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

Afternoon, Apologies for the delay Well I am doing that in terms of the tracked 48 cases. However given Tracked 48 are NOT covered by the scheme and special delivery ARE then my guess is the defence will be slightly different. Thoughts? Also I'm shortly going to send you a PM with some information I've obtained from a RM defence doc which I think may be something you'll want to read.

Ok so we'll move the SD parcel they straight up stole. Sent a high value shoe of 745.00 via Special Delivery Guaranteed. They mark it as delivered with a photo of the recipients door. The signature is their covid "XP1" one even though the item was sent well after signatures were reintroduced. The name also doesn't match that of the recipient. I am of the view that Royal Mail cannot exclude their liability to reimburse me for their employees criminality no matter their protections as that simply is not fair. So my plan so far is as follows: -Wait for outcome of Postal redress decision (only reason to wait is that If I issue proceedings before the deicison, and the deicision is in my favor the decision is voided) -If redress decline (most likely given they're uphold rate is 4%) send LOC the same day -Wait 14 days then issue court claim against them. Any suggestions welcome @BankFodder I think this is set out as you requested, anything you want me to change please let me know

Proposed LOC Any changes please do let me know JX LBA 1.pdf

Ok so this is a follow to the previous thread. We'll deal with claim one first and the rest after. The terms & conditions applicable to the service used here are https://www.royalmail.com/sites/royalmail.com/files/2023-07/Specific-Terms-for-Non-Account-Tracked-24-and-Tracked-48-version-6.pdf The service used here IS NOT covered under the UK post scheme. Royal Mail refer to it as a non contractual service but I cannot see where it says this. I intend to upload a LOC here shortly.

Received a somewhat acceptable settlement offer from parcelforce today so hopefully will be all good. I think I should hold off on asking the adressee from anything for now since PF have offered a somewhat acceptable settlement. Should i still get one?

ok so I went on live chat parcelforce to explain that I was wanting to pursue further action for their failure to deliver, and as such I wanted a copy of the proof of delivery photo. They came back ignoring my request for the photo, but saying they reopened my claim. They wont provide a timeframe but I've seen some cases where it takes 50+ days to be signed off. What's my best route to take here?

Ok I believe this should make things slightly clearer - disregard the above table) Parcel one - Sent 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 Parcel two - Sent 18th April 2023, Contained a nike dunk low, sold for 174.99 GBP. Use tracked 48 which offers max insurance of 150 GBP. Escalations + Postal review declined the claim, awaiting a POSTRS adjudication currently. Parcel three - Sent 11th April 2023, Contained a supreme nike dunk which I purchased for 599 GBP. I provided seller a RM Special delivery label. Seller shipped at PO and got a receipt with weight of 950g it arrived to me weighing 200g. Interestingly it had no movement at all on the 12th april 2023 despite it supposed to be being delivered on this day. Can't dispute with seller because defence was that the item was in parcel when shipped (evidenced by the PO receipt). Max insurance is 750 GBP. Escalations + Postal review declined the claim, awaiting a POSTRS adjudication currently. Parcel four - Sent 14th april 2023, contained a nike dunk low, sold for 189.99. Use tracked 48 which offers max insurance of 150 GBP. Postal review upheld and sent cheque for 150 but wont send cheque for the remainder. Escalations declined. Postal review upheld, awaiting a POSTRS adjudication about whether I can claim the remainder given they admitted their loss Parcel five - Sent 15 May 2023, contained a yeezy 350v2 sold for 745.00. Used special delivery, max insurance 750.00 GBP. The POD used by Royal Mail is a photo of the recipients house, the signature is the "XP1" Royal Mail covid signature (the recipient didnt sign because RM never knocked) The name collected by RM also doesn't match that of the recipient. RM have said on a phone call (which I obtained from a SAR) that they are liable to reimburse, but it got transferred to a different agent who now refuses to compensate. Escalations initially upheld, then changed to decline, Postal review panel declined, awaiting a POSTRS adjudication currently. Hopefully this helps more For reference the recipient of the 5th is my friend, so I know that its RM who took it not the recipient. (I think because on the box I declared what it was, so the postal worker/DO just stole it). I've read over the postal services act, but that doesn't apply. Similarly it doesn't come under "the scheme" because its not listed on that document as it is tracked 48. Interestingly for parcel one postal redress said RM can exclude their liability under "the scheme" even tho tracked 48 isnt covered under it. Adjudicator didn't want to tell me why that was so part of me thinks they simply just use a copy paste decision. In regards to contracts, it's an interesting one. Royal mails terms and conditions webpage classes them as "Non Contract" services. However I don't see that mentioned anywhere prior to purchase. They also say that anything communicated to my prior to purchase also applies, so could I argue that they ask me where the package is going, I've given an address and they haven't delivered to that address?. Specific terms of interest is 11.3 - Subject to clause 11.9 our liability to you will be limited to the lower of: 11.3.1 the market value of the Item (not including the market value of any message or information it carries) at the time the Item was damaged or lost; and 11.3.2 one hundred and fifty pounds (£150). Can I use the same claim for this as EVRi that they can't exclude their liability based on their own terms and conditions? Also they have "we accept unlimited liability for personal injury or death caused by something we have done or failed to do (including negligence) or for any losses which are caused by our fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation.". Can I argue that the loss especially of parcel 5 is caused by fraud because they've taken a photo of the door and then stolen the parcel? Also term 16.3 is "This Agreement is governed by the Laws of England." Therefore, since it's not covered under the postal service act, nor the United Kingdom Post scheme, can I not claim under consumer rights act? I've read a lot of the threads on this forum in regards to Royal Mail, but all relate to services covered under the United Kingdom Post scheme, but mine is not. I am thinking since mine is not covered by this scheme, is the consumer rights act 2015 not applicable?

yes they will

nope you're not understanding at all. thx anyway BF - Yea will do and will send over in the next few hours

will ask