.

The reason for the '4' is at the bottom of the page...
Which does seem to support Arcon's earlier post.

Thanks, I didn't think to look for a footnote given that the 4 is in normal font rather than the superscript you would expect. I think the whole page is of questionable validity given that there are no references in the text to footnotes 1, 2 and 3.

withabix

custardy wrote: »

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

That is one thing that needs to change.

custardy

withabix wrote: »

That is one thing that needs to change.

well thats fine as long as you accept all the other changes to go with it
removal of the USO should do for a start

withabix

There is NO reason why RM or any other public sector organisation should not be answerable to the courts for their failings.