watch what you send by royal mail

poah

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic ... replies=99

apparently RM have destroyed his fox CTD kashmia because of their T&C's

lawman

No wonder this country is in the state it's in when shit like this happens :shock: What the fark gives them the right to just bin something thats worth hundreds of pounds without notifying or even questioning the owner?! Fucking ridiculous, are they binning letters as well because they contain air?!

CitizenLee

People still use Royal Mail? Wow...

In all seriousness though, that is pretty shocking if you pardon the pun! My girlfriend mentioned she was subjected to a Spanish Inquisition when she was posting some Xmas presents the other day. I though it was just a disgruntled employee but maybe not.

I wonder how it will affect bike mail order companies who use RM for their deliveries? Also, who do TF, Mojo et al use for returns? I was ages ago I got mine tuned so can't remember how it arrived back with me.

poah

I've been grilled about each item I've posted recently.

TF and mojo use couriers for their postage

russyh

I just posted a reverb.....shit!

They did ask what I was posting though, they looked at me funny when I told them it was a dropping seat post

CitizenLee

Actually, now you mention it I posted my Reverb back to Bike-Discount recently too. When asked what it was at the PO I just told it was "bike parts" which is my standard response (I just split and sold a complete bike recently so have posted a lot). I give the same answer if I'm using Collect+ or MyHermes, which are usually cheaper anyway.

Reading through that thread fully it just gets crazier. For example, apparently RM sell some of good that they seize on eBay, and then obviously have to post them... in breach of their own guidelines!

The mind boggles :shock:

lawman

CitizenLee wrote:

Reading through that thread fully it just gets crazier. For example, apparently RM sell some of good that they seize on eBay, and then obviously have to post them... in breach of their own guidelines!

The mind boggles :shock:

It's just completely fucked up!!! As people have said in the thread it borders on theft and it's just plain wrong. Normally I'd say the government should get involved with new guidelines but considering what a tw@ Cameron is I can't really think of what we should do, this countries down the bog...

CitizenLee

It's what happens when you have business men running the country for other business men. Everyone else gets shafted.

Just look at how many millionaires there are on the front bench and then ask yourself if it's a real representation of the society they're meant to be governing.

Now where did I put my Guy Fawkes mask :twisted:

rockmonkeysc

Royal Mail do send stuff around the country by air as well as road. You can't put a pressurised air can on a plane.
Royal Mail staff don't know what a shock is or how much it costs and they wont have the resources to return item which shouldn't have been in their mail to start with.
The sender was at fault for not thinking to check whether it was ok to send a pressurised item by post. There are other courriers who can take it.
On the bright side it was one of the hopeless 2013 Fox shocks.

lawman

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Royal Mail do send stuff around the country by air as well as road. You can't put a pressurised air can on a plane.
Royal Mail staff don't know what a shock is or how much it costs and they wont have the resources to return item which shouldn't have been in their mail to start with.
The sender was at fault for not thinking to check whether it was ok to send a pressurised item by post. There are other courriers who can take it.
On the bright side it was one of the hopeless 2013 Fox shocks.

This is quite possibly the most retarded response you've ever posted. He clearly states he let the air out of the shock and it would be no problem on a plane, how the fark to thousands of people go on riding holidays abroad every year, good luck driving to whistler!!

Doesn't matter if it's a crap shock or not, it's worth hundreds of pounds and if the same thing happened to you you'd be as furious as the poor chap is. This whole Royal Mail thing is wrong and if this is something classed as ok then it needs sorting the fuck out ASAP and whoever is in charge needs to be removed. It's an absolute joke.

supersonic

What about the nitrogen charge in damper?

rockmonkeysc

How do royal mail know he let all the air out? Even if there is a note explaining it, if it was a delivery which was to be transported by air they cannot take risks.
CAA regulations mean that no pressure vessels, full or empty can be transported by air.
A lot of the machines I design have a small pressurised air can for emergency operation of critical pneumatics. I lost 8 of them (£480 each) through Parcel Force on my first project and they explained to me why. They don't really have a lot of choice about it.
Companies the size of Royal Mail can't deal with problems like this very well.

cooldad

supersonic wrote:

What about the nitrogen charge in damper?

On a plane? Plenty of people take bikes on planes.

Motor racing teams take whole cars and shedloads of parts.

lawman

RockmonkeySC wrote:

How do royal mail know he let all the air out? Even if there is a note explaining it, if it was a delivery which was to be transported by air they cannot take risks.
CAA regulations mean that no pressure vessels, full or empty can be transported by air.

So everyone buys their deodorant when they get to their holiday destination? Nobody flies to the alps or whistler with their bike each year? As cooldad says, the auto and motorsports industry transports nothing by air? Do you know I got off the train at Birmingham International the other week and the runways were littered with airplanes brought down by rogue exploding air shocks or air cannisters, hell even the oxygen cannisters for breathing apparatus they use in case of emergencies had exploded as well!!!

It might be a "regulation" but regulations are just written rules made up by people, often with little scientific or rational thought behind them. The part that really gets me is that Royal even admit to auctioning off goods they deem dangerous and they'd have to fucking deliver them after they've sold them!!!! So they make money from goods they've taken off other people for no valid reason, without they're permission. That to me is downright theft and is just plain criminal. It's an absolute fucking joke and anyone who defends what royal mail have done in this case is just as bad as they are.

supersonic

cooldad wrote:

supersonic wrote:

What about the nitrogen charge in damper?

On a plane? Plenty of people take bikes on planes.

Motor racing teams take whole cars and shedloads of parts.

No in relation to rm's rules. Their t and cs, you break them, your own fault.

Dick Scruttock

supersonic wrote:

cooldad wrote:

supersonic wrote:

What about the nitrogen charge in damper?

On a plane? Plenty of people take bikes on planes.

Motor racing teams take whole cars and shedloads of parts.

No in relation to rm's rules. Their t and cs, you break them, your own fault.

Every time I drop a parcel at the post office I am asked what's in it, any dangerous goods etc. I guess it could come down to if the postal clerk asked the relevant questions or if the person posting it did not take any notice of what was asked.

lawman

supersonic wrote:

cooldad wrote:

supersonic wrote:

What about the nitrogen charge in damper?

On a plane? Plenty of people take bikes on planes.

Motor racing teams take whole cars and shedloads of parts.

No in relation to rm's rules. Their t and cs, you break them, your own fault.

But that doesn't make their T&C's right, if they've moulded them to suit their agenda then they're wrong. Stuff like this needs to be regulated by an independent body, other Royal Mail could make up anything and sting consumers like they have done. The T&C's are so ambiguous it hardly gives the consumer their rights, and it should be down to the staff at the point of postage to tell the person posting they can't post it because it breaches XYZ *insert stupid regulation here*. Under no circumstances at all do Royal Mail have the authority or the right to seize goods and dispose, or worse sell on and make money from other people things.

JMcP92

Not too long ago I posted a kashi RP23 ProPedal and they asked at the desk "What does the parcel contain" to which my first thought is none of your feckin' business, just send it where I ask.
Of course the "filter" in my head just answered and said it was suspension, but I never thought twice about the fact it was an air cylinder, which is what they're against sending because the dangers of it blowing up in someone's hand and causing injury (though as we all know, not gonna happen).
In the end, never got questioned beyond that and sent it without issue, though this fact is worrying. I also find it very annoying that every time I go to post something they ask "What's in the parcel" - my business, not yours. Next time I think I'll tell them its a large black dildo, that'll shut them up

I have to say I'm also not fond of Parcel force, they managed to loose stuff before, lost a Japanease HRC ECU for a NC40 worth plenty in the post from me, had to pay the buyer back and cost my pocket, despite insurance and proof of postage they came up with some BS reason they weren't able to refund it, despite the fact I appeared to meet all their criteria, just essentially stole my money as far as I'm concerned. Also lost a set of wheels before now (As they're so small and unnoticeable, you understand) but they were not insured so predictably got nothing from that. Additionally I also find it rather obnoxious when they ask if I'd like to pay more for it to be insured etc. I'd rather pay the standard fee for you to actually get it there, not more money for you to have more chance of getting it there, not good enough as far as I'm concerned. That goes for RM and PF

