Royal Mail theft insures bleak Christmss for grandchildren

custardy

JReacher1 wrote: »

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

If I change it to a picture of a dog, will you believe I have been reincarnated?

JReacher1

custardy wrote: »

If I change it to a picture of a dog, will you believe I have been reincarnated?

Nope.

I however don't think it's an act of stupidity to assume that a person who displays an avatar of a certain profession is employed in that profession!

tomtontom

JReacher1 wrote: »

Nope.

I however don't think it's an act of stupidity to assume that a person who displays an avatar of a certain profession is employed in that profession!

I used to have a footballer as my avatar, does that make me one?

KeithP

I just assumed that someone with a user name of JReacher would be Jack Reacher.

I don't think it's an act of stupidity to assume that.

JReacher1

tomtontom wrote: »

I used to have a footballer as my avatar, does that make me one?

Depends who it was

I hold my hands up and admit I made a mistake. It has surprised me that a none postman would have a photo of a postman as his avatar but that's obviously an issue I have (and nobody else's).

If there was an avatar of a man with egg on his face I would use that one

Lorian

Lets not overlook the fact the DIL says the envelope has not been tampered with. If she still has it ask her for a photo of the envelope. if it is indeed your envelope/writing either someone did a really good job with a kettle (which is easy enough to open but not so easy to seal without it being noticed) or else maybe you forgot to put the vouchers in...


Just for the records I'm not Chinese.

peachyprice

tomtontom wrote: »

I used to have a footballer as my avatar, does that make me one?

You have damn fine keyboard skills for a kitten.

wealdroam

Lorian wrote: »

Lets not overlook the fact the DIL says the envelope has not been tampered with.

No, DIL said there was evidence of tampering...

pistonvalve wrote: »

...my daughter-in-law phoned to say letter received with Christmas card but no sign of the gift vouchers and there was signs of ‘tampering’ with the envelope.

pistonvalve

Lorian, my DIL said there were signs of tampering, I have photos of the envelope it was re-sealed in places - the Christmas card was still inside the envelope. I would add photo but I am not sure haw to do that.

d123

pistonvalve wrote: »

I am posting this in the hope someone on here can give some advice or pull some levers.

Last week I ordered over the net some gift vouchers from Toys-R-Us to the value of £80. They duly arrived last Thursday (27-11-14). On that same day I forward posted them together with a Christmas card to my grandchildren in North Somerset.

The postmaster at my local post office advised not to send recorded delivery (now called ‘sign for’) as compensation is limited to £50.00 but offered special delivery costing £7+ as the compensation limit was £500.00. As recorded delivery was going to cost £2 odd I took a punt knowing at worst I might loose £30, so the consignment went on its way using the ‘sign for’ service.

On Friday 28th about 1pm my daughter-in-law phoned to say letter received with Christmas card but no sign of the gift vouchers and there was signs of ‘tampering’ with the envelope. My immediate action was to phone Toys-R-Us and put a ‘stop’ on the vouchers, this was confirmed later as a ‘void’ had been placed but would not know until Tuesday if the vouchers had been used beforehand also they would not refund or replace if the ‘void’ was successful. So they would sit on my £80 for ever and a day!!

Royal Mail (RM) were contacted and ‘hid’ behind their terms and conditions – no compensation would be paid as vouchers were sent using the ‘sign-for’ service. RM were totally dis-interested that theft had taken place whilst the consignment was in their care and that the postmaster’s advice was wrong!! Customer services did take some details though.

Post Office Ltd were not interested but thought some re-training was necessary at my local post office. they added - The advice given by the postmaster was wrong and knowing the nature/value of the contents should not have accepted the letter using the ’sign-for’ service.

Clearly there has been a theft whilst in RM hands. Wrong advice was given by the post master – a matter for Post Office Ltd.

The potential loss of £80 may seem small to some but I am a 71 year old pensioner who can ill afford to lose this which took a long time to save up.

Advice please on the best way forward

Mike.

You make no sense, the Postmaster told you to use Special Delivery to be covered and "you took a punt" on Recorded Delivery knowing it would not cover it?

I'm not sure how you not sending by RMSD was the fault of the Post Office, especially as they actually suggested you use the correct method?

Or do you mean something else by the bits in Highlight?