Royal Mail theft insures bleak Christmss for grandchildren

molerat

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

Not sure I understand this bit

Value £80, insured for £50 so you under insured by 37.5%

Surely they would reduce any payout by that amount so you were actually risking £48.75

No, vouchers are not covered at all by normal post compensation. SD is the only insurable method.

Money-Saving-King

JReacher1 wrote: »

Thats disappointing as you should be able to trust RM employes.

The actions of a minority do not mean an entire companies workforce can't be trusted.

There'll be problems in all industries but you can't tar everyone with the same brush.

pistonvalve

Max compensation for loss £50.00 my loss £80.00 so the risk is £30.00, well that is how I see it if RM played the max compensation.

custardy

pistonvalve wrote: »

Max compensation for loss £50.00 my loss £80.00 so the risk is £30.00, well that is how I see it if RM played the max compensation.

but they wouldn't as the item isnt covered.
Also if you check,you will find valuables are not covered.
So an £80 item could be viewed as having been sent by the wrong method under signed for and no insurance cover applied.

Royal Mail Signed For® items are covered against loss or damage up to the sum of £50 or the value of the item, whichever is lower. Compensation for valuables, such as money and jewellery is not available on this serivce. In the event of an item being delivered but where no signature is obtained, you can claim for a refund amounting to the difference between the 1st Class postage and the cost of Royal Mail Signed For® 1st Class.
Valuables (money and jewellery) and items of greater value should be sent using Royal Mail Special Delivery Guaranteed which is a tracked and secure service.
Find out more about compensation for loss, damage or delay for all our services.

JReacher1

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

The actions of a minority do not mean an entire companies workforce can't be trusted.

There'll be problems in all industries but you can't tar everyone with the same brush.

It was the custardy (the postman) who advised not to use the signed for service as its prone to being nicked.

I don't know the statistics but if a postman advises not to use the service then it must be more than a minority who steal. Sounds like it could be quite a prelevent problem with RM.

Going forward I will take their advice and not use that service.

custardy

JReacher1 wrote: »

It was the custardy (the postman) nope who advised not to use the signed for service as its prone to being nicked. nope

I don't know the statistics but if a postman nope advises not to use the service then it must be more than a minority who steal. Sounds like it could be quite a prelevent problem with RM.

Going forward I will take their advice and not use that service.

Glad we got that sorted (no pun)

pistonvalve

According to Post Office Ltd customer services the post master should NOT have accepted the consignment knowing the contents and value He should have known the terms and conditions!!

JReacher1

custardy wrote: »

Glad we got that sorted (no pun)

So you're not a postman anymore?

custardy

JReacher1 wrote: »

So you're not a postman anymore?

not for quite a few years now.

JReacher1

custardy wrote: »

not for quite a few years now.

Fair enough I was mislead by the avatar of a postman under your name.