Missing currency order - are Royal Mail legally culpable?

[Jahn]

So, this is going all the way back to 2018, unfortunately. It is something I did not pursue before the Pandemic, always intending to do so but never finding the time, and then we've had Covid to deal with for the last two years.

I purchased 900 Euro via an online currency provider, mid-2018.

It did not arrive. A week or so later I discovered that it was tracked online and showed delivered. But the confirmation name was incorrectly spelt, and the signature was a squiggly line, and no kind of letters, name, or initials, are decipherable.

I called Royal Mail several times, from Spain , the next month. Always on hold for hours at a time. No way to spend a holiday.

Finally getting through to somebody, with my partner nearby (we were sunbathing), I was told that royal Mail would contact the delivery office and investigate.

I then chased this up when returning to the UK 3 months later.

Was told there was no sign of any investigation.

Made multiple calls to Royal Mail to complaint about this, always being told they could not do anything as their hands were tied and they had to investigate within 80 days.

I then called and threatened legal action. Was again fobbed off completely useless. Complained to them, and heard nothing afterwards.

So I am now finally litigating. Their Defence points to the various Postal Acts, and they say there is no contract between myself and Royal Mail, and also that they are immune from a claim in tort.

I can get a Witness Statement from my ex-partner who was with me when I spoke to RM, and also my father, who did not receive any currency in the mail at his address, where this was meant to arrive.

They initially pretended there were no notes on the matter, after I made a DSAR request, before I called and found out that was a lie. They have now sent these. The notes show that no investigation took place, and that they did not point me to any other course of action, complaints procedure, etc. They just did NOTHING and the notes clearly show this.

Can anyone advise whether Royal Mail can be held responsible here please?

[echat11]

Send Royal Mail a SAR detailing the tracking number, they have 30 days to provide all the details they hold. That might throw something up. Complain to the Ombudsman once you have your SAR information.

https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/making-...ostal-services

The courts require you to try to resolve the matter before you resort to them.

[Jahn]

echat11 I already have the DSAR. Also, out of time to go to the Ombudsman.

This is already with MCOL and they filed the Defence, details above.

So now trying to ascertain whether their defence is legit?

[des8]

Well they are right in that you did not have a contract with them, so what was in your particulars of claim?

[echat11]

Also post up their Defence. Did you follow the Pre Action Protocols?

[Jahn]

Yes followed pre-action protocol.

POC stated claim was for their terrible handling of this.

[des8]

If that was all that was in your particulars of claim ,they are a tad lacking in particularity!
What cause of action do you show?

[echat11]

You need to post what you put on the claim form and what their response is, 'word for word'.

[Jahn]

Okay.

POC:

Tracking info XXXXX and complaint ref XXXXX. Royal Mail failed to deliver this currency order to me.

The tracking information showed the wrong printed name and the signature was no kind of proper, legible signature.

I complained. Then complained again. Stated they could not find my original complaint. Then stated they would not investigate.

Did not even comment on the wrong name or scrawl of a signature, which the postman should have verified. that is if the Postman was not himself involved in some wrongdoing.

I asked for the system notes on this complaint and they told me none existed, despite my giving them the tracking info. Then they magically found them after I called and verified that the notes could indeed be accessed by using the tracking info. They state no tracking info exists i.e. the name and signature.

Useless.

If this is settled promptly, as it should have been years ago, I will not seek to recover my time at the LIP rate of £19 per hour (their conduct can be shown to be utterly unreasonable), and I will agree not to sue them again for Loss of Chance costs for the holiday that was ruined from not having this currency, which I did warn them about. that new claim would be for approx. £2,000.

Claim is breach of Contract and Tort i.e. Negligent Misstatement.


THEIR RESPONSE:


PRELIMINARY

1. This Defence responds to the Claim Form and the documents served therewith. In the absence of an admission or denial within this Defence, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of each and every allegation or matter contained within the Claim Form and the documents served therewith.

THE CLAIMANT’S CASE

2. It is the Claimant’s case that:
2.1. He purchased €1,040 which was to be delivered to the Claimant via one of the Defendant’s services; 2.2. the Claimant did not receive the parcell; and
2.3. as a result of the above the Claimant claims £1,020.

THE DEFENDANT’S CASE

1. The Defendant’s complaint records have been searched in an attempt to locate the Claimant’s complaint in relation to this matter or to find details of the Parcel so that the tracking information could be located and reviewed.
2. The Defendant’s records show that a complaint was received via telephone on or around 27 January 2019 relating to a Special Delivery item with reference number XXXXXXXX (the “Parcel”). Due to the time that has elapsed, the tracking information is no longer available however, the information recorded against the complaint confirms that the Parcel was posted on 26 May 2018 and delivered on 27 May 2018. It is therefore denied that the Parcel was not delivered.

5. The Defendant has no record of a claim being submitted by the Claimant in respect of the Parcel in accordance with the UK Post Scheme or otherwise.

LEGAL BACKGROUND
No Contractual Relationship

1. It is settled law that where the Defendant provides a delivery service on the basis of a scheme such as the UK Post Scheme there is no contract between the Defendant and any person who uses the scheme (see, e.g.: Harold Stephen & Co Ltd v Post Office [1978] 1 All ER 939 (CA)).
2. In the premises, the Claimant has no claim in contract against the Defendant in respect of the transmission or delivery of the Parcel.

Immunity in Tort

1. On 29 September 2011, Ofcom designated the Defendant the “universal service provider” within the meaning of section 65(1) Postal Services Act 2011 (“PSA 2011”). Ofcom made this designation pursuant to its powers under Schedule 9, paragraph 3(1) of PSA 2011.
2. Further or alternatively, the Defendant is a “postal operator” within the meaning of section 27(3) PSA 2011 and provided its services to the Claimant pursuant to a scheme to which section 89 Postal Services Act 2000 (“PSA 2000”) applied.
3. As the Defendant is a “universal service provider” and/or is a “postal operator” providing services pursuant to a scheme to which section 89 PSA 2000 applied, section 90 PSA 2000 provides that the Claimant has no right of action in tort against the Defendant in respect of: “(a) anything done or omitted to be done in relation to any postal packet in the course of transmission by post, or (b) any omission to carry out arrangements for the collection of anything to be conveyed by post.”
4. In the premises, the Claimant has no claim in tort against the Defendant in respect of the transmission or delivery of the Parcel.

The UK Post Scheme

1. At all material times the Defendant has been entitled to make schemes to arrange for the provision of its postal services pursuant to section 89 Postal Services Act 2000 (“PSA 2000”).
2. The applicable scheme for the Defendant’s Special Delivery services is the UK Post Scheme. A copy of

the UK Post Scheme is available on the Defendant’s website at https://www.royalmail.com/sites/roya...April_2020.pdf. The UK Post Scheme has been notified to Ofcom in accordance with the requirements of section 89A PSA 2000.

14. In the absence of duties in contract or tort, any obligations owed by the Defendant to the Claimant regarding the transmission or delivery of the Parcel are governed solely by the UK Post Scheme. Accordingly, in the absence of arrangements for compensation under the UK Post Scheme no compensation is payable by the Defendant, even if the Defendant accepts liability for loss or damage to an item.

1. Section 17.2 of the UK Post Scheme confirms that the Defendant will accept liability, may refund postage and/or service fees and may compensation for the loss of, damage to, part loss of or delay of an item unless that item falls into one of the categories listed in sections 17.2.1 to 17.2.14.
2. Section 17.7.3 of the UK Post Scheme confirms that the Defendant will only consider a claim for loss, damage or delay compensation where the minimum basic evidence is available and provided. Details regarding what basic evidence is made up of are set out at Section 17.7.4.
3. Section 17.7.4 of the UK Post Scheme confirms that to claim loss or damage compensation for the intrinsic value of the item additional evidence is required as well as the basic evidence. Details regarding what additional evidence is made up of are set out at Section 17.7.5. The Claimant has not provided the Defendant with the basic evidence and/or the additional evidence as required by the UK Post Scheme.
4. Section 17.8 of the UK Post Scheme sets out the process for making a compensation claim. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Claimant has not followed this process. Further, section 17.9 confirms that “No compensation or other payment will be paid by us for loss or damage claims unless the claim is made within 80 days of the date of posting and unless the claim is made in full compliance with the requirements of this Scheme.” Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant has any liability to the Claimant.
5. Further and in the alternative, section 17.7.5 of the UK Post Scheme confirms that “when claiming for actual loss, there is a cap on the amount of compensation that can be paid. For Special Delivery it is the lower of market value or £500 (or £1,000 or £2,500 if enhanced compensation has been purchased)”. It follows that, even if the Defendant were liable to the Claimant (which is denied) the Defendant’s liability is limited in accordance with the terms of the UK Post Scheme.

CONCLUSION

20. For the reasons set out above, the Defendant is not liable for the sums claimed because: 20.1.the Defendant’s records show that the Parcel was delivered;
20.2.there is no contact between the Claimant and the Defendant;
20.3.the Defendant is immune from liability in tort;

20.4.in the absence of duties in contract or tort any obligations owed by the Defendant regarding the transmission or delivery of the Parcel are governed solely by the UK Post Scheme;

20.5.pursuant to the terms of the UK Post Scheme, the Defendant is not liable to pay compensation or alternatively, the liability of the Defendant is limited in accordance with the terms of the UK Post Scheme.

[des8]

You asked earlier if Royal Mail defence was "legit"

Let us just say you have a mountain to climb.
Firstly there was no contract between you and RM as it was the currency provider who contracted with them.

Secondly regarding the negligent misstatement, whilst RM probably owed you a duty of care (which you have to prove),
you also need to show their negligent misstatement (which was ?) caused you loss.
I don't think their reliance on sec 90 of PSA2000 is a defence to your claim for negligent mis statement as it refers to the actual postal service, but you are still put to strict proof of how their possible misstatements are negligent and caused you loss.

Thirdly, your POC has done you no favours as it is half rant and half witness statement.
In future responses you need to be much more clinical

[echat11]

Did you get the protection afforded to you by the Royal Mail, if so why didn't you use it?

1. Further and in the alternative, section 17.7.5 of the UK Post Scheme confirms that “when claiming for actual loss, there is a cap on the amount of compensation that can be paid. For Special Delivery it is the lower of market value or £500 (or £1,000 or £2,500 if enhanced compensation has been purchased)”. It follows that, even if the Defendant were liable to the Claimant (which is denied) the Defendant’s liability is limited in accordance with the terms of the UK Post Scheme.