Never Trust The Royal Mail

[All Seeing Eye]

The post man came around this morning and posted some letters and then carried on walking only to turn back when he realised he had a parcel for me, I opened the door and he handed me the parcel and said "it's supposed to be signed for but don't worry about it" (he seemed out of breath and in a hurry) I said "Cheers Mate" and he walked off and low and behold the parcel did indeed have a 'signed for' sticker on it meaning I was supposed to sign for it and I know I was supposed to sign for it anyway because I knew it was coming this morning and that it was sent 1st class 'tracked signed for'.

I suppose in a way he's done me a favour, I didn't have to mess about signing for it and I can pretend I never received the parcel and try and get another one free but if I ever need to send a parcel myself in the future and I want it tracked and signed for I will be reluctant to trust the Royal Mail.

Anybody had similar experiences?

 

[K'Ehleyr]

I'm really trying not to sound too sanctimonious about this but he was totally wrong. And you are totally right to distrust for the future.
If you trust a parcel, or letter, to be delivered by the Royal Mail according to your instructions it must be done so. Yes, it may have been more convenient to the postie to deliver your parcel this way but how will he explain an un-signed for disappeared parcel? Do they check on this? It's not happened to me but I ship items bought on Ebay from me and I would have no come back if the rules had not been adhered to.
I'm interested in other replies, hopefully from RM employees.

Oh and if you are going to claim you didn't receive it, don't start 'the brown parcel...

 

[Bisz]

Mailman wasn't a Polak, was he?

 

[Jadzia]

The person who payed postage, payed for a signature, yet no signature was given. This is breach of contract. The postage payer honestly has a legal right to claim the value of the postage back. All 70p of it, or whatever it is.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

The person who payed postage, payed for a signature, yet no signature was given. This is breach of contract. The postage payer honestly has a legal right to claim the value of the postage back. All 70p of it, or whatever it is.

No he doesn't. It's not a material breach. The recipient still received that package so there's no loss, i.e., no damages. The primary purpose of the "contract" is to have the package delivered to the recipient. It was. No harm, no foul. It would be a different story if there was a loss and the procedures weren't followed through on. Sorry, you don't get to void a contract for a non-material breach.

I'm not condoning the behavior of the postal carrier, but there's nothing actionable here. If you want to make a stink, report him to his supervisor and then see how often your mail suddenly goes missing.

 

[Jadzia]

I beg to differ.

The fact that the parcel was delivered is irrelevant. If I pay somebody to take a signature. (And that is an extra payment on top of the cost of delivering the parcel.) That that is what I've payed for, and that is an essential part of the contract.


http://postcode.royalmail.com/portal/rm/content2?catId=13900163&mediaId=15100173

Request for the signature to be sent to you. See what excuse they give for not having it. Then ask for a refund.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

I beg to differ.

The fact that the parcel was delivered is irrelevant. If I pay somebody to take a signature. (And that is an extra payment on top of the cost of delivering the parcel.) That that is what I've payed for, and that is an essential part of the contract.


http://postcode.royalmail.com/portal/rm/content2?catId=13900163&mediaId=15100173

Request for the signature to be sent to you. See what excuse they give for not having it. Then ask for a refund.

You can beg to differ all you want. It's simply not actionable. The fact that the package got delivered is not irrelevant, in fact, it's the only thing that is truly relevant. I'm going to try to point this out to you again: THERE HAS TO BE A MATERIAL BREACH OF TERMS to void a contract and paying for the signature is not an essential part of the contract if the PACKAGE WAS DELIVERED. The purpose of the signature is to ensure PROOF OF DELIVERY. It's completely secondary, barrister.

The payor is entitled to a refund for the amount paid for the signature service, but the payor is not entitled to a full refund as you suggested and that's what it comes down to. You don't get to void an entire contract for a non-material breach... period.

 

[Pingfah]

I found a replacement odometer for my bike from a breaker for £17, it's a £150 part new, and the Royal Mail lost it

They gave me £17 compensation, but I never found another one.

Of course, this was merely a week after I called the postman a wanker. I've learned my lesson now.

 

[JoeZhang]

Of course, this was merely a week after I called the postman a wanker. I've learned my lesson now.

Never complain about the postie, I complained once and didn't get any mail for six weeks...

 

[All Seeing Eye]

I beg to differ.

The fact that the parcel was delivered is irrelevant. If I pay somebody to take a signature. (And that is an extra payment on top of the cost of delivering the parcel.) That that is what I've payed for, and that is an essential part of the contract.


http://postcode.royalmail.com/portal/rm/content2?catId=13900163&mediaId=15100173

Request for the signature to be sent to you. See what excuse they give for not having it. Then ask for a refund.

You can beg to differ all you want. It's simply not actionable. The fact that the package got delivered is not irrelevant, in fact, it's the only thing that is truly relevant. I'm going to try to point this out to you again: THERE HAS TO BE A MATERIAL BREACH OF TERMS to void a contract and paying for the signature is not an essential part of the contract if the PACKAGE WAS DELIVERED. The purpose of the signature is to ensure PROOF OF DELIVERY. It's completely secondary, barrister.

The payor is entitled to a refund for the amount paid for the signature service, but the payor is not entitled to a full refund as you suggested and that's what it comes down to. You don't get to void an entire contract for a non-material breach... period.

