Royal Mail complaint

custardy

Yvoh wrote: »

My argument is that it was sufficiently packed, the 1cm box size is nonsense as there was still the required amount of packing inside, but of course making a big thing of the box size is a cop out by all partys.

sufficiently packed,no evident damage on the packaging but item damaged.
So you see how the statement sufficient doesn't really tally?

marliepanda

Yvoh wrote: »

My argument is that it was sufficiently packed, the 1cm box size is nonsense as there was still the required amount of packing inside, but of course making a big thing of the box size is a cop out by all partys.

Its not a cop out. Its the policy. There has to be a guideline and a cut off, and you ignored it.

You may think it doesnt matter, but maybe that extra 1cm of bubble wrap would have made the difference.

How could it have the required amount of packing if the required amount of packing would need to fit in a bigger box!

You have exhausted your 'free' options, if you want to pay to take them to court, knock yourself out.

Yvoh

No one seems to get my point that the packing used was in excess of the required standard, the fact that the box was 1cm short is neither here nor there. There wasn't a 1cm gap at the top of the box. The packing used was of the required measurement so why they say the box was too small I have no idea.

marliepanda

Yvoh wrote: »

No one seems to get my point that the packing used was in excess of the required standard, the fact that the box was 1cm short is neither here nor there. There wasn't a 1cm gap at the top of the box. The packing used was of the required measurement so why they say the box was too small I have no idea.

Because the requested box size was given to you and you ignored it. It is here and it is there.

You havent got a leg to stand on. The requirements are not '3cm of packing or more OR a box of X size' Its both! You only did one.

Can you explain to me how the item was damaged without impact damage to the box? You said yourself it cant have moved around and the packaging was sufficient, so how do the damage find its way through the packaging to hurt the item without a dent or a crease in the outer box...

stragglebod

Seems to me there are only 4 possible scenarios:

1. Despite your protestations, you didn't pack it properly
2. It was already broken when you packed it and you're trying to scam the Royal Mail
3. The recipient is lying and is trying to scam you
4. North Korea have bred an experimental super-army of soldiers made from ceramic, and a new type of armour material made from cardboard and bubble wrap which is nevertheless stronger than steel, and the US military have developed a special ceramic-seeking death ray which zaps straight through the bubble-card amour without any interference with the beam, and are testing it a secret location right by one of Royal Mail's distribution depots.

Yvoh

I didn't know at the time the Royal Mail requirements, only afterwards when it was inspected and before you say I should have checked first, it's easy to say in hindsight.
It still seems very petty to me, who actually does check these things before posting.
I have no idea how it got broken.
I can assure you it wasn't broken when packed and I resent the implication that I am trying to scam the Royal Mail.
Point 4 -- very funny.!!!

marliepanda

Yvoh wrote: »

I didn't know at the time the Royal Mail requirements, only afterwards when it was inspected and before you say I should have checked first, it's easy to say in hindsight.
It still seems very petty to me, who actually does check these things before posting.
I have no idea how it got broken.
I can assure you it wasn't broken when packed and I resent the implication that I am trying to scam the Royal Mail.
Point 4 -- very funny.!!!

Its VERY easy to say hindsight.

Its just as easy for them to say 'You didnt do it properly, goodbye.'

When an expensive item is in play, one which I cannot afford to lose the money from, you bet Im going to read the terms of the insurance. The same way I make sure my car is legal for my car insurance...

Fosterdog

Yvoh wrote: »

No one seems to get my point that the packing used was in excess of the required standard, the fact that the box was 1cm short is neither here nor there. There wasn't a 1cm gap at the top of the box. The packing used was of the required measurement so why they say the box was too small I have no idea.

Everyone understands your point perfectly, we just all disagree with it. It's you who seem to be struggling to understand how this is not something RM are liable for, everyone else can see it except you (and whoever posted on facebbok for you).

You had two Royal Mail departments tell you you are wrong, one independent investigation saying the same, every person who has commented here, and the majority of the posters on the Facebook post, altogether you are talking around 50 people seeing the point and saying you are wrong and just you and your friend/relative/whatever thinking you are right. By all means waste more of your own money with a court claim but do you really think you stand even a slight chance of winning?

Also where has the foam packaging suddenly come from? Until now both here and on Facebook there has only been mention of bubble wrap, shredded paper, a box, and a fragile sticker. Now you say it also had foam. Even though it was still 40% less packaging than recommended and in a box that was too small for the item and required level of packaging.

Yvoh

Well it's pretty obvious everyone disagrees with me. I have no idea what the Facebook post says, I haven't seen it. Yes I forgot the foam packing, no ones perfect.
So thank you all for the helpful comments.
I thought this forum would have been more polite though, I don't appreciate being called an idiot or deluded.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

marliepanda

Yvoh wrote: »

Well it's pretty obvious everyone disagrees with me. I have no idea what the Facebook post says, I haven't seen it. Yes I forgot the foam packing, no ones perfect.
So thank you all for the helpful comments.
I thought this forum would have been more polite though, I don't appreciate being called an idiot or deluded.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I havent seen the video, but judging on Custardys reply I assume he is saying the lady in the video an idiot, not you.

As for deluded, unfortunately if you repeatedly post the same argument without taking into account any other views or explaining why you think something, then people will call you deluded...