Ripped off by Royal Mail

custardy

harryenfield123 wrote: »

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

you mentioned privatisation twice in your opening post
It had no relevance on either occasion
it just the usual line touted out by a typical Daily Mail reader(since we are now diversifying into digs)

Money-Saving-King

harryenfield123 wrote: »

I suppose when it comes to people like yourself who only see what they want to see it is easy to be judgemental.

You've done exactly the same thing throughout this entire thread!

harryenfield123

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

You've done exactly the same thing throughout this entire thread!

Easy to say - but simply not true - most of the retorts have centred around the RM or PO not being liable for a service they provide. According to the RM response to my initial enquiry however there appears a desire to create a perspective that somehow my mother was at fault.

That is the bottom line - RM do not put posters at the fore of their drive to publicise this, they claim it is a responsibility of the counter staff to inform customers however the argument seems to be related to posters.

harryenfield123

custardy wrote: »

you mentioned privatisation twice in your opening post
It had no relevance on either occasion
it just the usual line touted out by a typical Daily Mail reader(since we are now diversifying into digs)

I may have mentioned privatisation twice but i never opined that it would resolve this matter. You should look at yourself about diversifying into digs when you wrote "had they returned the items to you,you would still have been complaining." You decided to judge without any knowledge of me - I take that as a dig but for your information I have served quarter of a century in the Army and have never complained about any of it. However when a service provider does not provide for a service which is paid for I will get annoyed and by the same token i will also be irritated when people feel they are qualified to judge or pigeon-hole me

custardy

harryenfield123 wrote: »

I may have mentioned privatisation twice but i never opined that it would resolve this matter. You should look at yourself about diversifying into digs when you wrote "had they returned the items to you,you would still have been complaining." You decided to judge without any knowledge of me - I take that as a dig but for your information I have served quarter of a century in the Army and have never complained about any of it. However when a service provider does not provide for a service which is paid for I will get annoyed and by the same token i will also be irritated when people feel they are qualified to judge or pigeon-hole me

So whats the Army got to with this now?

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.

Sounds like privatisation is the solution here?

harryenfield123

custardy wrote: »

So whats the Army got to with this now?


Sounds like privatisation is the solution here?

Once more you refuse to see the point - you decided to pigeon-hole me without knowing anything about me. i was just providing you a little information on me to help with your categorisation. You seemed to think you could tell so much about me and an implied propensity to complain


That is indicative your response - that is your interpretation - not what was written - you only serve to reinforce my point of your preconceived ideas

i provided the context in the post - if you chose not to see it, that is down to you but if you are simply unable to see it, you have my sympathy

Coopdivi

donnac2558 wrote: »

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.

I can see why it's so expensive

techspec

harryenfield123 wrote: »

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.

Firstly - i can see no reason why any decent person / company could not return the parcel in full

BUT all the recent changes - small parcels fiasco , prohibited goods , stamp rises etc are coming in BECAUSE of privatisation - so your conclusion is quite simply - NUTS!

Pollycat

If it were me, I'd write or email (never ring to make a complaint!) to Royal Mail asking why they decided option 2 was best.

Then, I'd write to/email the Post Office to complain that your Mum was not advised that sending perfume overseas was prohibited at the time she handed over the parcel.

Was it a main PO or a sub office?

Maybe it makes a difference, maybe not.

twinmom04

This is not a new set of rules by the CAA, Royal Mail are now having to enforce it, due to the death of 2 pilots as a result of prohibited goods being sent from another country.

The Post Office now have too ask what is in the contents if they have failed to do so, you need to complain to them. Your mom has not followed the terms and conditions of the service therefore does not get the goods back.

As for a contract, as she has sent prohibited goods if there was a contract she would be in breach of it!

As for privatisation, well how expensive is a train ticket now? how expensive is gas and electricity? Do you see where I am going with this?