Royal Mail Claim - Item value

Strapped

ballisticbrian wrote: »

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.

I think you're right actually ie actual loss in accounting terms.

vigman

Strapped wrote: »

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.

Yes, started last October. It was an antique writing box which I sold on Ebay for £75 and was claiming the £45 quoted for restoration for the serious damage they admitted their agent caused!.

I usually pursue things to the bitter end, including court where I have always won (!) but I now have a debilitating, progressive illness and we were getting F_I_L into a care home at the time, and have to say, gave up the fight on this occasion.

The most annoying thing was my last letter was just to clarify why my first class post did not come under the £46 loss or damage and they would not reply to this question....just kept saying my post did not have insurance cover!!!!!!!!!?

Actually, whether the item is included in their insured items or not, they are surely liable for damage admittedly caused by their agent's actions?

Vigman

soolin

vigman wrote: »

Yes, started last October. It was an antique writing box which I sold on Ebay for £75 and was claiming the £45 quoted for restoration for the serious damage they admitted their agent caused!.

I usually pursue things to the bitter end, including court where I have always won (!) but I now have a debilitating, progressive illness and we were getting F_I_L into a care home at the time, and have to say, gave up the fight on this occasion.

The most annoying thing was my last letter was just to clarify why my first class post did not come under the £46 loss or damage and they would not reply to this question....just kept saying my post did not have insurance cover!!!!!!!!!?

Actually, whether the item is included in their insured items or not, they are surely liable for damage admittedly caused by their agent's actions?

Vigman

If I remember correctly your scenario was not the same at all. You wanted compensation for a repair but wanted also to keep the item- whereas for damage RM will expect the item to be given over to them. You also sent it standard mail which at the time had an insurance value of £46, so you wanted the full insured amount back, plus the item -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4330393=

vigman

soolin wrote: »

If I remember correctly your scenario was not the same at all. You wanted compensation for a repair but wanted also to keep the item- whereas for damage RM will expect the item to be given over to them. You also sent it standard mail which at the time had an insurance value of £46, so you wanted the full insured amount back, plus the item -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4330393=

I suppose I just wanted things returned to the state they were before the damage was caused. So I wanted the damage caused by RM repaired on the item the buyer had retained.

I don't really think this is too much to ask and came within what I thought was the allowance for damage. Why would I want it repaired and then not allow the buyer to keep it?

Vigman

soolin

vigman wrote: »

I suppose I just wanted things returned to the state they were before the damage was caused. So I wanted the damage caused by RM repaired on the item the buyer had retained.

I don't really think this is too much to ask and came within what I thought was the allowance for damage. Why would I want it repaired and then not allow the buyer to keep it?

Vigman

I'm concerned about taking this off topic but insurance doesn't work like that. You under insured the item and no insurance is ever going to pay out in full for a partial loss where the insured value is not covered.

The item was 'insured' ( and I am sure custardy will correct my use of that words as it is not true insurance) to a value of £46 , therefore the total loss will be £46 so I do not think it unreasonable for RM to refuse to pay out £46 and not expect you to turn over the item.

An analogy , probably a poor one, would be if I insured my suitcase contents for £200 and then claim my camera had been broken And want the full £200 back as that is the value of the camera, that claim would be denied as I would obviously be underinsured.
However, none of that has bearing on the thread.

zerog

I just want to say that RM has approved my first ever claim. However, they said 6 stamps were enclosed and there were 0 stamps. They have ignored my letters to them complaining so far.

vigman

Soolin, just to clarify, in order to have a successful claim for the £45 (admitted) damage to a £75 item, I should have insured the item for £75?

If I had, could I, or the buyer, have kept the item and received £45 for the repair to put it in original posting condition?

TIA

Vigman

PS I have never claimed in my 59 years on any insurance policy (car, house, contents, travel etc) but in this case I did as I had the admitted damage by the company's agent.

custardy

vigman wrote: »

Yes, started last October. It was an antique writing box which I sold on Ebay for £75 and was claiming the £45 quoted for restoration for the serious damage they admitted their agent caused!.

I usually pursue things to the bitter end, including court where I have always won (!) but I now have a debilitating, progressive illness and we were getting F_I_L into a care home at the time, and have to say, gave up the fight on this occasion.

The most annoying thing was my last letter was just to clarify why my first class post did not come under the £46 loss or damage and they would not reply to this question....just kept saying my post did not have insurance cover!!!!!!!!!?

Actually, whether the item is included in their insured items or not, they are surely liable for damage admittedly caused by their agent's actions?

Vigman

couldn't you say that about anything damaged in the postal system?
You were claiming for an item not covered by the service you used
you gave RM a get out clause

vigman

custardy wrote: »

couldn't you say that about anything damaged in the postal system?
You were claiming for an item not covered by the service you used
you gave RM a get out clause

I'm really confused now.......why was this item not covered by the service I used (First Class which had loss or damage up to £46 at the time I sent it)? Was it because its total undamaged value was £75 (so was 'under insured') or is the item itself (an antique box) an issue?

TIA

Vigman

PS I now use 'signed for' services with insurance to the sale value of the item. Luckily nothing has been lost or damaged yet, but I'm hoping this will make a claim straightforward.