Royal Mail Destroyed my Package

Naresh

custardy wrote: »

On the 14th of January
every Post Office I have been in has white posters up about it

http://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/International-prohibitions-and-restrictions-leaflet-consumers_0.pdf

The most I could see you arguing for is a return on postage paid

They leaflet you highlight in the PDF was not on display, not given and I was not made aware that it even existed. Otherwise I would not have taken the chance of having my property destroyed
They have rejected my claim for postage as well

custardy

Slowhand wrote: »

How many Post Offices were you in on the 14 of January? Zero, one, 10?

on the day or before,during and after?
if its the latter then many

Naresh

custardy wrote: »

on the day or before,during and after?
if its the latter then many

Even today several of the staff in our local post office do not know about the regulation changes that allow a cube of 16cm cubed as an allowed exception for a small parcel that is greater than 8cm high to be posted.

At the time the regulations were introduced the Post Office did a very poor job of informing the public via their counter services.

It is unfair to expect the public to be checking their web site for regulation changes, every minute of every day.

Destruction of my property is not fair unless fair compensation is paid for their staff not doing their job in informing the public.
They inform now but at the time of posting they did not do their duty.

There must be something I can do to get fair compensation.

custardy

Naresh wrote: »

Even today several of the staff in our local post office do not know about the regulation changes that allow a cube of 16cm cubed as an allowed exception for a small parcel that is greater than 8cm high to be posted.

At the time the regulations were introduced the Post Office did a very poor job of informing the public via their counter services.

It is unfair to expect the public to be checking their web site for regulation changes, every minute of every day.

I agree RM have handled the new changes badly(and I personally dont agree with the bulk of them)
however the crux of your argument probably falls on RM saying you didnt declare the perfume or the like?
Was it destroyed due to no return address? I would have assumed the default action was RTS

Naresh

custardy wrote: »

I agree RM have handled the new changes badly(and I personally dont agree with the bulk of them)
however the crux of your argument probably falls on RM saying you didnt declare the perfume or the like?
Was it destroyed due to no return address? I would have assumed the default action was RTS

For a parcel to Europe (Portugal) a customs declaration is not required.
Now every parcel sent by Airmail is quizzed for contents by the staff.
They never asked for the contents before Feb 2013.
There was a returns address and Customer Services told me it was being RTS. Then a month or so later, I received a letter telling me it had been destroyed.
That is not fair in any language.
Following the destruction, I should have been able to claim on the additional insurance I purchased, but I was told I could not.
Was this a case of mis-selling the insurance.
It is the duty of the post office to inform / warn the customer.
At the time of posting, I was neither informed nor warned.

Slowhand

custardy wrote: »

on the day or before,during and after?
if its the latter then many

On the date of the 14 of January as you stated. Not before or after, it's not that difficult to answer. How many PO's were you in on the date YOU stated that displayed the sign?

custardy

Naresh wrote: »

For a parcel to Europe (Portugal) a customs declaration is not required.
Now every parcel sent by Airmail is quizzed for contents by the staff.
They never asked for the contents before Feb 2013.
There was a returns address and Customer Services told me it was being RTS. Then a month or so later, I received a letter telling me it had been destroyed.
That is not fair in any language.

I asked the counter staff if the bottle of perfume would arrive in time for Valentines day. They specifically said that it would arrive in time.

In your opening post I assumed you had declared it as perfume at the counter
that is what i meant by declared

custardy

Slowhand wrote: »

On the date of the 14 of January as you stated. Not before or after, it's not that difficult to answer. How many PO's were you in on the date YOU stated that displayed the sign?

you can drop the attitude
I was probably in four or five on that day.
I didnt state the sign was displayed on that date, if YOU wish to get onto semantics
I linked to the PDF regarding the date of the change,
that being the 14th of January.
Its not that difficult to understand

Naresh

custardy wrote: »

In your opening post I assumed you had declared it as perfume at the counter
that is what i meant by declared

Yes, I asked the staff if my bottle of perfume would arrive in time for Valentines day and they said it would.

So, it was verbally declared as to the contents.
They then accepted the package and gave me a receipt.
Which forms a contract, does it not ?

custardy

Naresh wrote: »

Yes, I asked the staff if my bottle of perfume would arrive in time for Valentines day and they said it would.

So, it was verbally declared as to the contents.
They then accepted the package and gave me a receipt.
Which forms a contract, does it not ?

which goes back to my point