Royal Mail Sorting Office Closure Meeting..

[Penguin68]

The letter from Helen Hayes seems well written and very much to the point, including the 'we told you why this was a bad idea, offered alternatives and now look, what we said would happen has happened' element which would play well if this does become an Ofcom matter.

Although the individual posties are clearly and in the main doing their best against great odds, and are not individually at fault at this, collectively the Royal Mail, of which they are part, is locally a shambles. It used to be that with some occasional exceptions the Royal Mail was something you could rely on - legally proof of posting was also deemed to be proof of delivery. No longer, at least in SE22.

The fact that they don't have a leader now in the UK is irrelevant. The leader would never have been directly involved with this debacle anyway. It will be a Regional Director who agreed this, and who should now remedy it. And if his/ her bonus is on the line, good.

It is extraordinary that an MP has not, at the least, had a holding response. A PQ at PMQ's should ask what the Minister responsible https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-of-state-business-and-enterprise is planning to do about this shambles. A good political point can be made about the failure of the privatisation to safeguard service to customers.

[Sue]

jimbo1964 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wrote to Helen Hayes and Harriet Harman a week

> ago. No response or acknowledgement from either.

> It is Labour conference week so they may be extra

> busy. But I hope they get on with something soon.

>

I imagine that most if not all of their office staff will be at the conference as well.

If you had emailed (assuming you didn't?) you would probably have got an out-of-office message to that effect.

But in any case, Helen Hayes has been on the case since well before the move.

[Sue]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

legally proof of posting was also deemed to be proof of delivery.

Surely it depends on the circumstances for requiring the proof?

If proof of posting was in the past deemed to be proof of delivery, why would there have been a need for registered post (as it used to be called) or recorded delivery (as it used to be called)?

[Penguin68]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/7

[Woody16]

hamsandwich Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Woody16 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > We haven?t had any post at all since Monday and

> > I?m still waiting for a parcel that was sent

> first

> > class on the 7th September.

>

> Yup. This is almost exactly my experience. I'm

> going to carry on spamming Royal Mail until I get

> an answer. Would recommend everyone doing the

> same.

>

> This is the contact form:

> https://personal.help.royalmail.com/app/webforms/c

> ontact/c/310

> Here is the number: 03457 740 740

>

> To get the contact form you need to click

> complaints -> I'd like to make a complaint ->

> "Still Need Help?" and it's there.

Thank you, will do!

[Sue]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/sectio

> n/7

Not sure whether that is referring solely to the serving of "documents" required by an "Act"?

I'm sure a lawyer would be able to tell us!

[jimbo1964]

I did email. No reply.

[rendelharris]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/sectio

>

> > n/7

>

>

> Not sure whether that is referring solely to the

> serving of "documents" required by an "Act"?

>

> I'm sure a lawyer would be able to tell us!

It doesn't actually say proof of posting is proof of delivery, what it says is that if you can prove you posted a document then that document is deemed, for legal purposes, to be "served", e.g. if I send HMRC my tax return a week before the deadline and they never receive it, if I can prove it was sent in good time they can't fine me for late filing. It is not assumed, legally, that anything that has been posted must have arrived - that would be absurd as it would assume a 100% error-free postal service which can never be achieved.

[Penguin68]

The context is about sending legal documents, the inference must be that if proof of posting in these special circumstances are proof of receipt the same would be true of other items posted.

I should perhaps add that, of course, letters posted can go astray, but in order to demonstrate that you have 'posted' something you do not have to demonstrate that it has also been received, proof of posting itself being sufficient. My argument is that, currently, and to SE22, a proof of posting would not be any indication of likelihood of receipt.

Inter alia I asked for a (perishable) item (package) to be re-delivered today; a Post Office van pulled up outside my house, but delivered only to the house opposite. I am not now expecting any delivery (and I have had no post delivered either), today - although I hope to stand confounded. If they do get round to delivering it on another day, I may well not then be in to receive it.

In SE22 the Royal Mail is a broken reed.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The context is about sending legal documents, the

> inference must be that if proof of posting in

> these special circumstances are proof of receipt

> the same would be true of other items posted.

You're misreading the law; proof of posting is taken as proof of service, not of delivery.

[Penguin68]

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression ?serve? or the expression ?give? or ?send? or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

By which I take it to mean that if an item is posted via first class post on working day x it is deemed to have been delivered by working day x+1 - assuming that that is the day by which it is due. In which case no penalty would be allowable for 'late return'. That is only effective if, in general, delivery of first class post 'next working day' is a norm. If the post arrives, then, a day later (2 working days after posting), it is still assumed to have arrived 'on time'. In SE22 rather than a day late, it is more likely to be a week or 10 days late, or not at all. I have no idea whether letters posted in SE22 are also being unreasonably delayed.

That is why proof of posting is deemed to be proof of delivery - when there is a penalty otherwise to be exercised on an item arriving after a given due date (tax payments come to mind). I have not chased down the law but I would be much surprised if a similar allowance would not be given where a late payment was received for a civil debt, but where the cheque could be shown to have been posted in good time for normal delivery.

