Sending parcels, not including return address, Royal Mail are useless

System

Vectis wrote: »

Didn't put a return address on a parcel and now wants to sue Royal Mail because they didn't return the parcel.

You just couldn't make this up, could you?

Sometimes I simply despair.

Yes but the PPI number was on the parcel!!

My argument is that the PPI number is a fair indicator of who to return the parcel to


Royal Mail = idiots

custardy

berbastrike wrote: »

Yes but the PPI number was on the parcel!!

My argument is that the PPI number is a fair indicator of who to return the parcel to


Royal Mail = idiots

Lol,except you dont have an argument.
Does your PPI agreement state as a service any items that are undeliverable will be returned to the PPI account address?
The RLB office costs a lot of money to run,its scope is being reduced and I would expect more.
There is certainly an idiot on the thread,we can agree on that.

PaulW922

Years ago a PPI number, and indeed a franking machine impression was sufficient, but no longer. It is in the T&C and most published advice on branches and on the internet that letters and parcels will only be returned with a return address stated. I am afraid that, unless you were misled, you probably don't have a case, as you have not followed the RM guidance.

I am not fan of Royal Mail but I would point out that they are under enormous pressure to cut costs, and that PPI mail often offers a significant discount. A return address is not unreasonable in the circumstances. You can add it onto the template for your address labels - maybe in the corner - or get a rubber stamp made (a few £££) at Vistaprint.

System

Paul, but you would think anyone with a tiny bit of common sense would send back any undelivered mail to the PPI number account holder.

I'm sorry but I think they are idiots

custardy

berbastrike wrote: »

Paul, but you would think anyone with a tiny bit of common sense would [STRIKE]send back any undelivered mail to the PPI number account holder. [/STRIKE] put a return address on their packets

berbastrike wrote: »

I'm sorry

So you should be.