Warning - Post Office extortion

Clive_Woody

To be honest I see it as a bit like having your house broken into then complaining because you didn't bother getting contents insurance.

A bit of common sense would suggest that sending cash or vouchers through the post entails a risk, this risk can be mitigated by taking out their insurance or sending a cheque. If you decided to not take out their insurance and the item goes missing then you gambled and lost. It's no secret items of post do get lost, you would have had to be living in a cave to not have heard that on the news.

I think the OP realises they were a bit silly and is now looking for somebody to blame and quite frankly seems to have lost the plot a bit with their rant. My elderly grand parents always knew better than to send cash in the post, they sent cheques which obviously provided added security. This 37 year old seems to be lacking this knowledge, hopefully now they have learnt a valuable lesson.

Yorkslass27

Having read this forum many times in the past for advice and ideas, this is the first time that I have felt the urge to register and post in a thread.

The OP seems to have had a problem, albeit through his own naivety, and has come here to post a warning to others, and all people seem to have done is rip into him and criticise. From the very first reply, the message seems to have been, and I paraphrase, "You are thick, go away."

Having read what everyone is saying, I have actually learnt a couple of things that I didn't know before.

First, that recorded delivery mail is not covered for compensation. And second, that vouchers are not covered either.

I also feel that some people are being unjustly critical when suggesting sending cheques. What if a cheque gets lost in the post? Don't the banks charge for cancelling it anymore ? And my local Sainsbury/Morrisons will no longer accept cheques. Perhaps the need to learn, as one poster suggested.
Perhaps the OP doesn't even have a cheque book.

But what really upset me the most was when one person made flippant remarks about being burgled and mugged.

I also note that they went on to rationalise paying for special delivery by comparing it to home contents insurance. Strangely they do not mention that this charge, for sending a £20 note for example, would be 20% of the value of the letter itself, at over £4. Would this poster be happy to pay a £7000 premium to get his contents covered for £35000, or £12000 for £60000 ?

And finally, I fail to understand how people on this forum can be so blase about the idea of posting letters. Surely, when you buy a stamp you should be able to expect the letter that you put it on to be delivered. I didn't realise that it was a new form of lottery.

Perhaps those petty minded critics, who have attacked this OP so freely in this topic, would not be so happy if the letters that go missing everyday belonged to them.

steveb147

I disagree. I think it is the OP who first displayed an aggressive and unappreciated attitude. And I do think there was nothing quite as flippant as his/her remarks about Harold Shipman which were in very bad taste.

Posters suggested postive means to avoid this situation in the future but he/she showed no interest in taking any of these on board. And as other have said, it is fairly common knowledge that one should not send cash in the post precisely because a small proportion of letter do get lost.

I would also suggest that in this case it would not be necessary to stop the cheque. All cheques are now crossed and under the 1992? Cheques Act they can only be paid into the account of the payee so it would be of no use to anyone else. Given that the cheque would have been sent to a family member there is also less risk of double banking.

Yorkslass27

I agree that the comment about Shipman was in bad taste, but I suggest you re-read the fourth comment in this thread, by DMG. That is aggresive and came long before the OP got shirty.

The OP is apparently a disabled ex-serviceman who has been robbed and assaulted, and certain people want to take the wee-wee. Do you think this is acceptible ?

With regard to other methods of sending money, the idea of cheques being safe is just not true. How do we know that his father isn't called John Smith. It wouldn't be too hard to pay that in, even with it being a crossed chequed, would it.

I just feel that too many people have just jumped down this chaps throat, when it would have been easier, more polite and a lot more helpful to say "Thank you, but we already knew about this. Perhaps you should read......."

