How to handle this one?
Nick
for seller to post.
Once posted, Royal Mail attempted a delivery of two
items in my absence. Card left with tracking labels
attached, I went next day to collect from sorting office.
Was told one item had not made it onto the collection
counter. Strange, second of the two items was available?
Returned to sorting office two days later to be told the
missing item had been collected two hours before I tried
to collect on the previous occasion.
Got to speak with a manager who found copy of the
paperwork with a signature and time of collection.
Not my signature so seems item has been handed out
to wrong person. Manager advised me to maker a claim
to Royal Mail, this is best done by sender as the original
proof of postage etc needs to be sent with form P58.
Seller was quite interested until I asked assistance to
obtain form, fill in and return to Royal Mail. Two weeks
pass with nothing heard from seller dispute emails sent
to them via eBay.
As a last resort, I filed a dispute via eBay (not PayPal)
to which the seller responds in a rather unhappy manor
thinking that I am blaming them for none arrival.
I reply clearly stating that I have no doubt in the integrity
of the seller and say that I'm only following requests from
Royal Mail that the sender initiates the claim. I asked that
the seller confirms if they have or have not obtained the
P58 form and if they have, when was it sent back to Royal
Mail. I also asked in the seller did wish to make the claim,
could they send the proof of purchase documents to me?
Again no reply from the seller.
I am reluctant to phone the seller at this time of year.
(I know of a family problem which was the cause of the
delay in posting) However, time is running out before the
dispute is closed if I do not escalate the dispute to a claim.
If I do escalate to a claim, is it likely it will be awarded in
my favour? As it's almost certain the monies for this
transaction have been claimed by the seller, who pays
the refund should it be awarded in my favour?
The seller indicated that they'd never use eBay again,
(guessing that's why I've had no response) so eBay
have no way of claiming back funds via future sales
by this seller.
All sensible replies welcomed.
Camdor
claim from RM.
--
Regards
Camdor.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>Manager advised me to maker a claim
>to Royal Mail, this is best done by sender as the original
>proof of postage etc needs to be sent with form P58.
Although RM local staff often prefer senders to initiate a claim, as
the supposed recipient you are perfectly at liberty to do it yourself.
As the RM have admitted having the parcel and handing it to someone
else proof of posting is not really an issue and the value of the
contents can be verified by your eBay payment receipts. If necessary
RM will contact the sender directly for further information.
IanT
"Nick" <not....@here.com.uk> wrote in message
news:bxNYm.67424$IZ1....@newsfe19.ams2...
> Bought item for just over �100, took over a week
> for seller to post.
>
> Once posted, Royal Mail attempted a delivery of two
> items in my absence. Card left with tracking labels
> attached, I went next day to collect from sorting office.
> Was told one item had not made it onto the collection
> counter. Strange, second of the two items was available?
> Returned to sorting office two days later to be told the
> missing item had been collected two hours before I tried
> to collect on the previous occasion.
Report it to the Police, it seems like someone at RM has
stolen your parcel. There is NO WAY it would be given
out to the wrong person by accident as they check.
I would almost say it was the postman on your round who
left the cards.
> Got to speak with a manager who found copy of the
> paperwork with a signature and time of collection.
> Not my signature so seems item has been handed out
> to wrong person. Manager advised me to maker a claim
> to Royal Mail, this is best done by sender as the original
> proof of postage etc needs to be sent with form P58.
>
Report it to the Police as theft and make an official complaint
to the Post Office. I had to do that when a postman was stealing
parcels and letters. They trapped him by sending stuff through the
post and checking which items arrived. He's now in prison.
> Seller was quite interested until I asked assistance to
> obtain form, fill in and return to Royal Mail. Two weeks
> pass with nothing heard from seller dispute emails sent
> to them via eBay.
> As a last resort, I filed a dispute via eBay (not PayPal)
> to which the seller responds in a rather unhappy manor
> thinking that I am blaming them for none arrival.
What has the theft by a RM employee got to do with the
seller, ebay or paypal. Everything was sent, your parcel
was stolen by someone at RM.
> I reply clearly stating that I have no doubt in the integrity
> of the seller and say that I'm only following requests from
> Royal Mail that the sender initiates the claim. I asked that
> the seller confirms if they have or have not obtained the
> P58 form and if they have, when was it sent back to Royal
> Mail. I also asked in the seller did wish to make the claim,
> could they send the proof of purchase documents to me?
> Again no reply from the seller.
>
> I am reluctant to phone the seller at this time of year.
> (I know of a family problem which was the cause of the
> delay in posting) However, time is running out before the
> dispute is closed if I do not escalate the dispute to a claim.
>
It's not really down to the seller to do anything, you need to
report the theft of the parcel and claim from RM.
