Sent phone back but they say did not get it.

grumbler

custardy wrote: »

I made people open the door to the property many many times
they graunch and moan, but its that or i left a red card

Well done then.

So you mean anyone signing for a package now needs only to produce photo ID?(given no other type is any use)

Preferably a photo ID, but not necessarily. A fraudster is extremely unlikely to have, say, a paper DL of a person living at the address that the goods were ordered to.

custardy wrote: »

I dont see RM mentioned in the post you quoted?

The post I quoted was a reply to the post where RM was mentioned. That said, in my post RM was just an example. The same applies to any carrier that is unable to prove reliably the delivery.

Buzby

None of this really helps the OP. the bottom line is that it is the sender's responsibility to ensure the item is delivered. Recorded Delivery will NOT provide accepted proof for compensation for loss of a range of goods, bonds, money, jewelry, and mobiles.

Fortunately, the system shows it has been signed for, so the onus is now with the recipient to disprove receipt, but if they refuse it will be a slog to make them. Any court action would use this evidence on the balance of probabilities that the recipient did indeed accept delivery (even if it went next door in error).

Since RM will not pay out, the only pursuit is of the recipient.

custardy

grumbler wrote: »

Well done then.
Preferably a photo ID, but not necessarily. A fraudster is extremely unlikely to have, say, a paper DL of a person living at the address that the goods were ordered to.The post I quoted was a reply to the post where RM was mentioned. That said, in my post RM was just an example. The same applies to any carrier that is unable to prove reliably the delivery.

hold on. you are now accepting non photo ID?
Then you have no idea who is signing for the item
If someone has access to the property,then they most likely have access to ID

irishjohn

grumbler wrote: »

In other words you are happy to use some loophole (consumer credit act) to force some other company, that hasn't done anything wrong, to pay for RM's mistakes. That said, I think I would do the same without hesitation and leave it to the credit card company, the sender and RM to sort this out between them.
By saying this you seem to agree that some signature in fact doesn't prove anything.

No - i pay by credit card and if an item does not arrive I dispute the charge - and leave it to supplier and RM to sort out what happened. Until I have a purchase in my possession I will not pay for it. Thats why I use credit cards.

I definitely agree some signature does not prove anything - when I look at my attempts on the RM electronic signature screen I am appalled, but its their responsibility to improve the process or take the consequences if a delivery dispute arises.

grumbler

custardy wrote: »

hold on. you are now accepting non photo ID?
Then you have no idea who is signing for the item
If someone has access to the property,then they most likely have access to ID

As I said, it's not my job, I have to improvise, and it is a balance between the risk and the cost. In some other countries it's a norm that only the named addressee with a photo ID can get a private signed for mail, including a recorded mail sent by RM from UK.

Generally, paper DLs are obsolete, and personally, if asked, I'd vote for the new ID cards.

grumbler

irishjohn wrote: »

No - i pay by credit card and if an item does not arrive I dispute the charge - and leave it to supplier and RM to sort out what happened. Until I have a purchase in my possession I will not pay for it. Thats why I use credit cards.

The point was that there is no any logical reason why only credit cards give this sort of protection.

I definitely agree some signature does not prove anything - when I look at my attempts on the RM electronic signature screen I am appalled, but its their responsibility to improve the process or take the consequences if a delivery dispute arises.

100% agree.

grumbler

Buzby wrote: »

Fortunately, the system shows it has been signed for, so the onus is now with the recipient to disprove receipt,

How is it possible to prove that you have not received something?

but if they refuse it will be a slog to make them. Any court action would use this evidence on the balance of probabilities that the recipient did indeed accept delivery (even if it went next door in error).

Since RM will not pay out, the only pursuit is of the recipient.

Yes, for the sender it is the recipient. The recipient, in their turn, can sue RM and is likely to win.

Fiftyshades

custardy wrote: »

So are the company denying the sig is valid?

From what I can make out, they say the phone was not in the pack, how can I prove it certainly was.

grumbler

Are they saying that the pack was empty? What kind of packaging it was? You can find the weight of the parcel in your RM receipt.

Fiftyshades

grumbler wrote: »

Are they saying that the pack was empty? What kind of packaging it was? You can find the weight of the parcel in your RM receipt.

I have the weight here on my receipt.

Well it just says quantity 1
weight 0.250 kg

I dont know if it was exactly that or rounded up or down.

Or does that mean it was under this so you pay delivery up to this weight?

Any way what do I do now, I am waiting for there next correspondence.