Money grabbing Royal Mail

user1977

soco1 said:

I must be mistaken in my understanding of excessive cancellation charges then.
When I’ve had to cancel other services such as insurance, road tax, tv licence, council tax etc they’ve all provided pro rata refunds for time unused.

Do you think that's because they're legally required to?

Also, things like council tax are in a legal world of their own, rather than subject to normal consumer laws.

eskbanker

soco1 said:

I must be mistaken in my understanding of excessive cancellation charges then.
When I’ve had to cancel other services such as insurance, road tax, tv licence, council tax etc they’ve all provided pro rata refunds for time unused. Why should postal redirections be any different?

There are indeed some services that offer pro rata refunds, such as those you mention, but plenty that don't, such as the earlier example of Sky, and all similar contracts with a minimum term (mobile phones, broadband, gym memberships, etc, etc).

The RM redirection Ts & Cs are clear:

13.4.3 [if you cancel] after the Cancellation Period [first 14 days] and, at your request, the Redirection has started, we will not provide a refund.

screech_78

soco1 said:

I must be mistaken in my understanding of excessive cancellation charges then.
When I’ve had to cancel other services such as insurance, road tax, tv licence, council tax etc they’ve all provided pro rata refunds for time unused. Why should postal redirections be any different?

There are many more that don’t. TV, phone, broadband contracts etc. Why should postal redirections be any different? 

soco1

screech_78 said:

There are many more that don’t. TV, phone, broadband contracts etc. Why should postal redirections be any different? 

Just because something is that way now doesn’t mean it should stay that way!

The likes of Virgin have had to stop the early termination fees where there’s a change of address and the service can’t be accessed. Previously there were capped penalties simply because someone had moved somewhere they couldn’t take their service to.
Normally a redirection would run its’ course but sometimes there is a change in circumstances necessitating a rearrangement. I simply think the refusal/inability to either amend or partially refund is an unfair practice.
If people don’t make the point then things don’t change.

Alderbank

soco1 said:

screech_78 said:

There are many more that don’t. TV, phone, broadband contracts etc. Why should postal redirections be any different? 

Just because something is that way now doesn’t mean it should stay that way!

If people don’t make the point then things don’t change.

Agreed! That's an important principle of democracy.

If you find enough people who agree with you about redirection of mail you can demand that Parliament considers it. You only need 5 people to get started.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/check

Let us know how you go on.

Money_Grabber13579

Alderbank said:

I suspect that practically the entire cost is for the initial administrative setting up and reprogramming to divert your mail.
Mail handling is almost entirely automated except for the 'last mile' and it won't cost any more for a postie to deliver to address A than address B.
Therefore the cost of setting up a redirection for eg. 1 month wouldn't be any less than for 6 months. 

But presumably they charge quite a bit more for a 6 month redirect than a 1 month redirect, implying that there is quite a bit of ongoing cost too?

This is something in consumer legislation which is puzzling to me. Posters on this forum often say that when a consumer cancels a contract, the business isn’t allowed to retain any of the amounts originally paid, except to the extent they are to cover genuine costs which they have incurred. But plenty of businesses won’t refund anything - many hotels, airlines and seemingly Royal Mail just say no refund when the contract is cancelled. They can’t all be getting it wrong and have never been challenged over it?

Aylesbury_Duck

soco1 said:

The price isn’t the point I’m making though!
I still think not facilitating pro rata refunds is unfair to the consumer and therefore contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. 

Clearly no one else agrees though!

Not if they were never promised.  If you entered into the arrangement knowing they don't do pro rata refunds, there's nothing unfair about it.

jon81uk

Money_Grabber13579 said:

Alderbank said:

I suspect that practically the entire cost is for the initial administrative setting up and reprogramming to divert your mail.
Mail handling is almost entirely automated except for the 'last mile' and it won't cost any more for a postie to deliver to address A than address B.
Therefore the cost of setting up a redirection for eg. 1 month wouldn't be any less than for 6 months. 

But presumably they charge quite a bit more for a 6 month redirect than a 1 month redirect, implying that there is quite a bit of ongoing cost too?

As above, only options are 3, 6 or 12 months. Difference between 3 and 6 months is £17. So not really quite a bit more.

sheramber

jon81uk said:

Money_Grabber13579 said:

Alderbank said:

I suspect that practically the entire cost is for the initial administrative setting up and reprogramming to divert your mail.
Mail handling is almost entirely automated except for the 'last mile' and it won't cost any more for a postie to deliver to address A than address B.
Therefore the cost of setting up a redirection for eg. 1 month wouldn't be any less than for 6 months. 

But presumably they charge quite a bit more for a 6 month redirect than a 1 month redirect, implying that there is quite a bit of ongoing cost too?

As above, only options are 3, 6 or 12 months. Difference between 3 and 6 months is £17. So not really quite a bit more.

And then add on the admin charges for cancelling.

eskbanker

Aylesbury_Duck said:

soco1 said:

The price isn’t the point I’m making though!
I still think not facilitating pro rata refunds is unfair to the consumer and therefore contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. 

Clearly no one else agrees though!

Not if they were never promised.  If you entered into the arrangement knowing they don't do pro rata refunds, there's nothing unfair about it.

But a term in a contract can be deemed unfair and therefore contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/2/enacted

I'm not saying that's the case here, just observing that the existence of a clause in Ts & Cs can't override statutory rights....