> If I do escalate to a claim, is it likely it will be awarded in
> my favour? As it's almost certain the monies for this
> transaction have been claimed by the seller, who pays
> the refund should it be awarded in my favour?
>
> The seller indicated that they'd never use eBay again,
> (guessing that's why I've had no response) so eBay
> have no way of claiming back funds via future sales
> by this seller.
>
> All sensible replies welcomed.
>
>
Report the theft to the police. ebay and paypal can not
investigate Royal Mail employees. Once you learn the
difference between who does what you should be OK.
IanT
"Camdor" <no...@localhost.com> wrote in message
news:6PPYm.104450$II.7...@newsfe22.ams2...
Not when it is theft by a RM employee. You are wrong.
Rob Morley
"IanT" <noe...@email.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Camdor" <no...@localhost.com> wrote in message
> news:6PPYm.104450$II.7...@newsfe22.ams2...
> >>
> > Escalate to a claim now. Its not your problem, its up to the seller
> > to claim from RM.
> Not when it is theft by a RM employee. You are wrong.
>
And you're so smart you know what happened to his package? Oh no,
you're actually an idiot who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about,
but tries to sound knowledgeable. Now where have we seen that before?
The Older Gentleman
<snip>
See that?
> Not when it is theft by a RM employee. You are wrong.
How do you know it was theft?
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Kráftéé
"Rob Morley" <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:20091225021835.3712676e@bluemoon...
But , but, but, the local RM office have already admitted that they have
'given' the parcel to the incorrect person (who should have presented the
card and at least one form of identification) so at the very least it's
fraud (helped by the RM incompetence)
Peter Parry
wrote:
>But , but, but, the local RM office have already admitted that they have
>'given' the parcel to the incorrect person (who should have presented the
>card and at least one form of identification) so at the very least it's
>fraud (helped by the RM incompetence)
It isn't necessarily (or even likely) to be fraud. Far more likely is
a simple mistake. Someone turned up to collect a parcel and was given
the wrong one.
Either way it doesn't really matter as RM seem to have admitted they
had the parcel and, for whatever reason, gave it to the wrong person.
The only time this will become complicated is if it was given to
someone from the correct address. This isn't uncommon in properties
with multiple occupancy where a card is left for one occupant and
another picks it up and goes to collect the package for themselves. RM
(and other carriers) guarantee to deliver to an address, not to a
person.
A presented so far the recipient shouldn't have a problem claiming
directly off RM.
Rob Morley
Kr锟絝t锟斤拷 <kr锟絝t锟斤拷@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:
>
> "Rob Morley" <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:20091225021835.3712676e@bluemoon...
> > On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:54:29 -0000
> > "IanT" <noe...@email.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Camdor" <no...@localhost.com> wrote in message
> >> news:6PPYm.104450$II.7...@newsfe22.ams2...
> >
> >> >>
> >> > Escalate to a claim now. Its not your problem, its up to the
> >> > seller to claim from RM.
> >
> >> Not when it is theft by a RM employee. You are wrong.
> >>
> >
> > And you're so smart you know what happened to his package? Oh no,
> > you're actually an idiot who hasn't got a clue what he's talking
> > about, but tries to sound knowledgeable. Now where have we seen
> > that before?
> >
>
> But , but, but, the local RM office have already admitted that they
> have 'given' the parcel to the incorrect person
Or just filled in the wrong line in their book and the parcel is still
in the office, or screwed up in some other way.
>(who should have
> presented the card and at least one form of identification) so at the
> very least it's fraud (helped by the RM incompetence)
>
There certainly seems to be a degree of incompetence involved, but
without further evidence we can only speculate. I can think of at
least one innocent explanation, there are probably several others.
The Older Gentleman
> It isn't necessarily (or even likely) to be fraud. Far more likely is
> a simple mistake.
Troo. I thought we'd got rid of the"it's always a fraud" mindset when
Spacker upped sticks and fled.
Kim Andrews
says...
> Manager advised me to maker a claim
> to Royal Mail, this is best done by sender as the original
> proof of postage etc needs to be sent with form P58.
>
>
"best done by" isn't the same as "must be done by" so you could tell the
seller you will be happy to do this if you simply provides you with the
proof of postage. Try an email first, then - reluctant or not - follow
with a phone call if you don't get a quick solution. There's no way you
should need to lose that kind of money. It's entirely possibly the guy's
lost the CoP - but you need to know that sooner rather than later.
I hope you made a note of everybody's name, times etc in case you end up
having to go outside the standard system and get stroppy with RM.
--
Cheers, Kimbo
Books, by Kimbo!
Used and collectible books at sensible prices.
Buy direct at www.booksbykimbo.com
Find me on Ebid http://uk.ebid.net/stores/Books-by-Kimbo
Peter Parry
wrote:
>"best done by" isn't the same as "must be done by" so you could tell the
>seller you will be happy to do this if you simply provides you with the
>proof of postage.