Also, I must ask, RockmonkeySC, why are you so intent on defending them? You can argue the T&C's all you want but do you read the T&C's of every service you use? If you do, good for you, you're the 0.01%, but me? I've got better things to do than read several pages of paperwork every time I use any service anywhere, internet, postage or otherwise. Far as I'm concerned, it is just yet another story of a guy being screwed by RM, costing him a large amount of money and having no sympathy for such things because it's either cost them nothing, or made them money between postage costs paid and not delivered, and possibly selling the "dangerous" items

rockmonkeysc

Should the post office staff really have to run through the full t's & c's with every parcel dropped off? Have you experienced the post office ques? Plenty of time to read t's & c's while in that que.
Refusing to carry certain items isn't in royal mails interest, if they could carry everything then they wouldnt have to check for items they can't carry and if they could avoid that then they could process more items for less cost.
Other courrier can carry nearly anything because they don't use aircraft for uk deliveries.

Northwind

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Should the post office staff really have to run through the full t's & c's with every parcel dropped off? Have you experienced the post office ques? Plenty of time to read t's & c's while in that que.

You don't get them til after you've paid, mind, so that would be tricky. (or at least, on the rare occasions I've been given a T&C leaflet, that's when it's been.

Oh, also, as per the STW thread there's actually nothing in the "comprehensive guide" that suggests there's any problems posting a shock, so even if you did read the T&Cs which you don't have, you wouldn't find anything to worry about. Apart from the "We'll do whatever we want, because **** you" clause at the bottom.

Briggo

supersonic wrote:

cooldad wrote:

supersonic wrote:

What about the nitrogen charge in damper?

On a plane? Plenty of people take bikes on planes.

Motor racing teams take whole cars and shedloads of parts.

No in relation to rm's rules. Their t and cs, you break them, your own fault.

So long as you're made aware of the T&Cs at the point of the transaction, did the person at the counter make the customer fully aware of the T&Cs bearing in mind the package was marked with shock or that there is a list of the T&Cs within the post office.

My local doesn't have a list of T&Cs anywhere, it isn't large enough for starters.

Briggo

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Should the post office staff really have to run through the full t's & c's with every parcel dropped off? Have you experienced the post office ques? Plenty of time to read t's & c's while in that que.
Refusing to carry certain items isn't in royal mails interest, if they could carry everything then they wouldnt have to check for items they can't carry and if they could avoid that then they could process more items for less cost.
Other courrier can carry nearly anything because they don't use aircraft for uk deliveries.

No the post office staff don't have to run through the entire T&C list, they can cater their conversation based on the situation, it's not rocket science is it.

Ask what the parcel is and refer to the applicable T&Cs that apply, especially as the parcel was marked what it was (hence why it was destroyed).

20 second conversation, problem solved.

I had an issue with sending a laptop battery (returning due to fault) to China, it got lost in transit so I put in a claim for my money back. The claim was refused at first because their T&Cs stated that laptop batteries being sent outside of the UK were against the T&Cs.

I swiftly replied stating that the Post office worker was told what the item was and where it was going, they placed the label on with that information and that because of that open conversation it was the post offices duty to refuse the parcel at the point of transaction because it breached their T&Cs and they failed to inform me, had I of been informed of that I would have accepted and found a carrier that would.

They accepted that it was their fault, paid the claim and compensation for wasting my time.

TheNorthernTrain

To be honest though, when it was opened for checking, it is obvious it was not something of little value that could easily be disposed of and I do believe the RM should have got in touch with the customer and give them the option to be able to at least collect it back if it can't be posted back/returned.

lawman

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Should the post office staff really have to run through the full t's & c's with every parcel dropped off? Have you experienced the post office ques? Plenty of time to read t's & c's while in that que.
Refusing to carry certain items isn't in royal mails interest, if they could carry everything then they wouldnt have to check for items they can't carry and if they could avoid that then they could process more items for less cost.
Other courrier can carry nearly anything because they don't use aircraft for uk deliveries.

They don't have to do a full T&C's run through, but it still does not give them to the right to dispose/sell items they have deemed to breach they're T&C's. Granted if it is genuinely dangerous, get the police involved and the issue should be dealt with in the correct way. In cases such as this, they should stipulate that all parcels should have a return address attached to them. If the package is deemed to breach the T&C's then it can be returned to it's rightful owner and it should be highlighted which term they have breached and have the item returned to them. They should be disposing of perfectly good items or worse, profiting from other peoples goods

stubs

Royal Mail seems to be run by a bunch of Kamikaze pilots determined to crash and burn. Is it me being suspicous or is the RM worth more run into the ground and the assets stripped off to make a quick buck for a bunch of shysters.

supersonic

My post office actually does show a list of stuff. In fact they ask me what it is and show me a big card with graphics of items and a list.

