We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Sent phone back but they say did not get it.
Comments
-
That said, I agree that the entire system of RM recorded signed for mail is flawed.
Not sure about this - for £1 Royal Mail ensure that on delivering the package / letter they require someone at the address to sign accepting the delivery.
If a more comprehensive guaranteed tracking from post to delivery is required then it is available by buying the product from Royal Mail which provides that service at a higher cost.
Where's the flaw?John0 -
'Someone' is the key word here. 'Someone's' signature in fact doesn't prove anything. Any signature has a value only if the person who signed is not unknown.Not sure about this - for £1 Royal Mail ensure that on delivering the package / letter they require someone at the address to sign accepting the delivery.
Yes, the price is higher, but similarly to a signed for mail it doesn't guarantee anything. No court will accept 'someone's' signature as a proof.If a more comprehensive guaranteed tracking from post to delivery is required then it is available by buying the product from Royal Mail which provides that service at a higher cost.0 -
'Someone' is the key word here. 'Someone's' signature in fact doesn't prove anything.
Yes, the price is higher, but similarly to a signed for mail it doesn't guarantee anything. No court will accept 'someone's' signature as a proof.
So you send a signed item to a business
then what?
every item needs a named recipient and that recipent must come to receive deliveries?0 -
-
'Someone' is the key word here. 'Someone's' signature in fact doesn't prove anything.
Yes, the price is higher, but similarly to a signed for mail it doesn't guarantee anything. No court will accept 'someone's' signature as a proof.
Carriers as royal mail only deliver to addresses, no id is requested unless the senders pay for that service. Also most of the xda's have built in GPS so can track where they are/Don't put your trust into an Experian score - it is not a number any bank will ever use & it is generally a waste of money to purchase it. They are also selling you insurance you dont need.0 -
Fiftyshades wrote: »Yes it shows a sig. The phone was certainly worth more than 40something quid.
So are the company denying the sig is valid?0 -
It's not my job to deliver mail and to develop a procedure of obtaining a reliable proof of the delivery.So you send a signed item to a business
then what?
every item needs a named recipient and that recipent must come to receive deliveries?
If it were my job, I'd ask for an ID of the person signing for the mail and for a proof that this person is authorised by the business to sign for a recorded mail. I'd make notes about both documents on the slip.0 -
It's not my job to deliver mail and to develop a procedure of obtaining a reliable proof of the delivery.
If it were my job, I'd ask for an ID of the person signing for the mail and for a proof that this person is authorised by the business to sign for a recorded mail. I'd make notes about both documents on the slip.
grumbler indeed
you seem to be thinking small scale
many businesses have 1 point of delivery
multiple depts,people etc(some even have mail diverted on route,so the mail isnt even addressed to the delivery address. common with banks)
So that 'authorised' person isnt going to be named on the items
deliveries are systems that work most of the time
if you want systems that cover waiting,checking ID etc,then the costs will rise massivly0 -
The company is named. It's up to the company to decide what exactly employee(s) is (are) authorised to sign for mail and to provide them with some documents proving this authorisation. No authorised person, no delivery. As simple as that....
So that 'authorised' person isnt going to be named on the items
As I said, for any carrier it has to be a balanced decision based on the risks and the costs related to being unable to prove the delivery should they need to.deliveries are systems that work most of the time
if you want systems that cover waiting,checking ID etc,then the costs will rise massivly
I don't see any problem with checking an ID to make sure that the name is the same as the person 'prints' on the slip and ticking some boxes in the slip to note what ID (and other documents if needed) was checked.0 -
The company is named. It's up to the company to decide what exactly employee(s) is (are) authorised to sign for mail and to provide them with some documents proving this authorisation.
As I said, for any carrier it has to be a balanced decision based on the risks and the costs related to being unable to prove the delivery should they have to.
so you are now splitting the intended recipient from the signatory?
So then what? delivery company says it was delivered to Mr X,recipient says they have never heard of them?
personaly you strike me as someone who throws out ideas because thats how you deem it should be,regardless of feasibility.
The simple answer is your proposal is unworkable in real terms.
Delivery services are a one size fits most.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards