On Sat, 03 May 2008 14:14:12 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
wrote:
>On Sat, 3 May 2008 17:47:41 +0100, "tims next home"
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message
>> news:165p14de6e0p8qrri7bneq7q746gjngkbm@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 16:29:02 +0100, "tims next home"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Peter Parry" wrote in message
>>>> news:5kto14la78u644ak93b87akgd065ucnvn2@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 14:14:59 +0100, "Es. Laptops - Andy Usher"
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The guy it was delivered to can't be sure the time that the postman put
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the slip so knowing me Ill fail to win this,
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming the time was correctly entered or you have sufficient proof
>>>>> it was late and the time was incorrectly entered you should be
>>>>> entitled to your SD fee back.
>>>>
>>>> Surely it is the recipient who's entitled to this.
>>>
>>> No, the addressee has no contract with the Royal Mail in this matter.
>>
>> I wasn't referring to the contract conditions with the RM.
>>
>> I was referring to the moral position. This seems to be the basis on which
>> the OP is complaining.
>
>All the OP said about his requirements (and perhaps also about those of the
>addressee) was that the item needed to be delivered today - and it was
>delivered today. It sounds like the addressee did not care what time it
>was delivered as he did not write that time onto the signature receipt.
>
>What is this "moral position" that now gives the addressee an entitlement
>to a refund of some of the fees paid by the sender to the carrier?
It would arise if the recipent had ( for example) paid the SD fee when
he bought an item on Ebay so I guess,morally,he'd be entitled to get
that back . I'd pay it back if I was the Ebay seller .
>
>After paying for the service the OP/sender apparently noticed that his
>receipt showed a promise of delivery by 1pm, and it sounds like he's now
>wondering what fun and games he can have with that broken commitment.
>
>His customer is happy; the OP says he's gutted; maybe it's an Es. thing.
>
>Tony
Well RM have that gaurantee so if it is not met then a claim is
pefectly acceptable imho.. |