I don't think in this case that PoP from the sender is needed. The OP
already effectively has this in the form of the Recorded Delivery (or
SD) tracking number RM supplied when they attempted the first
delivery. That the package got to the delivery mail office seems to
be beyond doubt.
Kráftéé
"The Older Gentleman" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1jbbohb.94cpx98bsl76N%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk...
> Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>
>> It isn't necessarily (or even likely) to be fraud. Far more likely is
>> a simple mistake.
>
> Troo. I thought we'd got rid of the"it's always a fraud" mindset when
> Spacker upped sticks and fled.
You haven't suffered the trials and tribulations (which are ongoing) which
we've had for over a year now. It appears that sometimes they blow a fuse
and we get the mail for the right door number but for every road up to
around a mile away and other times they just appear to be unable to find our
door and our post gets pushed thru the right number but wrong road door.
Parcels are sometimes carded (we are both in employment at the moment) but
then again we get cards but they don't have the parcels. If we're really
lucky they find a parcel after a few days but on more than one occasion no
parcel was forthcoming and eventually the manager has asked for the cards,
saying that he'd investigate. It's over 6 months now, no parcels and look a
change of manager who knows nothing about the problems at all and we haven't
got the cards. They've even been known to be unable to remove their red
elastic band so that individual items can go thru the letter box, instead
they keep them all bundled up and give us a card. It does make one wonder?
Any communication with the manager(s) has come to nothing, other than the
odd book of stamps, but we'd rather have the mail than the stamps.
Apologies if that makes me a candidate for being the next Spacker but I'm
only speaking from the painful experiences which I have gained thru dealing
with my local sorting office (or should that be non sorting office). Parcel
force on the other hand are great, they even redeliver when asked (so no
missing parcels there)
Rob Morley
Phil <ph...@phil.com> wrote:
> > the seller responds in a rather unhappy manor thinking that
> > I am blaming them for none arrival.
>
> The seller *is* responsible for the item not arriving, regardless of
> anything that might think, say or put as a condition of sale on their
> auction page. The item is technically still theirs until in the hands
> of the buyer so it is *their* duty to ensure that they are adequately
> protected.
>
I suspect Mr. Parry may be along in a bit to point out that although
this is definitely the case when buying as a consumer from a business,
it's not so clear cut when dealing as one private individual with
another.
Kráftéé
"Phil" <ph...@phil.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25a192c4c...@news.virginmedia.com...
>> it seems like someone at RM has stolen your parcel.
>> There is NO WAY it would be given out to the wrong person
>> by accident as they check.
>
> the delivery card. Doesn't take much for someone to pick the wrong
> parcel up by accident and give it to someone at the sorting desk,
> especially at such a busy time of year.
>
>> I had to do that when a postman was stealing parcels and letters.
>> They trapped him by sending stuff through the post and checking
>> which items arrived. He's now in prison.
>
> once or something, but that doesn't actually make it real life.
Fortunately you are incorrect on this matter. Occasionally they don't get
custodial sentences but at least 2 in the last year have done so in this
area.
>
>> It's not really down to the seller to do anything, you need to
>> report the theft of the parcel and claim from RM.
>
> The seller is responsible for the item until it is in the hands of the
> buyer.
>
>> Once you learn the difference between who does what you should
>> be OK.
>
> See above, then run along and take your own advice.
>
> HTH
>
>
> --
> Phil
Nick
"This has already been sent to the buyer & despite what
I have just read, I have been in contact with the buyer via
email (I have saved all communications) since this item was
stolen at the sorting office. The buyer knows the situation
and has been sorting this out at his end with royal mail. I have
been trying to help him and am quite shocked at what he is
now saying. I was going to put a claim in on his behalf to royal
mail but now feel he is trying to con me and claim a full refund.
I have proof of postage but am not willing to send original
documents as then I lose my proof. The buyer will now have to
put a claim in himself as he has the tracking number. I tried to
sell an item in good faith and now feel yet again let down by ebay.
I will not be using ebay again."
eBay Customer Support has made a final decision and the
case is closed. You can view the details of this case in the
Resolution Center.
Decision:
This case has been decided in the seller's favour.
Comments:
"Issue a refund when this item is returned to you."
Happy New Year? By being �119.00 out pocket, yer right...
petrolcan
Fucking hell, that is remarkably shit!
Name and shame the seller.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>Fucking hell, that is remarkably shit!
>Name and shame the seller.
The seller appears to have done little wrong. Assuming this is a
private sale risk in the goods passes to the buyer when they are
handed by the seller to the carrier (this is the opposite of the case
in business to consumer transactions). The seller has to use an
appropriate and safe method of carriage. In this case they appear to
have done just that by using a Royal Mail service with confirmation of
delivery (I presume either recorded or special delivery).
