Ripped off by Royal Mail

harryenfield123

Actually, in response to your comments about what adorns the walls, have you ever actually looked at the literature on them? Or would your answer be why would I, I know what I am here to do? It takes more than a poster to excuse their actions

harryenfield123

custardy wrote: »

Well as someone who thinks privatisation will fix things
Where do you think the money comes from?

I never said privation would fix things - I said words to the effect that a private company would not be allowed to act in such an arbitrary manner. Up until this point I have never had an issue with RM but when they act with impunity it is beyond belief.

I can understand your desire to try and change the basis for my argument but read what I have written, not what you want me to have written.

There is no moral justification for their action, simply it just better suits them and is more cost efficient - they do not have to provide the service which was paid for by my mother and accepted by the PO.

You are defending the indefensible from a moral perspective and you know it; why else would you imply that I have claimed privation will fix things

peachyprice

custardy wrote: »

theres very little up in the POs(im in POs a lot) in my experience
the new posters relating to this are prominent in their design as they are mainly white

You can't miss it in my PO, it's on the glass partition at the same level as the lady.

custardy

harryenfield123 wrote: »

I never said privation would fix things - I said words to the effect that a private company would not be allowed to act in such an arbitrary manner. Up until this point I have never had an issue with RM but when they act with impunity it is beyond belief.

I can understand your desire to try and change the basis for my argument but read what I have written, not what you want me to have written.

There is no moral justification for their action, simply it just better suits them and is more cost efficient - they do not have to provide the service which was paid for by my mother and accepted by the PO.

You are defending the indefensible from a moral perspective and you know it; why else would you imply that I have claimed privation will fix things

You have already been told to complain to POC
that is where your complaint lies
As for RM,speak to your MP
RM are still regulated

and to be clear. every time something changes in RM
there are posts about it
This change is no different
had they returned the items to you,you would still have been complaining
The changes have been brought in b the CAA rulings. This is RMs interpretation of it.
In true RM style they make a rubbish attempt at it
so people like yourself can rant on about privatisation being the fix
you will have that fix soon enough. petitions are a waste of time

custardy

peachyprice wrote: »

You can't miss it in my PO, it's on the glass partition at the same level as the lady.

yup.as it is in most I have been in
some smaller ones are using the lower hatch due to space restrictions

harryenfield123

custardy wrote: »

yup.as it is in most I have been in
some smaller ones are using the lower hatch due to space restrictions

To be honest, in this case the only one which really matters is the one where my mother posted hers and she never noticed it. She is not the type of person to knowingly send prohibited items in the post. Nevertheless, should the placement of a card excuse their actions?

By admission of the chap from RM, he claimed that anyone who was sending items abroad should have been handed a laminate card explaining the changes by the counter staff and then they should have asked her if any items on the list were contained in the parcel - his description of how the purchase at the counter should have happened, not mine.

I also note that you state in most of the POs you have been in - therefore not all

custardy

harryenfield123 wrote: »

To be honest, in this case the only one which really matters is the one where my mother posted hers and she never noticed it. She is not the type of person to knowingly send prohibited items in the post. Nevertheless, should the placement of a card excuse their actions?

By admission of the chap from RM, he claimed that anyone who was sending items abroad should have been handed a laminate card explaining the changes by the counter staff and then they should have asked her if any items on the list were contained in the parcel - his description of how the purchase at the counter should have happened, not mine.

I also note that you state in most of the POs you have been in - therefore not all

thats right,because(as i posted) not all have space to use the glass...

harryenfield123

custardy wrote: »

You have already been told to complain to POC
that is where your complaint lies
As for RM,speak to your MP
RM are still regulated

and to be clear. every time something changes in RM
there are posts about it
This change is no different
had they returned the items to you,you would still have been complaining
The changes have been brought in b the CAA rulings. This is RMs interpretation of it.
In true RM style they make a rubbish attempt at it
so people like yourself can rant on about privatisation being the fix
you will have that fix soon enough. petitions are a waste of time

When did i say privatisation would fix it? What would my mother know about "posts" about it? If they had returned the items a £50 bottle of perfume would not have been destroyed, i also like the idea that you think you know my threshold for complaining. By people like me do you mean people who expect to be properly informed when they enter a contract? Because the CAA changed their rulings does this excuse the RM from their responsibilities to ensure customers are informed?

I suppose when it comes to people like yourself who only see what they want to see it is easy to be judgemental. This is easy when you misrepresent the other side of the discussion. It may suit your own inability to accept a logical argument where it doesn't support your preconceived ideas - just like a Guardian reader

harryenfield123

custardy wrote: »

thats right,because(as i posted) not all have space to use the glass...

Therefore they are not all prominently placed

custardy

harryenfield123 wrote: »

Therefore they are not all prominently placed

well how did i see them then?
I hardly look out for a poster i have seen countless times