Did so many people have to be so nasty? If they hadn't been, perhaps the OP would have gone away quietly, licking their wounds and a little bit wiser. Instead, it seems like he went away insulted and upset. Quite honestly, I wouldn't blame him.

brownbabygirl

I posted an item to one of my customers in Manchester. The item never turned up. I filed a missing item form, enclosing proof of postage and proof of value. The PO wrote back within 10 days and enclosed a cheque for the amount plus postage paid and an apology. I was very impressed, especially since I did not use recorded delivery!
It seems that the PO are just not too sympathetic towards those who send cash via normal post and I completely agree! When I lived in Germany I used to send 150 EUROS cash to the UK each month over FOUR years via normal mail. That was a risk I consciously took. Never had problems! But IF it had gone missing, I would have felt very embarrassed to make a claim or even expect the PO to send an apology!

I sincerely think Cagey is expecting way too much for 32p (first class post). Count your (small) losses and move on. No need to take it out on the rest of us!

xdaisyx

Having worked for Royal Mail for 4 years, im actually finding it hard to grasp that I've just been compared to a string of serial killers all because £5.00 has gone missing!

:rotfl:


These things happen, however if you can provide them with a bank statement showing the withdrawal of the 5 pound and proof of postage so that you can prove it was handed over to a post office worker, not just put in a post box, and its your first claim for compensation, then i can assure you, they will pay you your five pounds back.

xdaisyx

What people need to realise is that everyone in the country could claim to have popped a letter in a postbox containing £100 and then expect royal Mail to say, oh ok, there you go then, have £100 on us!

steveb147

Yorkslass27 wrote: »

I agree that the comment about Shipman was in bad taste, but I suggest you re-read the fourth comment in this thread, by DMG. That is aggresive and came long before the OP got shirty.

The OP is apparently a disabled ex-serviceman who has been robbed and assaulted, and certain people want to take the wee-wee. Do you think this is acceptible ?

With regard to other methods of sending money, the idea of cheques being safe is just not true. How do we know that his father isn't called John Smith. It wouldn't be too hard to pay that in, even with it being a crossed chequed, would it.

I just feel that too many people have just jumped down this chaps throat, when it would have been easier, more polite and a lot more helpful to say "Thank you, but we already knew about this. Perhaps you should read......."

Did so many people have to be so nasty? If they hadn't been, perhaps the OP would have gone away quietly, licking their wounds and a little bit wiser. Instead, it seems like he went away insulted and upset. Quite honestly, I wouldn't blame him.

I do not think the post by dmg was overly aggresive and I think him being a serviceman was not relevant to the discussion.

I also think that the likelihood of his relative being called John Smith AND the cheque being appropriated by someone called John Smith are quite small indeed and certainly would be traceable if banked in contrast with cash.

Yorkslass27

xdaisyx, I find it difficult to believe that you have worked for the Post Office for 4 years and have yet to read the T&Cs, as so many expect the OP to have done. If you had read them, as I have just done, you would have been aware that the maximum claimable for loss through first/second/recorded mail is £34.

Strange how the postal workers don't seem to know their own T&Cs isn't it?

And as for the chances of the cheque being appropriated by a John Smith. How hard would it be for an unscrupulous postal worker (and even Clive Woody admits they exist) to steal someones id and set up bank accounts in various names. John Smith would be a bit far-fetched, I'll grant you, but it's not unheard of.

xdaisyx

Yorkslass27 wrote: »

xdaisyx, I find it difficult to believe that you have worked for the Post Office for 4 years and have yet to read the T&Cs, as so many expect the OP to have done. If you had read them, as I have just done, you would have been aware that the maximum claimable for loss through first/second/recorded mail is £34.

Strange how the postal workers don't seem to know their own T&Cs isn't it?

And as for the chances of the cheque being appropriated by a John Smith. How hard would it be for an unscrupulous postal worker (and even Clive Woody admits they exist) to steal someones id and set up bank accounts in various names. John Smith would be a bit far-fetched, I'll grant you, but it's not unheard of.

Last time i checked five pounds was under £34 pound???? :rolleyes:

oh are you refering to my example of everyone trying to claim £100? that was hyperthetical and just a random amount that sprang to mind whilst typing...even so, as you state, they could try to claim £100 and we would them have to pay them £34...still a lot...£34 X every adult in the UK!

and as for your sarcasam, i read them on a daily basis as people try to swindle the system, processing lost item claims is my actual job so i do actually know what im talking about.