will send over a reply shortly.

I appreciate that but I do not have the time to go back and deal with what will turn out to be just shy of 430 parcels and deal with LOC then court for them, however I am coming here also now.

Yea I know, I ship quite a lot and my losses last year from lost/missing/damaged parecls was in the region of £9,300 and my projected insurance spend is only £4,623.47 so it works out cheaper

Sorry yes i did. always do because with companies like this you get refunded when the insurance goes wrong. please check your messages

Yep - I'd point out it will very much only work there is no GPS nor proof of delivery photo of the return - as was in my case. the whole case took around a month, but the key step was when i got a callabck and then it was in the hands of one person who had the power to actually do things.

yes i did get result claim was paid?

ok they're back to being difficult. I intend to send a letter of claim - if I post it here can you review it?

Hi BF, Just thought I'd update you, I sent an email and it's now been moved to a claim. For anyone in a similar situation here's my advice: Firstly your contract is with parcel2go - They will say its not but it is. After you jump that hurdle, go through and ask for a claims advisor, then ask for an escalation callback. That team will solve even when the rest wont. The team who sort it refuse to answer chats/emails so make sure to ask for a callback BF - your donate button is broken, with warmest compliments please fix so i can donate to you

sounds good

from what i understand they are saying If people entered a contract with Royal Mail to deliver items, then Royal Mail wouldnt be able to sue the shipper, but since royal mail can, then apparently that means theres no contract

Hey BF Scheme is shorthand for this https://www.royalmail.com/sites/royalmail.com/files/2022-04/UK_Post_Scheme_06-April-2022.pdf

RM contract defence: "More technically: Royal Mail; the letter delivery business of Royal Mail Group Ltd provides the inland letters services to customers under a scheme made under s89 of the Postal Services Act 2000 (“The Act “). Royal Mail was authorised to set up The Royal Mail United Kingdom Post Scheme to make arrangements for the delivery and collection of postal services within the United Kingdom. Customers who use a service which is provided to them under the aforementioned scheme do not enter into a contract with Royal Mail for the provision of that service. This legal status is confirmed by case law going back a number of years and which are referred to in Halsbury’s Laws of England. This interpretation is confirmed by the provisions of s89(7) of the Act which permit Royal Mail to sue customers who have not paid for services, a provision which would be unnecessary if customers entered into a contract with Royal Mail. Customers who use such a service have no claim in tort against Royal Mail as this is excluded by the provisions of s90 of the Act. As such any claim for compensation for loss or damage to the contents of a postal packet must be brought under the provisions of s90 and 91 of the Act to be successful. Under s91 of the Act a customer may claim compensation if an item is lost or damaged whilst in the course of transmission through the post, if he has complied with all the terms and conditions of the service as set out in the Act, Inland Scheme and information provided on the website or literature issued in connection with the same. Section 90 of the Act excludes liability on behalf of the business, its employees, staff and agents in respect of any act or omission which occurs whilst an item is in the course of transmission through the post. This in effect provides an exclusion of liability in respect of claims which could otherwise be framed in tort, for example, negligence" " This is Royal Mail's explanation for how there is no contract

Hi, Sorry I was travelling. Will be doing the SD thats been stolen and the Tracked 48 simultaneously albeit one SD at a time. This is because their defences for each one will be different as they cant use their postal scheme defence for tracked 48 so I dont think the defences will be the same. As for the thing i sent to you via DM it formed part of a RM defence to POSTRS so i cant link it as POSTRS dont publicly publish their stuff Posted it below here for public reference

Proposed LOC that I intend to serve on RM is attached. I intend to serve this today (08/05/2023) LBA 1.pdf

Sent a Royal Mail tracked 48 parcel on 24th April 2023, Contained a Nike Dunk low, sold for 149.99 GBP. Used tracked 48 which offers max insurance of 150 GBP. Escalations + Postal review + Postal redress all declined the claim. They misdelivered to the wrong property but refuse compensation stating they delivered to correct property. The service is not covered under the UK post scheme. Royal Mail deny there being a contract stating " However, as previously advised, the customer has not purchased a contractual service. The service purchased is provided to customers under its own terms and conditions, namely, the Royal Mail Specific Terms for Non-Account Tracked 24® and Tracked 48®. The applicable terms and conditions are https://www.royalmail.com/sites/royalmail.com/files/2023-07/Specific-Terms-for-Non-Account-Tracked-24-and-Tracked-48-version-6.pdf