The buyer can pursue a claim for the loss (which from what he has said
RM appear to have admitted is their fault) directly with RM and does
not need the proof of posting as he has tracking details. It is not
clear why the buyer is apparently not doing this.
If RM want to see the proof of posting they will approach the sender
directly, in this case because of the tracking the buyer needs to get
nothing from the seller.
If RM for some reason decline to pay up the buyer has no legal claim
against the seller for the loss. If RM limit the claim to the maximum
for recorded delivery (if that was what was used) the buyer could
claim for the balance from the seller but it wouldn't be a case he
could guarantee to win.
A.Lee
> The seller appears to have done little wrong. Assuming this is a
> private sale risk in the goods passes to the buyer when they are
> handed by the seller to the carrier (this is the opposite of the case
> in business to consumer transactions). The seller has to use an
> appropriate and safe method of carriage. In this case they appear to
> have done just that by using a Royal Mail service with confirmation of
> delivery (I presume either recorded or special delivery).
I am normally in agreement with what you say, but I'd like to take issue
with the above comment. I understood it that the seller was liable for
the goods, until they had been delivered to the buyer.
There is an added complication when Insurance is offered, but not wanted
by the buyer, but in general, I am not sure you are right by saying the
seller has cleared his responsabilites(sp) once the item has been
posted.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
Peter Parry
For private sales (which I am assuming this is) the Sale of Goods Act
s20 and s32 are the relevant bits :-
"20 Passing of risk
(1) Unless otherwise agreed, the goods remain at the seller's risk
until the property in them is transferred to the buyer, but when the
property in them is transferred to the buyer the goods are at the
buyer's risk whether delivery has been made or not. "
Property in the goods (ownership) is usually transferred to the buyer
when payment is made.
"Delivery to carrier
32(1) Where, in pursuance of a contract of sale, the seller is
authorised or required to send the goods to the buyer, delivery of
the goods to a carrier (whether named by the buyer or not) for the
purpose of transmission to the buyer is prima facie deemed to be a
delivery of the goods to the buyer. "
The buyer is protected against the seller choosing an inappropriate
method of delivery by the next part:-
"32(2) Unless otherwise authorised by the buyer, the seller must
make such contract with the carrier on behalf of the buyer as may be
reasonable having regard to the nature of the goods and the other
circumstances of the case; and if the seller omits to do so, and the
goods are lost or damaged in course of transit, the buyer may decline
to treat the delivery to the carrier as a delivery to himself or may
hold the seller responsible in damages."
Normally a buyer can rely upon S32(3) if the goods are lost as proof
that an inappropriate method of delivery was used (otherwise the
goods were not have been lost). RM are in a unique position however
as their relationship with both the seller and buyer is not
contractual but statutory, the Postal Services Act 2000 hence the
ability of either the sender or recipient to claim for a loss.
It isn't clear what method of delivery was used. If it was Recorded
Delivery the parcel, if worth �100, would have been under-insured and
the buyer could claim the difference between the compensation paid by
RM and the value of the goods from the seller as they chose to under
insure. The problem the buyer would have is in showing that the
_seller_ chose an inappropriate method of delivery. I'm not certain
they would win on that. If it was Special Delivery the compensation
would cover the item.
It would appear that the least the buyer would get from claiming
directly from RM would be standard compensation of �39, more if SD was
used.
(If the seller was a business then of course risk remains with the
seller until the goods are delivered to the buyer and no contract can
alter this).
Peter Crosland
--
Peter Crosland
"Nick" <not....@here.com.uk> wrote in message
news:nHa%m.16766$cn1....@newsfe11.ams2...
Was the seller a business and how did you pay for the item? If it was a
business the fact that the item was stolen makes no difference to the
seller's legal liability. If you paid by credit card and it was business
seller then you can claim from them since the amount was over a �100.
Peter Crosland
petrolcan
says...
Peter, everyting you say might be 100% correct but the seller is still
being a right shit in this case.
As a seller, I accept that the goods are my responsibility until they
are in the hands of the buyer. Its not like it would be hard for the
seller to persue a claim with RM in this case.
I'd still like to know the sellers ebay ID so that I can avoid in the
future.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>In article <vulvj5lirvpn37rs1...@4ax.com>, Peter Parry
>says...
>Peter, everyting you say might be 100% correct but the seller is still
>being a right shit in this case.
That is certainly possible, although from the response they made
(which the OP posted) it seems that for some unknown reason both buyer
and seller have managed somehow to annoy each other and both now
genuinely feel they are being hard done by.
>As a seller, I accept that the goods are my responsibility until they
>are in the hands of the buyer. Its not like it would be hard for the
>seller to persue a claim with RM in this case.
Agreed.