Post Office wanting to know all contents.

porto_bello

oldone wrote: »

You can imagine it can't you.
PO Clerk "What's in the parcel"
Customer " A diamond necklace - I sell on e-bay"
PO Clerk " You need special delivery"
Customer "Fine"

Next day customer is on the way to the Post Office with another parcel, when they are mugged by someone further back in the line the previous day who had heard the conversation.

PO staff will deny culpability citing "we was only obeying orders"

The day after, the irritated mugger returns to the PO, to complain that the diamond necklace that they went to such trouble over is just paste, and made in China.

PO Clerk: "Well, what on earth did you expect of an opportunist, something sold on eBay as a diamond necklace?"

RFW

custardy wrote: »

sigh,you realise this is a safety issue?
Monopoly? what you mean is cheaper service given you have an option
If you are crying now,just wait.

I'm not disputing the safety issue side of this but why, if it is for safety reasons, has it only just been introduced? Has something sparked this that we don't know about?

custardy

RFW wrote: »

I'm not disputing the safety issue side of this but why, if it is for safety reasons, has it only just been introduced? Has something sparked this that we don't know about?

Im told there have been incidents on flights,though I have no evidence for this

however as is usually the case. The information is on the RM site

http://www.royalmail.com/posting-safely

From 15 July, if you post aerosols, alcoholic beverages, mobile phones and other electronic items containing batteries, nail varnish, perfumes or aftershaves, you must comply with updated volume, quantity, packaging and labelling requirements.

The changes, which follow a review of Royal Mail’s position with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Department for Transport (DfT) and Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), mean personal customers will be able to post all these items, which are currently prohibited by dangerous goods regulations, to UK addresses.

The updated set of rules will limit the risk posed by those consumer items containing flammable liquid, aerosols or lithium batteries when sent in the post.

shaun_from_Africa

RFW wrote: »

I'm not disputing the safety issue side of this but why, if it is for safety reasons, has it only just been introduced? Has something sparked this that we don't know about?

There hasn't been one specific incident that lead to the changes, but the number of lithium battering being shipped around the world is increasing every year.
Because of this, the number of lithium related incidents on commercial and cargo aircraft has alo increased proportionally.

Here is just a few examples of what can happen with these batteries. (I'm an aircraft engineer, also certified as a dangerous good shipper, and I receive plenty of CAA and FAA bulletins relating to shipping incidents).

Shipment of batteries awaiting loading onto aircraft.



Laptop and spare battery in carry on bag.





9 volt lithium battery in video camera.

RFW

Interesting. I'm not sure I've ever shipped a battery or wanted to, just intrigued why it's taken so long for it to become RM policy if there has been problems.

shaun_from_Africa

There have been a number of CAA documents issued in the past couple of years which relate to lithium battery shipments, and maybe it's taken RM some time to make their changes.

The potential dangers of shorted or damaged lithium batteries has been known about for a long time, but it was only a few years ago that the FAA started looking into it.
They issued a safety alert in 2010, and this was followed by the CAA in the UK producing a similar document.
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2010/SAFO10017.pdf

Compared to the amount of batteries being transported by air, the number of incidents caused by these batteries is very small, but I certainly wouldn't want to be at 35,000 feet when something similar to one of the photographs above happened on board.

Jamie_Carter

I can't believe that for the first page and a half of this thread nobody seemed to realise that it was for security reasons.

Nobody questions the restricted items list when they check in at the airport. But when you consider that overseas mail goes by air, as well as some internal mail, then it should be no surprise that the restrictions are the same for parcels. After all, the current threat level for international terrorism on mainland UK is still 'Substantial'.

Also I'm sure custardy will vouch for the high number of bomb scares and white powder incidents that cause huge amounts of disruption at sorting offices.

martindow

Some, but not all, POs scan one of a series of barcodes printed on a sheet kept behind the counter. Presumably these ensure riskier items are now separated when they are received at the PO to ensure that they travel by road only.

RFW

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I can't believe that for the first page and a half of this thread nobody seemed to realise that it was for security reasons.

Nobody questions the restricted items list when they check in at the airport.

You've never been at an airport when someone was asked to ditch their bottle of perfume then?
There does seem to be a few different agenda with Royal Mail's policy here. They have lifted several previous restrictions.

I've actually just had a mobile fixed on an insurance claim and it is being returned by courier, so looks as though it's another area RM are now losing out.

custardy

RFW wrote: »

You've never been at an airport when someone was asked to ditch their bottle of perfume then?
There does seem to be a few different agenda with Royal Mail's policy here. They have lifted several previous restrictions.

I've actually just had a mobile fixed on an insurance claim and it is being returned by courier, so looks as though it's another area RM are now losing out.

nobody used couriers for mobiles before this month?