But i rarely use them nowadays.

Northwind

Briggo wrote:

No the post office staff don't have to run through the entire T&C list, they can cater their conversation based on the situation, it's not rocket science is it.

Ask what the parcel is and refer to the applicable T&Cs that apply, especially as the parcel was marked what it was (hence why it was destroyed).

That only works if they understand what the item is. What is it?
"Bike parts"- what I usually say, they say fine.
If they were more specific, I'd say "bike suspension", they still wouldn't know it's got a nitrogen charge in it would they?

JMcP92

Northwind wrote:

Briggo wrote:

No the post office staff don't have to run through the entire T&C list, they can cater their conversation based on the situation, it's not rocket science is it.

Ask what the parcel is and refer to the applicable T&Cs that apply, especially as the parcel was marked what it was (hence why it was destroyed).

That only works if they understand what the item is. What is it?
"Bike parts"- what I usually say, they say fine.
If they were more specific, I'd say "bike suspension", they still wouldn't know it's got a nitrogen charge in it would they?

Used that exact description before to send an RP23 (which was pressured) and wasn't questioned. Can't expect every staff member to understand. Additionally, even those who know anything about suspension would likely assume its a spring

supersonic

lawman wrote:

supersonic wrote:

cooldad wrote:

supersonic wrote:

What about the nitrogen charge in damper?

On a plane? Plenty of people take bikes on planes.

Motor racing teams take whole cars and shedloads of parts.

No in relation to rm's rules. Their t and cs, you break them, your own fault.

But that doesn't make their T&C's right, if they've moulded them to suit their agenda then they're wrong. Stuff like this needs to be regulated by an independent body, other Royal Mail could make up anything and sting consumers like they have done. The T&C's are so ambiguous it hardly gives the consumer their rights, and it should be down to the staff at the point of postage to tell the person posting they can't post it because it breaches XYZ *insert stupid regulation here*. Under no circumstances at all do Royal Mail have the authority or the right to seize goods and dispose, or worse sell on and make money from other people things.

It's their service! I suggest people read up before they use it.


http://www.royalmail.com/business/help- ... ited-goods

http://www.royalmail.com/personal/help- ... ited-Goods

paul.skibum

lawman wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Should the post office staff really have to run through the full t's & c's with every parcel dropped off? Have you experienced the post office ques? Plenty of time to read t's & c's while in that que.
Refusing to carry certain items isn't in royal mails interest, if they could carry everything then they wouldnt have to check for items they can't carry and if they could avoid that then they could process more items for less cost.
Other courrier can carry nearly anything because they don't use aircraft for uk deliveries.

They don't have to do a full T&C's run through, but it still does not give them to the right to dispose/sell items they have deemed to breach they're T&C's. Granted if it is genuinely dangerous, get the police involved and the issue should be dealt with in the correct way. In cases such as this, they should stipulate that all parcels should have a return address attached to them. If the package is deemed to breach the T&C's then it can be returned to it's rightful owner and it should be highlighted which term they have breached and have the item returned to them. They should be disposing of perfectly good items or worse, profiting from other peoples goods

Surely the argument is they wont deliver something dangerous because of the risk to the public or their staff so delivering it back to the originator is equally as dangerous as delivering it on? Only option is to destroy but if I take an item to my local post office and they take it to a central sorting office where they look at it and think "crikey its a pressurised container" they have already handled it, the next step is probably a train to Wales or where ever I am sending it - more danger? No.

The terms and conditions and limitations are obviously ridiculous but trying to impose a need for them to return items they deem dangerous is equally so. I am not sure what the risks associated with an air shock might be deemed to be - my bike has travelled by air many times and the shocks do not trouble airline staff in the least (one got a bit worked up about hydraulic brakes once) so why should it worry the RM staff?

I could understand concern that it might be a bomb maybe on an xray but a quick look inside would suggest it isnt.

Northwind

It turns out though that having seized these "dangerous" items they then sell them on to auction houses who stick them on ebay. So presumably they don't think the danger's that massive.