Boots Advent calendars destroyed by RM duo to nail varnish

custardy

JP08 wrote: »

Well I did post a worked example a couple of posts back, for a 2kg small parcel.
Came to £8.45. Since then, I've allowed you a second handling charge. So, for that parcel,£11.45. Chargeable items cost more? Ok, penalty is postage cost + 2xhandling charge of £3.00.

What returns centre? At the point it is discovered as a problem, slap on an official stamp for 'Return to sender, hold at local sorting office for penalty' and pop it back in the same system that got it there!

Did you read the article about selling items?
I suggest you do and come back.

hollydays

ThumbRemote wrote: »

No, they should do what every other person in the country is obliged to do when handling goods that aren't their own - follow a duty of care to those goods.

If Royal Mail misdeliver an item to me, I can't just keep it, sell it or destroy it. The same should apply if I make a mistake sending an item. They should make it available for me to collect if I wish.

Apart from the obvious nature of the goods being prohibited in this case, it could also be argued that morally the sender has a duty of care to all other air passengers. But instead of a duty of care we have the rules of carriage -take it or leave it.

hollydays

ThumbRemote wrote: »

It's as much of a mistake as not checking the number on a packet and the number on a door are the same.

Accidentally posting a parcel through the wrong door through stupidity or inertia, isn't going to leave one open to prosecution though , so hardly the same.

hollydays

JP08 wrote: »

The handling charge. But to say that they can't deliver it and then flog it is tantamount to theft.

" You are responsible for checking whether or not an item is prohibited or restricted. If you send prohibited goods or restricted goods (and you do not comply with the relevant terms and conditions), we may deal with your items as we see fit, including but not limited to, disposing of the parcels concerned (in whole or in part)."
This is what Royal Mail say , I haven't got a problem with it personally .

JP08

custardy wrote: »

Did you read the article about selling items?
I suggest you do and come back.

Sorry - you misunderstand me. I didn't mean "What returns centre?" in the sense of "What returns centre do you mean", it was "What returns centre ?" as in "My approach doesn't involve a returns centre". If you see what I mean ...

shaun_from_Africa

JP08 wrote: »

Worked example. The cost of sending a 2kg small parcel first class in the UK is £5.45. Therefore the cost of sending it back to the sorting office should be £5.45

JP08 wrote: »

part 3 paid for the penalty postage fee as outlined above (because moving the parcel back doesn't cost any more than moving it there)

One very important point that you have overlooked.
If any of the packages in question contained undeclared dangerous goods, these goods would need to be inspected, repackaged to meet the legal requirements and then certified before they could be sent by road, rail, sea or air, something that would in all probability cost far more than the postage costs alone.

JP08

hollydays wrote: »

" You are responsible for checking whether or not an item is prohibited or restricted. If you send prohibited goods or restricted goods (and you do not comply with the relevant terms and conditions), we may deal with your items as we see fit, including but not limited to, disposing of the parcels concerned (in whole or in part)."
This is what Royal Mail say , I haven't got a problem with it personally .

But that is not inconsistent with returning it if there is a return address, is it ? I understand disposing of them if there if they can't take them on and have no indication of where to return them to (with associated costs).

I wonder, if it actually went to the small claims court, if The man on the Clapham Omnibus (link to Wiki for the legal bit) might well take the reasonable interpretation of that contract to mean "You've got a bloody return address, a reasonable person would see fit to use it"

JP08

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

One very important point that you have overlooked.
If any of the packages in question contained undeclared dangerous goods, these goods would need to be inspected, repackaged to meet the legal requirements and then certified before they could be sent by road, rail, sea or air, something that would in all probability cost far more than the postage costs alone.

Ok - if it can't go back by the means it arrived (land transport) THEN dispose - and inform the sender (like they do now) of its disposal. That's not unreasonable. I still maintain a blanket "flog it or destroy it" policy is not reasonable for parcels that can be transported normally and have a return address (ie most of them).

custardy

JP08 wrote: »

Sorry - you misunderstand me. I didn't mean "What returns centre?" in the sense of "What returns centre do you mean", it was "What returns centre ?" as in "My approach doesn't involve a returns centre". If you see what I mean ...

So where are the items being opened? Just any old area in any office?

tomtontom

JP08 wrote: »

But that is not inconsistent with returning it if there is a return address, is it ? I understand disposing of them if there if they can't take them on and have no indication of where to return them to (with associated costs).

I wonder, if it actually went to the small claims court, if The man on the Clapham Omnibus (link to Wiki for the legal bit) might well take the reasonable interpretation of that contract to mean "You've got a bloody return address, a reasonable person would see fit to use it"

The "reasonable person" in this context is a massive operation with thousands of parcels to deal with everyday. Given that context, the practicality of getting the parcel back to the sender seems unduly burdensome, and is far more complex than your interpretation.

The court would also consider whether the customer had reasonable notice of the prohibited items in the first place. Given that the conditions are publicised on both the website and at the post office counter, it is difficult to argue they did not, unless they choose to walk around blind.