Two items with tracking gone missing - compensation Aust Post

[baudrillard2013]

I don't know whether anyone else has had this problem. 

I send items through click and send in ebay Australia parcels. 

The address is directly migrated from ebay and has been correct. 

Two buyers had not received their item and Australia Post acknowledged (from the tracking) they both disappeared from the radar in transit. 

It has been two months but they state that the compensation section is still investigating and have a backlog. 

It has been allocated "high priority" but they keep on insisting that it takes time. 

Has anybody been experiencing similar delays with the "compensation section"

[beautbots01]

There have been a number of reports of items taking two months to get to their destination.  Does the tracking show where they were last scanned.  NSW seems to be a problem area, particularly Chullora and Granville.

[collect247]

My last couple both took around 3 months for an outcome when I was told it wouldn't take more than 5 weeks

[baudrillard2013]

Yes in both cases the tracking shows where they were last scanned as I had tracking with ebay click and send. 

One didn't get past the post office where I lodged it and the second item destined for Mount Isa had two scans on it, 

one at the post office of lodgement and then at Sunshine West.

Australia Post have already told me that at the end of their 'investigation' they are not obliged to pay discretionary 

compensation for the value of the items which were lost.  They claim it is impossible in both cases to know what 

happened to the items. My position is that clearly after they were lodged with Australia Post both disappeared and 

the item was in their custody/control. 

They say that unless I had insurance they are not legally obliged to provide the value of the items lost to me in 

compensation. Of course I pointed out to them that I had to refund the value of the items to the buyers within 10 days 

under ebay's money back guarantee as they were not received but they just say repeatedly that even if both were 

under $50 I am probably not eligible because I didn't have insurance. 

[englishrosegardens]

---

@baudrillard2013 wrote:

Yes in both cases the tracking shows where they were last scanned as I had tracking with ebay click and send. 

One didn't get past the post office where I lodged it and the second item destined for Mount Isa had two scans on it, 

one at the post office of lodgement and then at Sunshine West.

Australia Post have already told me that at the end of their 'investigation' they are not obliged to pay discretionary 

compensation for the value of the items which were lost.  They claim it is impossible in both cases to know what 

happened to the items. My position is that clearly after they were lodged with Australia Post both disappeared and 

the item was in their custody/control. 

They say that unless I had insurance they are not legally obliged to provide the value of the items lost to me in 

compensation. Of course I pointed out to them that I had to refund the value of the items to the buyers within 10 days 

under ebay's money back guarantee as they were not received but they just say repeatedly that even if both were 

under $50 I am probably not eligible because I didn't have insurance. 

---

Funny thing that.  My PO keeps insisting that parcels are covered for loss up to $50.  I wouldn't want to rely on getting it!

[baudrillard2013]

Hi englishrosegardens,

There is a "discretionary payment" AP can make, but yes it has taken so long for them to "investigate". They claim their compensation team is backlogged, at other times they say their compensation team has not even gotten around to looking at the matters. It's different depending on which customer service operator you talk to but at each point they all tell you 'we're not obliged to pay the compensation, don't count on it, even when it's examined as you have to have insurance'. So yes I thought it would be straightforward but its taking ages and there are many contradictory responses.

[tall_bearded01]

I would go back to them today and advice the following.

That they were being paid to provide a service and whilst providing that service the item was under their care of control.  Furthermore though they are statutory corporation they are not exempted from common law negligence claims.  Therefore if such a claim were made it will fall to them to provide details as to what happen to it, and if what happened to is anything other than an act of God, negligence is proved.  In the alternative, if they can’t prove what happened to it, negligence is also proved.  So the fact you didn’t pay them more to look after it better is irrelevant.

In any even event, the fact that there is a backlog is not your problem. It’s theirs.  You have waited a reasonable amount of time and it’s time to get it sorted out.

Therefore and you want it sorted within 7 days or you will be lodging a complaint with the Postal Industries Ombudsman.

You may also want to remind them that, as they are not exempted from common law negligence claims, statements such as “unless I had insurance they are not legally obliged to provide the value of the items lost to me’ can only be construed to be a statement designed to be both deceptive and misleading, which on its own, would warrant a complaint to the ombudsman.  That is the fact that they are not required to make a discretionary payment in connection with an in-house discretionary claims process doesn’t translated into they are not legally obliged

[baudrillard2013]

Thanks. Great answer. I didn't think of the ACCC argument but stressed the common law negligence argument. 

However as with many Managers, the more I did, the more the Manager I spoke to last kept on repeating "it has to comply with our terms and conditions", as if they had suddenly become deaf! 

I don't know why CSOs suddenly choose to ignore rational arguments. They think that Ts & Cs are the only thing that requre obedience and seem to have an off switch when it comes to entertaining any legal arguments. I don't know whether it's culture or lack of training but it's very unprofessional. 

Thanks again. I have worked for an Ombudsman and I think that the incentive to avoid matters being referred seems to provoke a response. Perhaps organisations relate best to the amount of money associated with having a matter referred to an Ombudsman scheme. Their customers would be happier if they acquainted themselves with the law and at the very least were prepared to listen to and acknowledge a customer's position. 

[tall_bearded01]

Most commercial organisations rely on customer ignorance and the only way to overcome it is at the political level.  That is amendments to the relevant legislations’ which require all businesses to provide customers who are currently using the business’s in-house claims and/or dispute resolution process, not only with written reasons why a claim has been rejected, but also advises them as to their further disputation rights.

That is, for instance, if you make a claim with Australia Post under their discretionary compensation process, and Australia Post decide to reject the claim, then they should be required, by law, not only to give you written reasons as to why it was rejected, but also details of what further legal avenues are open to you should you be dissatisfied with the outcome – eg, if you are dissatisfied with this decision you may lodge a complaint with the Postal Industries Ombudsman.  In the alternative you may also commence a small claims negligence action in…

That is you will only ever get bona fide outcome in connection with any house claims and/or dispute resolution processes run by any business, if the business running it knows the customer is aware that the decision is subject to judicial oversight and the customer is aware as how to access it.

[baudrillard2013]

Very true. I just got off another frustrating call with AP.

I re-iterated what I had re-iterated so many times before and the Supervisor/Manager denied once again

there was any liability resting with AP in negligence except for the pure postage paid.

It was futile having a further discussion.

She just wouldn't acknowledge, validate and even engage with same.

I agee that transparency leads to people being able to enforce their rights.

The right to reasons is a key feature of administrative law which would assist consumers enforce their rights as would mandatory obligations on organisations of all kinds to advise consumers of their rights to challenge decisions.

This is lacking in AP and other organisations as you point out.

Not even the referral of the matter to the Ombudsman was enough to cause AP to pause to think about what their obligations are.

I guess they would prefer to shell out the $2500 or so it takes to even refer a matter to the ombudsman and then have what is a $100  claim billed out at Solicitor's rates and then pass that onto the consumer ...............crazy..........I hope the Ombudsman gives them a ruling that educates them.