Royal Mail theft insures bleak Christmss for grandchildren

bazzyb

meer53 wrote: »

Toys r Us sold you the vouchers. They have their money. Why would they refund you ?

Because they have cancelled the vouchers. What is the point of cancelling them if they will not refund or replace? Makes little sense.

d123

ToysRUs do say they don't replace lost/stolen vouchers.

* Terms & Conditions: Please note that gift cards can only be used in Toys "R" Us and Babies "R" Us stores. This card is not a cheque guarantee, credit or charge card. The Toys R Us and Babies R Us gift cards can only be used in Toys R Us stores within the UK. The card must be present for all transactions. The balance on the card can be used for in-store purchases as full or part payment. The amount credited to or redeemed from a card will be shown on the till receipt for each transaction. Toys R Us cannot be held responsible for lost/stolen cards. Damaged, altered or cancelled cards will not be accepted. Toys R Us Ltd reserves the right to amend the terms and conditions or discontinue the card at any time.

Notification of changes will be displayed at the Customer Services Desk in all Toys R Us stores. Gift Cards cannot be exchanged for cash and consequently change cannot be given. These terms and conditions will not affect your statutory rights. The card and balance will expire 2 years from the date the card was last used. Balance enquiries are not considered use. Your gift card is valuable, so treat it like cash. Free standard delivery only.

The OP needs to realise that the fault for the mess is his, and not the Post Office, Royal Mail or ToysRus, he needs to realise his stupidity led to the problem and approach the issue with a little humility and not trying to blame everyone else.

ToysRus could still replace them as a goodwill gesture if he eats a little humble pie and asks nicely and escalates up the chain until he gets someone who sees the PR value of helping. The point that is being made is that he has no right to replacement.

All the 'bleak Christmas for the children..sob' and Royal Mail have stolen Christmas histrionics need to be binned and a more sensible pragmatic approach taken.

ThumbRemote

d123 wrote: »

The OP needs to realise that the fault for the mess is his, and not the Post Office, Royal Mail or ToysRus, he needs to realise his stupidity led to the problem and approach the issue with a little humility and not trying to blame everyone else.

Please explain how it's the OPs fault that
a) they trusted the information given to them in the Post Office was correct
and
b) someone at Royal Mail stole from their post.

matw2

Are we not told every time a company goes belly up that voucher holders are unsecured creditors and therefore won't get their money back?

Surely a purchase of vouchers is not the purchase of an item but instead a purchase of credit?

Not an expert but I would've thought all the analogies dealing with physical goods don't work because we're not dealing with physical goods here, we're dealing with credit?

bazzyb

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Please explain how it's the OPs fault that
a) they trusted the information given to them in the Post Office was correct
and
b) someone at Royal Mail stole from their post.

a) The post office told him to use Special Delivery. This was correct, the OP chose to ignore
b) Please provide some evidence to support this allegation.

d123

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Please explain how it's the OPs fault that
a) they trusted the information given to them in the Post Office was correct
and
b) someone at Royal Mail stole from their post.

It's actually in post number 1, the Post Office advised him to send it Special Delivery and he "took a punt" on Signed For because it was cheaper.

pistonvalve wrote:

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.

The PO assistant can't force a customer to use a more expensive posting method, if they advise and the person chooses a cheaper method, it's at the persons risk, not the PO.

wealdroam

d123 wrote: »

It's actually in post number 1, the Post Office advised him to send it Special Delivery and he "took a punt" on Signed For because it was cheaper.



The PO assistant can't force a customer to use a more expensive posting method, if they advise and the person chooses a cheaper method, it's at the persons risk, not the PO.

But the PO mistakenly advised that Signed For offered up to £50 compensation, and with that erroneous information the OP chose the Signed For service.

Hedgehog99

I've been told in the past that no compensation is payable for gift cards lost in the post because they count as cash.

Since the changeover from paper gift vouchers to credit card-sized cards, they are much easier to feel inside an envelope and I strongly believe this makes them more vulnerable.

It is safer to use online gift vouchers that are emailed to the recipient (or their parent). It's lovely to receive something through the post, but not if it arrives in tatters.

I think the retailers should help with the theft problem - if the card could remain useless to a thief, that'd kill off the problem.

My employer has a staff scheme where we can buy gift cards with a small percentage saving. The card isn't activated until I log on to confirm safe receipt. Then, once in my possession, I can top-up the same card online. If gift cards bought in a shop worked like this too, the recipient of the gift could let the sender know (another way to encourage prompt thank you letters!) and the sender could then activate the value on the card perhaps using a code they were given with their receipt at the time of purchase).

d123

wealdroam wrote: »

But the PO mistakenly advised that Signed For offered up to £50 compensation, and with that erroneous information the OP chose the Signed For service.

How do you know that for a fact?

The OP appears to have been more interested in saving a few £s. I know I've always been told that cash and vouchers are not covered for Signed For.

I didn't make an assumption whether the OP was told they weren't covered, equally you shouldn't assume he was told it was OK.

Neither viewpoint can be proved or disproved and other than to supply the OP with a little sympathy it has no real bearing as he can't prove what the assistant said about it (unless he happens to have an audio or video recording of the transaction).

ThumbRemote

d123 wrote: »

I didn't make an assumption whether the OP was told they weren't covered, equally you shouldn't assume he was told it was OK.

You are making assumptions, and you're doing so for the sole purpose of blaming the OP.

From their post: They went to a Post Office and said they wanted to post some gift vouchers. They were advised not to use 'signed for' as compensation was limited to £50.

The advice they were given is incorrect. Compensation for gift vouchers is limited to £0.

So while OP may bear some blame for 3/5 of the loss, you still haven't answered my questions or demonstrated that "the fault for the mess is his" or that "his stupidity led to the problem". In fact quite the opposite, you've shown that you're simply making things up.