Royal Mail Claim - Item value

martindow

Inigo_Montoya wrote: »

Royal Mail like to have their cake & eat it

When you are selling something & making a profit they only want to pay you what you paid for it & not the extra profit ( IIRC someone took them to court over this a few years back & RM settled out of court to avoid setting a precedent )

However when you are selling something for less than you paid for it they only want to pay you the sale price & not the cost price

Given the above unfair policy then what I would do in your situation is simply send them a copy of a receipt showing the items cost price & claim for that (& not mention ebay at all)

The fault in this is that the OP is selling a second hand item so it is not going to be worth what was paid originally.

RM's system seems entirely logical to me as it is supposed to cover the person's loss. With Ebay purchases of second hand items the sold price is what you have lost. If someone is buying to sell on making a profit their loss is what they paid for it.

Inigo_Montoya

I just did a quick search & quite easily found an example of where Royal Mail have lost a court case about the interpretation of 'market value'

http://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2009/nov/02/dealer-defeats-royal-mail-over-compensation-policy/

So the courts/law agrees that Royal mail should compensate for the 'saleable value' and not just for what the seller paid for them

I completely agree with this especially when the item that was sold is a 'one off' that you managed to find for a good price & that you cannot easily buy at the same price again

custardy

Inigo_Montoya wrote: »

I just did a quick search & quite easily found an example of where Royal Mail have lost a court case about the interpretation of 'market value'

http://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2009/nov/02/dealer-defeats-royal-mail-over-compensation-policy/

So the courts/law agrees that Royal mail should compensate for the 'saleable value' and not just for what the seller paid for them

I completely agree with this especially when the item that was sold is a 'one off' that you managed to find for a good price & that you cannot easily buy at the same price again

The OP wont be claiming at a loss
they are selling a second hand item and will be claiming for the sales price
you are linking to a case relating to a business seller and cost to buy
As you see it relates to antiques,which isnt the same as a general item bought for £20

techspec

Inigo_Montoya wrote: »

I just did a quick search & quite easily found an example of where Royal Mail have lost a court case about the interpretation of 'market value'

http://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2009/nov/02/dealer-defeats-royal-mail-over-compensation-policy/

So the courts/law agrees that Royal mail should compensate for the 'saleable value' and not just for what the seller paid for them

I completely agree with this especially when the item that was sold is a 'one off' that you managed to find for a good price & that you cannot easily buy at the same price again

"Royal Mail said that their position remained unchanged and that compensation for lost items was based on “actual loss” – in their view what a claimant had paid, not what they had sold items for"

Clearly in this case - Royal Mail have given the green light for the OP to claim the COST - as i suggested.

vigman

Interested to see if OP gets anything! As I said, RM admitted fault by its worker but only paid the postage cost claiming my £45 damage claim was "not covered by the postage I used".

This was first class, and I believed I was covered for up to £46 loss or damage.

In three letters, they would not answer that specific question!

Vigman

custardy

vigman wrote: »

Interested to see if OP gets anything! As I said, RM admitted fault by its worker but only paid the postage cost claiming my £45 damage claim was "not covered by the postage I used".

This was first class, and I believed I was covered for up to £46 loss or damage.

In three letters, they would not answer that specific question!

Vigman

was the item covered by 1st class though?

Strapped

soolin wrote: »

The form specifically asks whether it is an eBay claim or not, RM do not like people playing fast and loose with compensation and I would certainly suggest the buyer takes the 'other ' advice here.

Actually, if the OP is a business then they are obligated to claim the purchase price of the item and not the sale price. Usually this is less than the sale price, it just so happens that in this case, it was more.

Strapped

martindow wrote: »

The fault in this is that the OP is selling a second hand item so it is not going to be worth what was paid originally.

RM's system seems entirely logical to me as it is supposed to cover the person's loss. With Ebay purchases of second hand items the sold price is what you have lost. If someone is buying to sell on making a profit their loss is what they paid for it.

OP has not stated that it was second hand. They may be a business. So I guess the answer hinges on whether they are a business or indeed they were selling an old second-hand item.

Strapped

vigman wrote: »

Interested to see if OP gets anything! As I said, RM admitted fault by its worker but only paid the postage cost claiming my £45 damage claim was "not covered by the postage I used".

This was first class, and I believed I was covered for up to £46 loss or damage.

In three letters, they would not answer that specific question!

Vigman

That depends on when you posted it, and what the item was. Insurance level changed in April but I assume that it was sent before then, in which case it depends on whether it was covered by the insurance or not.

Personally, I'm a bit bloody minded and would pursue it further if I believed that it WAS covered.

ballisticbrian

Incidently, if you are a business and sell something for a loss, e.g. stock room clearance, you only get the lower amount out of what it sold for or the original cost price, and this applies to most of the couriers also.