Ripped off by Royal Mail

harryenfield123

Ironically, whilst visiting my mother last Friday we went into town and a man approached up asking for us to sign a petition against the privatisation of Royal Mail which I was happy to do. However when I got back to my mother's I regretted this decision as it became apparent that Royal Mail believes they can act with impunity!

The problems was an unexpected by familiar parcel had arrived at her house. It was a parcel she had sent to granddaughter in New Zealand 12 days earlier. It had contained a pair of shoes and perfume for her 16th birthday. Upon opening the parcel it became apparent that only the shoes were inside. There was also a letter from Royal claiming that due to recent changes in policy, perfume could not be sent internationally and therefore it had been removed and the remainder sent back.

The postage was £25 and the perfume was £50 - then end result, £75 lost. Please note, that my mum has been sending this sort of stuff to New Zealand for years. She always completes the customs declaration clearly and this time had written Perfume and Shoes on the declaration.

I than called the customer service number provided by the Royal Mail. The explained that their policy changes a few months ago and that they depend upon the staff in the PostOffice to inform customers of this change. In fact, he claimed that my mother should have been given a laminate card to read explaining that perfume could not be sent. Instead the PostOffice were happy simply to charge the £25 for postage and nothing else.

I asked why they had removed the goods and sent it back. He explained that they Royal Mail view the situation is that they have two options, and the one they used was deemed the best:

Option 1, was to remove contraband goods and let the remaining packing be sent - he said they don't do this because the customer may be unaware that goods have been removed and make the same mistake again. - A shocking answer I thought; I asked why not send my mum a letter (the same which arrived with the returned parcel) stating that certain goods had been removed but allow the other goods to be sent? (in which case, only the £50 for the perfume would be lost)

Option 2, the one they though was the best was to remove the goods, destroy them and then return the remainder to my mother - they then claim that this would ensure that the sender did not make the same mistake. However as far as i am concerned, this is punitive action and has cost £75 and has now cost her another £25 to send the shoes for her granddaughters birthday, which should now arrive about three weeks too late.

I asked why they did not consider a third option which was to return the entire package complete because the contraband was identified before it left the country. It was clearly marked on the customs declaration as perfume - I was informed by the helpful man on the end of the phone (he was helpful), that Royal Mail chose not to view it in this light.

He explained that i should also take the matter up with the PostOffice as this is where the initial fault lay.

I am now thinking as a consequence of their actions (Royal Mail) that privatisation would not be a bad idea because there is no way that a private company would be allowed to operate in this manner. If this matter is not successfully resolved, I am seriously considering taking this matter up with the small claims court on behalf of my mother.

Can anyone offer any further opinions on this matter - it just does not seem right or fair to me.

Valli

http://www.royalmail.com/personal/help-and-support/Tell-me-about-Prohibited-Goods-overseas


T&Cs at the bottom -

We reserve the right to refuse any other item banned by law or that in our opinion may be harmful or dangerous to our customers or employees. If you send dangerous goods and do not comply with the applicable terms and conditions and legal requirements then we may deal with the goods as we see fit including destroying or disposing of the relevant goods.

Shame the PO clerk didn't read the customs label and advise your mother that perfume couldn't be sent. That would be where I would address my complaint to. Unfortunately they will probably not accept any liability or responsibility.

I doubt, if they are privatised, that this policy will change.

marliepanda

It's also on the customer to make sure what they're sending is allowed.

Chalk this one up to experience. It's not a punitive measure as someone had to go to the trouble of sorting out your package which could not be sent.

harryenfield123

T&C are great but at the point of sale, this should have been noticed, it was not concealed; it was clearly marked as to what it contained.

It is a punitive measure because the item never left the UK, therefore at the point where the parcel was opened it has not broken any regulations. It was clearly marked on the parcel's customs label that it contained perfume, there would have been no need to open it - simply return it. I fail to understand your point - Even by Royal Mail's and the PostOffice's own admission, she should have been given a leaflet explaining the changes, they did not.

custardy

harryenfield123 wrote: »

Ironically, whilst visiting my mother last Friday we went into town and a man approached up asking for us to sign a petition against the privatisation of Royal Mail which I was happy to do. However when I got back to my mother's I regretted this decision as it became apparent that Royal Mail believes they can act with impunity!

The problems was an unexpected by familiar parcel had arrived at her house. It was a parcel she had sent to granddaughter in New Zealand 12 days earlier. It had contained a pair of shoes and perfume for her 16th birthday. Upon opening the parcel it became apparent that only the shoes were inside. There was also a letter from Royal claiming that due to recent changes in policy, perfume could not be sent internationally and therefore it had been removed and the remainder sent back.

The postage was £25 and the perfume was £50 - then end result, £75 lost. Please note, that my mum has been sending this sort of stuff to New Zealand for years. She always completes the customs declaration clearly and this time had written Perfume and Shoes on the declaration.

I than called the customer service number provided by the Royal Mail. The explained that their policy changes a few months ago and that they depend upon the staff in the PostOffice to inform customers of this change. In fact, he claimed that my mother should have been given a laminate card to read explaining that perfume could not be sent. Instead the PostOffice were happy simply to charge the £25 for postage and nothing else.

