I know... I know... by raistlin

  • Related topics: (no related topics)

User avatar
raistlin
... everybody knows that I've a BIG downer on the way the post office do business but this one takes the biscuit and I have the evidence I need to have a go at them.

I bought an item on fleabay and it didn't arrive within the specified time but the seller told me it had been posted on time.

On Tuesday 2nd May, I received a card from the post office stating that an item of mail addressed to me had been under-stamped and gave me the opportunity to make good the outstanding amount plus their usurious "administration" charge. This I did and today received the package.

The package was sent on or before 24th April. This I know as it was internet generated postage and you have to post before a specific date or it gets rejected. It was posted first class, so should have been here a day or so later. This started alarm bells ringing in my (admittedly conspiracy theory fevered) mind, as the fee to pay card had arrived 2nd May.

I then checked the postage charges for both old and new postage price regimes (don't forget the price went up on 1st May) given the gross weight of the package as weighed on my postage scales which I know are accurate to within + or - 3 grams in the range up to 1Kg. Given the weight, the fact that it was first class, and was posted as a "large letter", the only permutation which gave the exact amount by which the postage was light came from the new prices.

I am of the opinion that this package was wilfully delayed in order to charge the paltry few extra pence that would be required post price increase, which is an offence contrary to section 84 of the Post Office Services Act 2000. In turn, I wonder how many other packages suffered the same fate. Even if the package wasn't wilfully delayed and it is just down to the usual abysmal standard of service I've come to expect from the post office, as far as I am aware, the contract of postage is based upon price prevailing upon the day of acceptance of the contract, meaning that any shortfall should be calculated on the then current prices. I'm hoping that there may be other cases which have come to light.

I'm not daft enough to think that this is policy from on high but somebody has made the decision, even if only at local level and I don't like it. Not one little bit.

We already know that the post office refused to sell stamps to retailers other than in "very restricted" quantities in the weeks prior to the price increase for "revenue protection" as they were proud to tell us.

It is also clear that, as a company, their answer to the fact that they were losing revenue to private contractors owing to their high prices and poor service, was to increase their prices even further for the poor saps who have no choice but to use them.

Eccentric? definitely. Anal? possibly, but I intend to pursue this (as I have no other windmills to tilt at for the time being ;) ) until something more interesting comes along.
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 03 May 2012, 18:35 #1 

User avatar
Zeb
Mind if I send a copy of this to CAB HQ? They'd like it I am sure...:D

Posted 03 May 2012, 19:30 #2 


PaulT
Go for them.
Paul

That apart Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play

Image

Posted 03 May 2012, 19:47 #3 

User avatar
Ragman
The Post Office merely resell the Royal Mails services - is this not a Royal Mail issue?

Posted 03 May 2012, 22:50 #4 

User avatar
raistlin
Ragman wrote:The Post Office merely resell the Royal Mails services - is this not a Royal Mail issue?


I use the two terms to mean the same thing, incorrectly, of course :)
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 04 May 2012, 05:39 #5 

User avatar
Tourerfogey
We already know that the post office refused to sell stamps to retailers other than in "very restricted" quantities in the weeks prior to the price increase for "revenue protection" as they were proud to tell us.

This would only affect non-post office outlets, who have to pay for the stamps as and when they are delivered, and who would only have held onto the stamps until after the price increase and kept the extra themselves anyway, therefore not affecting the end consumer.

Post offices are able to order stamps in for stock but only pay Royal Mail for them when they are sold. Yes, restricting the stocks held by the Post Offices would reduce the number available for the public pre-price increase but you can hardly blame Royal Mail for that and I think they were correct to do so.

As for the incorrectly (or not) stamped envelope - was it post marked prior to or after the increase?

Posted 04 May 2012, 14:02 #6 

User avatar
raistlin
I had an e-mail from RM this morning, stating that they have noted my complaint and that an investigation was under way.

I wonder how long the investigation will take?
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 05 May 2012, 10:13 #7 

User avatar
James.uk
The investigation will be delayed untill a rise in prices means the replying letter is under stamped and ------------------- lol.... :D
...

Posted 05 May 2012, 16:52 #8 

User avatar
Ragman
I recently raised a complaint with the RM, initial response was the standard 'we're sorry have a book of stamps as compensation' didn't accept and escalated the complaint, full refund £22 without any problem

Posted 05 May 2012, 21:52 #9 

User avatar
raistlin
I had news today.

A member of staff had "exceeded their remit" and will be "dealt with under internal procedures" I have been offered a credit to my online postage account which is worth considerably more than the excess postage charged.

I'm thinking of asking the Police to consider prosecution... no I'm not.:lol: I'm not that vindictive. My point has been made, found to be valid and I'm not out of pocket so happy with the result.
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 17 May 2012, 19:04 #10 

User avatar
Merl
Just found this thread and I'm glad you took on and won against those robbing swines! some of the things they have got away with in the past is just infuriating to say the least!
Martin

Image

Posted 19 May 2012, 11:47 #11 


Top

cron