But if I tell the payer that I never got the package then where's the proof I received it?
The payer will then ask the Royal Mail if I received it and to show the signature as proof, when they can't provide the signature then Royal Mail is at fault since the delivery required a signature. The payer can then claim the Royal Mail never delivered the package.

 

[Jadzia]

You can beg to differ all you want.

It works in Rumpole Of The Bailey

 

[Pingfah]

Of course, this was merely a week after I called the postman a wanker. I've learned my lesson now.

Never complain about the postie, I complained once and didn't get any mail for six weeks...

I knew I had made a big mistake as soon as I said it. He was a wanker though and I have a hard time not communicating my feelings to people.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Of course, this was merely a week after I called the postman a wanker. I've learned my lesson now.

Never complain about the postie, I complained once and didn't get any mail for six weeks...

I knew I had made a big mistake as soon as I said it. He was a wanker though and I have a hard time not communicating my feelings to people.

My postie is quite a cool guy. I order quite a lot of packages and he always hands them to me even when they can fit through the letter box and he's always a polite fellow. He gets....

I think that's why he wasn't bothered about me signing for it since I always get packages delivered, they're not usually to be signed for though this was the first. He must trust me not to lie that I never received it.

 

[Pingfah]

My postie is quite a cool guy. I order quite a lot of packages and he always hands them to me even when they can fit through the letter box and he's always a polite fellow. He gets....

I think that's why he wasn't bothered about me signing for it since I always get packages delivered, they're not usually to be signed for though this was the first. He must trust me not to lie that I never received it.

Well that sheds a rather different light on your complaint then, he obviously knew you were the genuine recipient.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

My postie is quite a cool guy. I order quite a lot of packages and he always hands them to me even when they can fit through the letter box and he's always a polite fellow. He gets....

I think that's why he wasn't bothered about me signing for it since I always get packages delivered, they're not usually to be signed for though this was the first. He must trust me not to lie that I never received it.

Well that sheds a rather different light on your complaint then, he obviously knew you were the genuine recipient.

I wasn't complaining, I was just saying that I'd be reluctant to send an important parcel through Royal Mail 'Tracked signed for' after this. If he is willing to ignore it who's to say other posties elsewhere don't do the same and do the same to my parcel.
Not everyone might be trustworthy like me. If I sell an expensive item on ebay and send it to be signed for i'd expect it signing for because the other person might decide with it being an expensive item to pretend they never got it.
Regardless of whether the postie 'thinks' he can trust you or knows you're the genuine recipient if it needs to be signed for it should be signed for.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Of course, this was merely a week after I called the postman a wanker. I've learned my lesson now.

Never complain about the postie, I complained once and didn't get any mail for six weeks...

Which is exactly what I suggested in my first post. There are two people you don't want to piss off: your letter carrier and anyone who handles your food.

But if I tell the payer that I never got the package then where's the proof I received it?
The payer will then ask the Royal Mail if I received it and to show the signature as proof, when they can't provide the signature then Royal Mail is at fault since the delivery required a signature. The payer can then claim the Royal Mail never delivered the package.

Well, now you're talking about committing fraud which is a felony in the U.S. and I'm pretty sure it is in the U.K. as well.

And wait until they try to prosecute and the carrier testifies signs an affidavit stating that he delivered the package. Who do you think is going to win that one?

 

[Pingfah]

I would think Tachy would win as the postman has no way of proving he delivered it, since he didn't get a signature.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Well, now you're talking about committing fraud which is a felony in the U.S. and I'm pretty sure it is in the U.K. as well.

Where's the proof i'm lieing?

And wait until they try to prosecute and the carrier testifies signs an affidavit stating that he delivered the package. Who do you think is going to win that one?

Me. It was supposed to be signed for, there is no signature. There's more evidence that the postman stole the package than there is that I received it.

 

[Pingfah]

Well I'd imagine the postman would just get a ticking off for not getting a signature, you'd get your goods replaced and that would be the end of it. There'd be no way they would pursue a fraud case against you.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Well, now you're talking about committing fraud which is a felony in the U.S. and I'm pretty sure it is in the U.K. as well.

Where's the proof i'm lieing?

The proof is the credibility of the postal carrier who has no reason to lie. There doesn't have to be anymore evidence other than the credibility of a government employee who has nothing to gain by lying. Why in God's name do you think you would have more credibility than the postal carrier?

Not that it matters anyway as you're still talking about committing a crime. If you do something like that and just don't get caught, it doesn't mean you aren't a criminal or haven't committed a crime. Living in a civilized society means that you don't intentionally commit felonies simply because you can get away with it based on someone else's attempt to do you favor.

Does this really have to be explained?

And wait until they try to prosecute and the carrier testifies signs an affidavit stating that he delivered the package. Who do you think is going to win that one?

Me. It was supposed to be signed for, there is no signature. There's more evidence that the postman stole the package than there is that I received it.

I don't mean to sound rude here, but these really sound like arguments I used to make when I was 13. Are you really young?

A simple lack of obtaining a signature does not amount to evidence of theft by the postal carrier any more than it would if there was no signature service. But what does amount to credible evidence is the testimony of a government employee with no criminal record who will testify that he hand-delivered the package to the recipient and thought he was doing him a favor by letting him slide on the signature.