Royal Mail refusing compensation

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

I would imagine the argument RM will make is that sometimes the scanners can misread barcodes, and so there may be phantom scans. The proof of postage confirms when the parcel entered the network, where it entered, and who accepted the parcel. Plus will have the weight listed, so if there’s any ‘accidents’ that happen that result in the mass changing, the proof of postage will confirm what the original weight was. 

Please correct if I'm wrong but I would have thought the chances of a mis-read resulting in a valid entry within the parameters of the software would be pretty slim. 

Unless OP had a International Tracked sticker (not sure if they exist) to apply to the parcel themselves and then put the parcel in a post box the tracking should link to at least the delivery address and if purchased online I'd imagine the sender address, the odds of someone checking random tracking numbers and then being able to show they have an association with that address (marketplace order, friend/family living there) are much slimmer than balance of probability. 

Date of posting doesn't really matter, there should have been a scan at the nearest mail centre and there's now one at Heathrow, if it hasn't scanned anywhere since Heathrow it's likely stuck somewhere. 

Proof of posting is a valid requirement when writing an address on a parcel, putting old fashioned stamps on as there isn't any data, with the technology now to send parcels often the reference or tracking number should link to some data and Royal Mail can have any policy they like but taking this outside of their process doesn't necessarily require the same proof of posting certificate. 

OP to add, have you checked the tracking here:

https://auspost.com.au/mypost/beta/track/search

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:

I would imagine the argument RM will make is that sometimes the scanners can misread barcodes, and so there may be phantom scans. The proof of postage confirms when the parcel entered the network, where it entered, and who accepted the parcel. Plus will have the weight listed, so if there’s any ‘accidents’ that happen that result in the mass changing, the proof of postage will confirm what the original weight was. 

Please correct if I'm wrong but I would have thought the chances of a mis-read resulting in a valid entry within the parameters of the software would be pretty slim. 

Unless OP had a International Tracked sticker (not sure if they exist) to apply to the parcel themselves and then put the parcel in a post box the tracking should link to at least the delivery address and if purchased online I'd imagine the sender address, the odds of someone checking random tracking numbers and then being able to show they have an association with that address (marketplace order, friend/family living there) are much slimmer than balance of probability. 

Date of posting doesn't really matter, there should have been a scan at the nearest mail centre and there's now one at Heathrow, if it hasn't scanned anywhere since Heathrow it's likely stuck somewhere. 

Proof of posting is a valid requirement when writing an address on a parcel, putting old fashioned stamps on as there isn't any data, with the technology now to send parcels often the reference or tracking number should link to some data and Royal Mail can have any policy they like but taking this outside of their process doesn't necessarily require the same proof of posting certificate. 

OP to add, have you checked the tracking here:

https://auspost.com.au/mypost/beta/track/search

Oh I fully agree - RM’s argument is very weak. But the proof of postage isn’t (as others above) a proof of purchase. The proof of postage is just given to someone who posts the parcel on that tracking number. The proof of purchase (receipt) isn’t the proof of postage (as you could buy 100 RM24’s but that doesn’t mean you posted 100 of them hem there and then). 

RM’s argument is flimsy as I fully agree a phantom scan is unlikely to occur. As I understand it, the tracking numbers aren’t sequential so it’s unlikely that a mid scan would occur. Even more so if there’s multiple scans (one misscan is possible, 6 misscans is almost impossible). 

I guess the argument of whether the compensation is above and beyond the legal minimum (and so can have limits in, but not infringing on the legal rights) and what the legal minimum is - like a stores own returns policies vs distance selling vs faulty products. I know there’s specific postage legislation but I’ve never really read them, so unsure what the minimum RM has to offer is. 

Undervalued

RefluentBeans said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:

I would imagine the argument RM will make is that sometimes the scanners can misread barcodes, and so there may be phantom scans. The proof of postage confirms when the parcel entered the network, where it entered, and who accepted the parcel. Plus will have the weight listed, so if there’s any ‘accidents’ that happen that result in the mass changing, the proof of postage will confirm what the original weight was. 

