Royal Mail theft insures bleak Christmss for grandchildren

wealdroam

d123 wrote: »

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).

I know that because the OP told us:

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 OP also said:

pistonvalve wrote: »

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.

I am making no assumptions.

meer53

Please think of these children They're going to have the bleakest of bleak Christmases

Not.

pistonvalve

At no time did the postmaster inform that no, repeat no, compensation would be paid for loss of vouchers. He implied £50 would be paid as compensation for loss so I went for that service as it was cheaper. Had he stressed 'no compensation for vouchers' then obviously I would have gone for the more expensive option. Clearly I was miss informed and a potential loss,

Shrimply

Putting aside legal issues and obligations, I think its shocking that Toys-R-Us have systems in place to allow them to link a gift voucher to a purchase and prevent it being used but will not replace the gift card, even if there was some sort of administration fee for the process.

If what has been said is true I think that's just customer service at its worse, especially given the sort of company it is, and the age of people that the gift cards will generally be for.

Given the time of year and the amounts involved, if Toys-R-Us can cancel the card but won't replace it I think that is morally wrong, whether it is within their rights to do so or not.

meer53

Shrimply wrote: »

Putting aside legal issues and obligations, I think its shocking that Toys-R-Us have systems in place to allow them to link a gift voucher to a purchase and prevent it being used but will not replace the gift card, even if there was some sort of administration fee for the process.

If what has been said is true I think that's just customer service at its worse, especially given the sort of company it is, and the age of people that the gift cards will generally be for.

Given the time of year and the amounts involved, if Toys-R-Us can cancel the card but won't replace it I think that is morally wrong, whether it is within their rights to do so or not.

So, in the same vein, would you expect Toys R Us to replace every toy sold which has been lost or stolen just after purchase ? No. thought not.

ThumbRemote

meer53 wrote: »

So, in the same vein, would you expect Toys R Us to replace every toy sold which has been lost or stolen just after purchase ? No. thought not.

As has already been said on the thread, vouchers are not physical goods. There is little or no cost to Toys-R-Us to replace the vouchers, whereas there would be with a toy.

Shrimply

meer53 wrote: »

So, in the same vein, would you expect Toys R Us to replace every toy sold which has been lost or stolen just after purchase ? No. thought not.

That's a bit of a ridiculous comment. It's not the same, they can't "cancel" a toy, and end up better off themselves because of another persons misfortune.

All it took for them was a click of a button, and they are £80 up, and know it, and won't offer a replacement. And this seems right to you?

pistonvalve

I have not heard from Royal Mail or Post Office Ltd so I have emailed both CEO's hoping to get some form of acknowledgment today.

Exile_geordie

The use of 'mis' in fornt of everything nowadays is fantastic.

Sorry there John @ Customer power you are not allowed to post as a rep from a company without approval from MSE.

Thats mis-fortunate of you wasnt it. A bit of a MIStake you could say.

vuvuzela

Customer-Power wrote: »

Hi PistonValve,

Join us at Spam Power, we use the Power of SPAM to resolve complaints. Sounds like you haven't been mis-advised or stolen from. You can cut and paste your text into our complaint submission form, and then we will get to work selling your details to EVERYONE.

All of our work is completely RUBBISH.

Thanks

[EMAIL="johnny@customer-power.com"]johnny@spam-power.com[/EMAIL]

Is this a more accurate representation ?