[hamsandwich]

Finally got through to someone at Royal Mail and I reported the irregularities on all streets mentioned in the area.

He confirmed that there are "issues" in the area with a backlog of mail and this has already been brought up. The manager now has 72 hours to fix the problem.

James, customer service, seemed to know what he was talking about and was familiar already with the complaint, so I'm assuming we're in fairly good hands. It's worth giving them a call, also, as I mentioned that I have time sensitive mail that is in first class and they'd say they'll give my address particularly close attention and look through for any backlog.

[nxjen]

Within the legal context, the court lays down a timetable when documents are to be served, not received, and if proof of posting is obtained, as long as it is at least 2 days before the service date, then service is deemed to have been made within the stipulated timeframe, regardless of whether it is delivered or not. So proof of posting is not proof of delivery.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Where an Act authorises or requires any document

> to be served by post (whether the expression

> ?serve? or the expression ?give? or ?send? or any

> other expression is used) then, unless the

> contrary intention appears, the service is deemed

> to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying

> and posting a letter containing the document and,

> unless the contrary is proved, to have been

> effected at the time at which the letter would be

> delivered in the ordinary course of post.

>

> By which I take it to mean that if an item is

> posted via first class post on working day x it is

> deemed to have been delivered by working day x+1 -

> assuming that that is the day by which it is due.

> In which case no penalty would be allowable for

> 'late return'. That is only effective if, in

> general, delivery of first class post 'next

> working day' is a norm. If the post arrives, then,

> a day later (2 working days after posting), it is

> still assumed to have arrived 'on time'. In SE22

> rather than a day late, it is more likely to be a

> week or 10 days late, or not at all. I have no

> idea whether letters posted in SE22 are also being

> unreasonably delayed.

>

> That is why proof of posting is deemed to be proof

> of delivery - when there is a penalty otherwise to

> be exercised on an item arriving after a given due

> date (tax payments come to mind). I have not

> chased down the law but I would be much surprised

> if a similar allowance would not be given where a

> late payment was received for a civil debt, but

> where the cheque could be shown to have been

> posted in good time for normal delivery.

Sorry Penguin, you're just wrong on this. As nxjen points out, proof of posting is proof of service; that I have, for example, sent HMRC my tax return a reasonable time before a deadline. That means they cannot sanction me for not meeting the deadline. It is not proof that they have received it, and I could not take action against them (or any other entity, for example a business that didn't get my cheque and so cancelled an order I needed) on the grounds that proof I had posted was proof of delivery. The only way you can get a legal proof of delivery is to send by registered post and have it signed for.

[Sue]

Proof of delivery:

https://business.help.royalmail.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/895/~/proof-of-delivery

[hamsandwich]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Proof of delivery:

>

>

> https://business.help.royalmail.com/app/answers/de

> tail/a_id/895/~/proof-of-delivery

All of this talk about legalities is completely beside the point.

It's past 4 pm. Has anyone that's been having trouble getting post received anything today? Not a single post worker has been seen on Upland Road today.

[goblinqueen]

Several of the big Royal Mail red bags full of post left on the Street unattended, managed after many attempts to get through to someone at Royal Mail who said they would contact the Peckham Office, after more than an hours wait 2 people turned up to sort it and move it. Have emailed Helen Hayes again as this is ridiculous and dangerous (identity fraud, theft etc), there's no excuse for leaving people's post unattended on the street, where it could be stolen/taken by anyone!

[intexasatthe moment]

I'm on Barry Rd and we got 2 deliveries today - the first in a week .

[hamsandwich]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm on Barry Rd and we got 2 deliveries today -

> the first in a week .

Interesting. What times were these? I'm on hold again to talk to them after the assured me there'd be someone on our street by 4pm.

[gumshoe]

Post today on Lordship Lane (by Goodrich Road) - only problem was at least half of it was misdelivered and meant for our neighbours and not us!

[Pugwash]

Post received today in Barry Road, a letter which I was informed would be on the way a couple of days ago, arrived but not the letter sent over 2 weeks ago giving details of a person I need to visit next week, nor a 'password' information letter which I should have received 3 weeks ago. Fortunately the password is related to my professional registration details and I was able to sort this out on line fairly quickly.

[intexasatthe moment]

hamsandwich both before midday .Hope you got your delivery .

[hamsandwich]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> hamsandwich both before midday .Hope you got your

> delivery .

Unfortunately not. Getting beyond a joke now!

[EPB]

Thank goodness hospitals are now using text messages as well as snail-mail to advise about appointments. The letters are arriving days after the due date.

[mancity68]

I'm a Peckham dweller so have always used this office. You get to know when it's busy so avoid those times. Usually, getting there at 8 on a Saturday is a safe bet for a short wait. Today.....45 minute wait. When I left at 845 the queue was to the car park railings.

Four counter staff working and they were being as quick and efficient as they could be but crikey this is an astonishing level of demand for them to deal with.

Other impact I've noticed since the change is the significant increase in Royal Mail van traffic on the adjacent roads - and the increase in traffic due to ED callers. Not a criticism of the drivers, appreciate it's quite a distance to come. Just curious to know what the local area impact analysis was when they decided to increase the role of the Peckham office.