Please correct if I'm wrong but I would have thought the chances of a mis-read resulting in a valid entry within the parameters of the software would be pretty slim. 

Unless OP had a International Tracked sticker (not sure if they exist) to apply to the parcel themselves and then put the parcel in a post box the tracking should link to at least the delivery address and if purchased online I'd imagine the sender address, the odds of someone checking random tracking numbers and then being able to show they have an association with that address (marketplace order, friend/family living there) are much slimmer than balance of probability. 

Date of posting doesn't really matter, there should have been a scan at the nearest mail centre and there's now one at Heathrow, if it hasn't scanned anywhere since Heathrow it's likely stuck somewhere. 

Proof of posting is a valid requirement when writing an address on a parcel, putting old fashioned stamps on as there isn't any data, with the technology now to send parcels often the reference or tracking number should link to some data and Royal Mail can have any policy they like but taking this outside of their process doesn't necessarily require the same proof of posting certificate. 

OP to add, have you checked the tracking here:

https://auspost.com.au/mypost/beta/track/search

Oh I fully agree - RM’s argument is very weak. But the proof of postage isn’t (as others above) a proof of purchase. The proof of postage is just given to someone who posts the parcel on that tracking number. The proof of purchase (receipt) isn’t the proof of postage (as you could buy 100 RM24’s but that doesn’t mean you posted 100 of them hem there and then). 

RM’s argument is flimsy as I fully agree a phantom scan is unlikely to occur. As I understand it, the tracking numbers aren’t sequential so it’s unlikely that a mid scan would occur. Even more so if there’s multiple scans (one misscan is possible, 6 misscans is almost impossible). 

I guess the argument of whether the compensation is above and beyond the legal minimum (and so can have limits in, but not infringing on the legal rights) and what the legal minimum is - like a stores own returns policies vs distance selling vs faulty products. I know there’s specific postage legislation but I’ve never really read them, so unsure what the minimum RM has to offer is. 

If you take it to a post office, even when using a prepaid label or postage you have bought online, you get a receipt / proof of posting printed out from the (dare I say it) Horizon system which also shows the weight and the address it is being sent to (or at least the postcode and house number).

If you use the royal mail collect service it is scanned on your doorstep and you get a cert of posting emailed to you within seconds.

soolin

I can buy as much postage as I like, but to claim I have always needed proof that item was posted- and that POP shows the destination address (at least 1st line and postcode/country) .

I often buy online labels and put very low cost items straight in the post box and accept that means I have no POP to make a claim in the unlikely event item goes astray. 

screech_78

We’ve had a few people try to scam us by using fake tracking numbers for returns.

There was an elaborate Evri one not too long ago where there was a person providing a service where “customers” could pay them to fake a return. They even sent fake emails from Evri themselves to us to try and convince us they had returned high value items. The tracking numbers were real, however they manipulate the returns label to ensure it never reaches the intended destination. 

One even tried a Section 75 before withdrawing it due to the evidence against them being so high. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

screech_78 said:

We’ve had a few people try to scam us by using fake tracking numbers for returns.

There was an elaborate Evri one not too long ago where there was a person providing a service where “customers” could pay them to fake a return. They even sent fake emails from Evri themselves to us to try and convince us they had returned high value items. The tracking numbers were real, however they manipulate the returns label to ensure it never reaches the intended destination. 

One even tried a Section 75 before withdrawing it due to the evidence against them being so high. 

This has been going on for a while I think, I've heard similar with eBay and also have had a letter full of newspaper cuttings from a random country in Europe delivered a few years ago (I've seen that cropped on here at least once from someone else) where presumably they need the tracking to show delivered to a rough area rather than the real address so the person losing the money doesn't have evidence the parcel was just a letter full of newspaper! 

Whilst fraud does occur I think it would take a lot of effort to fake a parcel getting stuck at Heathrow.  

screech_78

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

screech_78 said:

 We’ve had a few people try to scam us by using fake tracking numbers for returns.

