Warning, Poste Restante and privitisation. (1 Viewer)

[DBK]

So it was the fault of the two courier companies then, not the Royal Mail - and absolutely nothing to do with the privatisation.

Still, why let the facts get in the way of an unfounded pop at the government?

You could argue it is the fault of the post office because they accepted a post restante letter and did not ensure their "sub-contractors" down the line could handle it correctly.

Might be worth trying to write to the post office to see if they have any suggestions.

 

[GJH]

You could argue it is the fault of the post office because they accepted a post restante letter and did not ensure their "sub-contractors" down the line could handle it correctly.

Might be worth trying to write to the post office to see if they have any suggestions.

By extension you could argue that the person who posted the article also did not ensure that the procedure would work how they assumed it would

It's a long established principle that if something goes wrong with international mail it is the responsibility of the organisation handling it in the country where the problem occurred. I used to send things overseas when we had our business an only recall one problem, a family tree chart lost in Israel. I was able to claim from the Royal Mail but they were reimbursed by their Israeli counterparts because they could show that it had left this country dafely.

 

[DBK]

By extension you could argue that the person who posted the article also did not ensure that the procedure would work how they assumed it would

It's a long established principle that if something goes wrong with international mail it is the responsibility of the organisation handling it in the country where the problem occurred. I used to send things overseas when we had our business an only recall one problem, a family tree chart lost in Israel. I was able to claim from the Royal Mail but they were reimbursed by their Israeli counterparts because they could show that it had left this country dafely.

Your first point is nonsense, the customer is buying a service and has a right to expect they will get what they have bought. If the post office can't offer the service they should withdraw it.

And the OP should indeed take it up with the post office otherwise they won't know it isn't working. That was my suggestion.

But on the issue of privatisation I don't think that has anything to do with it and indeed a privatised PO might just have the flexibility to do something about it which the old organisation would not - blaming "them furreners".

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Minxy]

So it was the fault of the two courier companies then, not the Royal Mail - and absolutely nothing to do with the privatisation.

Still, why let the facts get in the way of an unfounded pop at the government?

BUT the Royal Mail are where the buck stops ... they USE these companies to provide the service, ergo the RM 'contract' them ... so they should make sure that the companies are doing it properly ...

Example, you buy a fragile product off a seller (A) who ships it using a courier (B), it arrives damaged because the seller (A) didn't put fragile on the parcel ... do you go back to the seller (A) or the courier (B) about it ... answer the seller (A) ...

 

[GJH]

Your first point is nonsense, the customer is buying a service and has a right to expect they will get what they have bought. If the post office can't offer the service they should withdraw it.

And the OP should indeed take it up with the post office otherwise they won't know it isn't working. That was my suggestion.

But on the issue of privatisation I don't think that has anything to do with it and indeed a privatised PO might just have the flexibility to do something about it which the old organisation would not - blaming "them furreners".

If it is a matter of highlighting a problem to the PO/RM I agree - but that is not the same as the fault being that of either of them and certainly nothing to do with privatisation

BUT the Royal Mail are where the buck stops ... they USE these companies to provide the service, ergo the RM 'contract' them ... so they should make sure that the companies are doing it properly ...

Example, you buy a fragile product off a seller (A) who ships it using a courier (B), it arrives damaged because the seller (A) didn't put fragile on the parcel ... do you go back to the seller (A) or the courier (B) about it ... answer the seller (A) ...

Which has always been the case, as in my previous example. When my chart was lost RM compensated me and then pursued the Israeli postal service.

 

[Minxy]

If it is a matter of highlighting a problem to the PO/RM I agree - but that is not the same as the fault being that of either of them and certainly nothing to do with privatisation

Which has always been the case, as in my previous example. When my chart was lost RM compensated me and then pursued the Israeli postal service.

Something being lost is NOT the same GJH as a company who contracts out a service (ie by using the services of another company) as they should ensure that the requirements to correctly provide that service are being met when they set up the 'contract' with them ... which appears NOT to be the case.

As for your lost item ... you still went back to the RM for compensation who accepted the claim, NOT the other postal service.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Something being lost is NOT the same GJH as a company who contracts out a service (ie by using the services of another company) as they should ensure that the requirements to correctly provide that service are being met when they set up the 'contract' with them ... which appears NOT to be the case.

There has been no evidence provided that such checks had not been made and that this was not an isolated incident.

As for your lost item ... you still went back to the RM for compensation who accepted the claim, NOT the other postal service.

Yes, I never denied that.

 

[Minxy]

Something being lost is NOT the same GJH as a company who contracts out a service (ie by using the services of another company) as they should ensure that the requirements to correctly provide that service are being met when they set up the 'contract' with them ... which appears NOT to be the case.