I asked why they had removed the goods and sent it back. He explained that they Royal Mail view the situation is that they have two options, and the one they used was deemed the best:

Option 1, was to remove contraband goods and let the remaining packing be sent - he said they don't do this because the customer may be unaware that goods have been removed and make the same mistake again. - A shocking answer I thought; I asked why not send my mum a letter (the same which arrived with the returned parcel) stating that certain goods had been removed but allow the other goods to be sent? (in which case, only the £50 for the perfume would be lost)

Option 2, the one they though was the best was to remove the goods, destroy them and then return the remainder to my mother - they then claim that this would ensure that the sender did not make the same mistake. However as far as i am concerned, this is punitive action and has cost £75 and has now cost her another £25 to send the shoes for her granddaughters birthday, which should now arrive about three weeks too late.

I asked why they did not consider a third option which was to return the entire package complete because the contraband was identified before it left the country. It was clearly marked on the customs declaration as perfume - I was informed by the helpful man on the end of the phone (he was helpful), that Royal Mail chose not to view it in this light.

He explained that i should also take the matter up with the PostOffice as this is where the initial fault lay.

I am now thinking as a consequence of their actions (Royal Mail) that privatisation would not be a bad idea because there is no way that a private company would be allowed to operate in this manner. If this matter is not successfully resolved, I am seriously considering taking this matter up with the small claims court on behalf of my mother.

Can anyone offer any further opinions on this matter - it just does not seem right or fair to me.

I was with you until the part in red
enjoy your time with small claims

oh and just so you are aware on sending perfume within the UK

Perfumes and aftershaves
Including eau de parfum, eau de toilette and alcohol-free perfumes, but excluding non-flammable perfumed creams, gels, oils or lotions.

Volume per item must not exceed 150ml. No more than four perfumes or aftershaves can be sent in any one package. The perfume or aftershave must be within its original retail packaging and then placed in strong outer packaging. The inner packagings must be packed, secured or cushioned to prevent breakage or leakage of their contents into the outer packaging.

An ID8000 label must be applied ( see example ID8000 label ). The
sender’s name and return address must be clearly visible on the outer packaging.

These items must be presented at a Post Office® counter.

donnac2558

The perfume boards have been in a frenzy over this since January 2013, the first of the new rules came in about shipping perfume.

Then in July the second set of rules came in.

You cannot ship perfume out of the of the UK via royal mail, only by a courtier who is licensed to do so. Even shops cannot do it, has to be a courtier which costs a lot more.

For years people just posted in swaps bottles and decants around the world putting used cosmetics. Everything is now x rayed. Bottles of perfume worth over £100 have been destroyed and a letter and empty box sent to the poster.

Even within the UK it has be under a certain size to ship perfume and nail polish as well.

Ebay was in up roar over this as well.

Royal Mails thinking is, if they just return said hazardous goods, then the sender might try to post it again.

When Royal Mail is (?) privatized, then you will have still use a courtier to ship. As one person found out, to post a 50mls bottle of perfume from England to the US cost £50. That was going by size and weight. Too expensive for individuals to do it.

harryenfield123

Once again, there is added irony that when the parcel returned, it has an An ID8000 label applied - my mother never added this, at some point someone must have noticed the declaration and applied the label! I would not suspect it was added at the point where it was taken from the parcel!

Valli

harryenfield123 wrote: »

T&C are great but at the point of sale, this should have been noticed, it was not concealed; it was clearly marked as to what it contained.

Totally agree - that's why I said this -

Valli wrote: »

Shame the PO clerk didn't read the customs label and advise your mother that perfume couldn't be sent.

harryenfield123

However, someone noticed it and applied the ID8000 label

harryenfield123

On a further note, it may be true about the T&Cs and how available they are on line - my mother is not on line. She has been doing the same thing for years. So thank you for everyone who has pointed out about on line T&Cs but if things change, surely there is a requirement to let people know. The internet is not a panacea for promoting T&Cs - especially where the contract is enacted by a purchase over the counter. This is not something which should be put down to experience - If for example Costa decided to change their T&Cs whereby they would only accept payment by cards for purchase but you went to the counter and paid cash and after you wait half an hour for your coffee they tell you that you cannot have your coffee because you paid cash, does that make it right? Additionally is it fair that they decide to keep your money? Would you not expect them to tell you about this at the point of sale? How annoyed would you be if they took your money and kept it just because their T&Cs say they can? Where would you expect to see these T&Cs? Would you not think that they have a responsibility to tell you about it when they took your money? Don't tell me they can be excused for their actions just because they have some T&Cs somewhere!! And then just imagine that you left your purse on the counter and they decided to destroy it because you left it unattended on the counter for 30 seconds, its okay to do this because it was in their T&Cs.

Valli

Thing is, I don't know which PO your mum used. I do know that at mine they have a poster up about the new prohibitions.
My reference to the T&Cs was to show what what the T&Cs are. They are available off line, too.

Like I said, the clerk, at the PO could have asked if there were any prohibited items, she could have looked at the customs label and alerted your mum to the new regulations. She could have advised your mum that new regulations have been introduced. But she didn't.

That, IMO, is where the fault lies here.

I rather suspect that the ID label was applied because *someone* didn't initially realise this was an international parcel.