There was an elaborate Evri one not too long ago where there was a person providing a service where “customers” could pay them to fake a return. They even sent fake emails from Evri themselves to us to try and convince us they had returned high value items. The tracking numbers were real, however they manipulate the returns label to ensure it never reaches the intended destination. 

One even tried a Section 75 before withdrawing it due to the evidence against them being so high. 

This has been going on for a while I think, I've heard similar with eBay and also have had a letter full of newspaper cuttings from a random country in Europe delivered a few years ago (I've seen that cropped on here at least once from someone else) where presumably they need the tracking to show delivered to a rough area rather than the real address so the person losing the money doesn't have evidence the parcel was just a letter full of newspaper! 

Whilst fraud does occur I think it would take a lot of effort to fake a parcel getting stuck at Heathrow.  

Agreed. Just pointing out that companies are being more vigilant. I have no idea on the legal aspect for the OP which is why I haven’t commented on that. 

MobileSaver

RefluentBeans said:

Additionally, the OP has said they are asking for proof of postage, not proof of purchase. Proof of postage is just that - proof the parcel was posted. ... That doesn’t transfer  the contract to the poster, merely confirms that the package has been posted.

I think you have this the wrong way round. It's an easy mistake to make but you are confusing "proof of postage" with "proof of posting". Postage is a noun meaning the amount it costs to send something, posting of course is a verb describing the actual sending of something. 

So proof of postage means the receipt in colloquial terms - it appears it is this which the OP doesn't have and so not surprisingly Royal Mail are saying they have no liability towards the OP.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

MobileSaver said:

RefluentBeans said:

Additionally, the OP has said they are asking for proof of postage, not proof of purchase. Proof of postage is just that - proof the parcel was posted. ... That doesn’t transfer  the contract to the poster, merely confirms that the package has been posted.

I think you have this the wrong way round. It's an easy mistake to make but you are confusing "proof of postage" with "proof of posting". Postage is a noun meaning the amount it costs to send something, posting of course is a verb describing the actual sending of something. 

So proof of postage means the receipt in colloquial terms - it appears it is this which the OP doesn't have and so not surprisingly Royal Mail are saying they have no liability towards the OP.

I think some people say proof of postage and others say proof of posting but both mean the same thing, i.e the receipt you get from Royal Mail or the Post Office which has part of the address on with some other bits of info to show you handed the parcel over. 

Then there is proof of purchase which is proof you paid for something

Depending upon where a label is purchased proof of purchase may include all the parcels details.

To add to the complication, you can buy online from Royal Mail, drop off at the Royal Mail Delivery Office (which isn't the Post Office), they will scan the parcel so the tracking will have an acceptance scan but you won't get an email or paper receipt in return. For tracked mail it would be extremely poor of Royal Mail to decline compensation if you purchase then drop off the parcel in this manner. 

MobileSaver

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

MobileSaver said:

RefluentBeans said:

Additionally, the OP has said they are asking for proof of postage, not proof of purchase. Proof of postage is just that - proof the parcel was posted. ... That doesn’t transfer  the contract to the poster, merely confirms that the package has been posted.

I think you have this the wrong way round. It's an easy mistake to make but you are confusing "proof of postage" with "proof of posting". Postage is a noun meaning the amount it costs to send something, posting of course is a verb describing the actual sending of something. 

So proof of postage means the receipt in colloquial terms - it appears it is this which the OP doesn't have and so not surprisingly Royal Mail are saying they have no liability towards the OP.

I think some people say proof of postage and others say proof of posting but both mean the same thing, i.e the receipt you get from Royal Mail or the Post Office which has part of the address on with some other bits of info to show you handed the parcel over.

"Some" people may well use both terms to mean the same thing but they'd be wrong to do so!

Royal Mail specifically asked for proof of postage - this is the receipt or proof of purchase showing how much was paid. Very often this receipt will also show proof of posting but not always if for example you actually purchased a book of stamps.

Conversely a proof of posting shows when you posted something but does not necessarily show that you paid the postage and therefore are entitled to any refund. E.g. you can get a proof of posting when you use a retailer's pre-paid return label but will often have no idea how much the postage costs.