There has been no evidence provided that such checks had not been made and that this was not an isolated incident.

That is correct ... I did say 'appears not to be the case', however the 'buck' has to stop with the company who took on the original 'contract' for the service (ie RM), they have sub-contracted the service out, not the OP, and from what the OP has found out I suspect it was NOT the first time ...

I can't for the life of me understand why you are continually 'sticking up' for the RM in this ... they are no different to any other company who agree to provide a service and the service fails, for whatever reason, THEY took on the contract so THEY are responsible. I don't think privatisation has anything to do with it ... they are a service provider and the service hasn't been provided ...

 

[GJH]

That is correct ... I did say 'appears not to be the case', however the 'buck' has to stop with the company who took on the original 'contract' for the service (ie RM), they have sub-contracted the service out, not the OP, and from what the OP has found out I suspect it was NOT the first time ...

I can't for the life of me understand why you are continually 'sticking up' for the RM in this ... they are no different to any other company who agree to provide a service and the service fails, for whatever reason, THEY took on the contract so THEY are responsible. I don't think privatisation has anything to do with it ... they are a service provider and the service hasn't been provided ...

If I am "sticking up" for RM it is:
1) because the whole premise of this thread is an allegation, without any evidence at all, that the system "would now appear broken since Royal Mail was privitised" and "Royal Mail, presumably to save pennies, had sent it by courier".
2) because there has been no evidence produced that the fault lies anywhere other than with the couriers.

That is the same approach I took when I heard of Councillor Parkin's allegation of "effluence" dumping by 90% of motorhomers. I don't like any posts which make allegations which support a preconceived viewpoint without evidence to back them up.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Glandwr]

So it was the fault of the two courier companies then, not the Royal Mail - and absolutely nothing to do with the privatisation.

It is indisputable that this would not have happened if the RM had not been privatised and been free to shop around for budget intermediateries, is it not?
The corollary that such a statement is a criticism of the Government's action in privatising is all your's Graham.

Dick

 

[GJH]

It is indisputable that this would not have happened if the RM had not been privatised and been free to shop around for budget intermediateries, is it not?
The corollary that such a statement is a criticism of the Government's action in privatising is all your's Graham.

Dick

Indisputable? You haven't even shown that it is anything to do with privatisation.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

So are you saying that the German/Greek courier service would have behaved differently if Royal Mail was still nationalised?

Where's your evidence that a nationalised Royal Mail wouldn't, or for that matter didn't, use the same courier?

You said yourself in post #28 that the problem appears to have been caused by the courier label partially obscuring the original address label. Are you suggesting that this could never happen in your nationalised utopia?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[sdc77]

... grabs some red flags and popcorn

 

[DBK]

The German postal service was privatised in 2000. A small number of shares were retained by the government but the rest were sold and the government's shares may have gone by now as well.

 

[Glandwr]

So are you saying that the German/Greek courier service would have behaved differently if Royal Mail was still nationalised?

Where's your evidence that a nationalised Royal Mail wouldn't, or for that matter didn't, use the same courier?

You said yourself in post #28 that the problem appears to have been caused by the courier label partially obscuring the original address label. Are you suggesting that this could never happen in your nationalised utopia?

I'm saying that if the RM was still part of the post office, it would have sent the mail DIRECT to the Hellenic post office.

Dick

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[sdc77]

Unfortunate as it was the fault certainly lies with the courier services who will not honour the post restante service as it doesn't fit in with their business model.
The company obscuring the original address is against royal mail terms and conditions for sending mail but probably not liable as it's outside the UK. The company refusing to deliver is probably just sticking by its principles for mail to be signed for so it gets paid for delivery.
I can't see the fault in any way being with the royal mail who would have despatched it with other international mail.

 

[chaser]

I'm saying that if the RM was still part of the post office, it would have sent the mail DIRECT to the Hellenic post office.

Dick

Not getting into this argument, but one thing there , HOW, would they have sent it any different?

 

[chaser]

Just an aside, instead of all this complicated stuff, wouldn't it just be easier if you knew something wanted posting to you, to book a site for a day or two and have it sent direct to there, as Ian did in his long thread.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Deleted member 29692]

I'm saying that if the RM was still part of the post office, it would have sent the mail DIRECT to the Hellenic post office.

Dick

You know this for certain and have evidence to support the theory?

If so I'd be interested to read it.

Of course if you have nothing to back it up and it's just what you'd like to think would happen based on your political beliefs and opposition to all privatisation then I'll stop asking and we can move on.

