Ebay sale - Royal Mail Special delivery, damage compensation

johna7770

RFW wrote: »

...The biggest problem I can see in the OP's case is proving that the teapot was adequately packed.

If it were me I'd attempt to exhaust the regular complaint channels and follow up with RM customer service on Twitter and then a signed for letter to the CEO.

Royal Mail have told me that they are satisfied that the item was well packed. This doesn't seem to be the issue for them. Thanks for the suggestion about Twitter Customer Services though - I'll maybe have to do that.

martindow

For businesses it is normal for carriers to pay out the purchase price in cases of loss or damage and not the profit element.

SD does have advantages over cheaper services in that parcels are handled separately from the mainstream of parcels which is good for delicate items. The extra you have paid is not entirely wasted and customers like next day delivery.

SD works only on weight as long as the parcel is within a maximum size limit. I imagine teapots well packed are would go as medium parcel size so would not be especially cheap if you chose to self insure.

RFW

martindow wrote: »

For businesses it is normal for carriers to pay out the purchase price in cases of loss or damage and not the profit element.

I've not got time to find the links right now but as far as antiques and collectables goes that appears to have been tested in court and RM and other couriers have failed.

martindow

RFW wrote: »

I've not got time to find the links right now but as far as antiques and collectables goes that appears to have been tested in court and RM and other couriers have failed.

Have they been tested in the sense that judgements create a precedent? I suspect that at least some of these cases are small claims where large companies don't bother to enter a defence and havelost by default.

johna7770

martindow wrote: »

Have they been tested in the sense that judgements create a precedent? I suspect that at least some of these cases are small claims where large companies don't bother to enter a defence and havelost by default.

I found an article in the Antiques Trade Gazette. This Forum won't let me post the URL, but the bottom line is this:

"Dealer defeats Royal Mail over compensation policy
ROYAL Mail have lost another court case over their promise to cover losses under their special delivery services, and face further legal action. Yet they will still not change the terms and conditions that landed them in court."As both cases were heard in the county court, they did not set a legal precedent, allowing Royal Mail to fight claims on a case-by-case basis.
..
..
If Royal Mail appealed against the judgment to a higher court, or a claim was made in a higher court, a ruling might set a precedent and force Royal Mail to recognise market value as “saleable value”. In the meantime, they are likely to continue racking up bills for court costs and compensation."

RFW

martindow wrote: »

Have they been tested in the sense that judgements create a precedent? I suspect that at least some of these cases are small claims where large companies don't bother to enter a defence and havelost by default.

I think RM defended. I'll have a search later and see if I can find links. One of the victors was advising others how to deal with Royal Mail and other couriers.
It's possibly before the more recent RM changes so they may have updated terms since.

martindow

Thanks for the links.

I can't see why antiques and collectables are any different to other items being sold. People selling things on Ebay who are not business sellers can claim the sold price.

Dealers who have bought antiques to sell them on are not in a different situation to business sellers in any other category are they?