 

[Glandwr]

Just an aside, instead of all this complicated stuff, wouldn't it just be easier if you knew something wanted posting to you, to book a site for a day or two and have it sent direct to there, as Ian did in his long thread.

It looks like I will have to do that for secure mail in the future Chaser as it would seem that for mail posted in the UK for poste restante abroad is broken. Although I am reluctant after 40 yrs of using PR, to tie myself to such constraints. Having to book ahead, convince the campsite to sign for mail and hope that every employee there is an honest one. In addition how can I be certain that they will return to sender after a month if I don’t turn up.
I can’t understand how such a useful service that has successfully worked since the late 18th C. and indeed still seems to work from most countries doesn’t for us. A definite backward step in my opinion.

Dick

 

[DBK]

When I lived in Kuwait the safest way to get mail was for it to be sent to the office of a courier where we could collect it.

Unfortunately, I can't remember which one it was (old age) but I think some of the major ones like TNT or UPS can do it. A quick Google throws this up but you have to sign up to be a member for this lot. Broken Link Removed

This might be the best option if the item is valuable or critical.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Glandwr]

As to privatisation, if has nothing to do with it it's a bloody big coincidence.

Just found out that GLS, General Logistics Systems. The company that covers all reference to poste restante on mail and refuses to deliver to post offices in Germany and through its Greek partner ACS in Greece and probably many more countries in Europe is a fully owned subsidiary of Royal Mail.

Dick

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Just found out that GLS, General Logistics Systems. The company that covers all reference to poste restante on mail and refuses to deliver to post offices in Germany and through its Greek partner ACS in Greece and probably many more countries in Europe is a fully owned subsidiary of Royal Mail.

And was before RM was privatised so I'm afraid that doesn't help your argument at all.

 

[Glandwr]

And was before RM was privatised so I'm afraid that doesn't help your argument at all.

I'd be interested to know what your explanation is for what has happened to break the system bearing in mind that it has worked perfectly since Byron was touring Greece.

Dick

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Deleted member 29692]

I'd be interested to know what your explanation is for what has happened to break the system bearing in mind that it has worked perfectly since Byron was touring Greece.

Dick

I think the most likely explanation is one you won't like. It's quite simple and not at all political. In fact it's your own explanation from post #28.

Some half asleep German wasn't concentrating as much as he should have been when he stuck the labels on your packages so the crucial information wasn't visible. It's just one of those things. It could happen anywhere at any time to any of us. It's just bad luck that it happened to you with vitally important mail.

There's no global capitalist conspiracy out to get you.

If the same thing happens with your next load of mail then you may have the makings of a point but until then I don't think you do.

 

[sdc77]

It seems from looking at all the threads that the item actually got to Greece but that the final (local) courier company refused to acknowledge the post restante system.
It was always going to be a local company delivering in Greece wasn't it and always would have been.
The fault clearly lies there with ACS Greece.

 

[Glandwr]

I think the most likely explanation is one you won't like. It's quite simple and not at all political. In fact it's your own explanation from post #28.

Some half asleep German wasn't concentrating as much as he should have been when he stuck the labels on your packages so the crucial information wasn't visible. It's just one of those things. It could happen anywhere at any time to any of us. It's just bad luck that it happened to you with vitally important mail.

There's no global capitalist conspiracy out to get you.

If the same thing happens with your next load of mail then you may have the makings of a point but until then I don't think you do.

It was explained to me clearly that the courier will not deliver to a post office. It was also explained to two others on this thread that that was the policy of the courier in Portugal as well. A post on another forum that I frequent said that they had had the same explanation for non delivery of poste restante to post office in Germany

The label I think was stuck on so as to deliberately obscure all references to post office! It was certainly big enough (A5). And it DID happen to two letters a week apart.

No I don't buy that Nick

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Deleted member 29692]

No I don't buy that Nick

The trouble is that you won't even consider any alternative explanation that doesn't explicitly blame privatisation.

GLS was a Royal Mail subsidiary before privatisation so I don't understand your reasoning for being so convinced that the behaviour of a German company fundamentally changed as a result of it's UK parent being privatised.

That just doesn't make sense.

 

[Glandwr]

So you are saying it is just a coincidence? That the policy of not delivering to post offices just happened to happen at the same time?

Dick

 

[sdc77]

So you are saying it is just a coincidence? That the policy of not delivering to post offices just happened to happen at the same time?

Dick

I'm pretty sure that's not the case is it.
You have found two instances of it. That's a tiny minority of locations. The Greek one that interests you is clearly down to a local couriers procedure.
For your sweeping statement to be true then there would have to be a "policy" and a quick check of the post restante page on the post office Web site shows that there is no policy and that mail will leave the uk as it always has to the country concerned if it's addressed correctly.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}