Items not being delivered!!

[adityachanda]

Hi,

A lot of the items I've bought recently are not being delivered at all which has lead me to cancel a few orders. Recently I've tried to purchase iphone leather cases over ebay and it's just not being delivered. Is this an issue with ebay or something going astray at Aus Post? 

[fourandsixpants]

re. Australia track no. LZ130478622US posted 20 Sep 2013. last tracked in USA on 21Sep2013.........

ARRIVED!! 18th Oct 2013....

.**Yay**

[phorum_junkie*]

 One of them was a ereader worth like 200 bux 

This one could have gone MIA if the seller sent it in a prepaid satchel or it was coming from overseas as it may be stopped by AP because it contains a lithium battery which can only be sent ordinary parcel with a road only sticker on it. Whatever the case if it has not been received within a reasonable time buyer's need to open disputes with Paypal as their contract is with the seller, the seller has the contract with AP to facilitate delivery so it is up to them to deal with that, the buyer should get their money back regardles.

[the_billycan]

---

@australiapoststore wrote:
 

1. Once an item is lodged with Australia Post the sender certainly is able to have request to have the item retrieved. There maybe a small fee involved with this.

An Article does not become the property of Australia Post while it is in the transit. It is still the sender’s property until it is received by the address. An item would only even become Australia Post property when the item remains unclaimed from our returned mail centre after 3 months.

---

I think you should double check that statement because it goes against my 30 years of AP experience. An item of mail lodged does not become Australia Post's property but it certainly does become it's responsibility.

I doubt very much that it would be legal to return an item of mail to the sender unless it was undeliverable. Given the volume of mail and the relative speed of the delivery that most of it attains, it would not be practicable to search for an individual item in order to return it to the sender before delivery is attempted.

[australiapoststore]

the_billycan wrote:

Given the volume of mail and the relative speed of the delivery that most of it attains, it would not be practicable to search for an individual item in order to return it to the sender before delivery is attempted.

Hi Billycan,

That is a very good point, and one of the reasons that Withdrawal from Post requests are not always successful, as once an item has entered the Mail Stream there is not a lot we can do to intercept it apart from asking the addressee's delivery centre staff to keep an eye out for it amongst the millions of other items they handle each day.

In the case of the initial example of a parcel being lodged an hour ago, we may have more luck, as we may be able to locate the parcel before it gets into the mail stream, as it may be still at the Post Office with their outgoing mail, or we may be able to isolate the mail bag it is in before it reaches the sorting centre.

If we are able to intercept a parcel though we are only able to return it to the sender, we can't change the forwarding address for example as a parcel is considered (by Australia Post) to remain the property of the sender until the point of delivery. You did make a good point though in saying that "An item of mail lodged does not become Australia Post's property but it certainly does become it's responsibility." This is very true, which is why if a parcel is not delivered the monies paid to Australia Post (ie Postage) will be refunded to the sender.

A number of people have commented here and elsewhere to the effect that the Postage someone pays for Australia Post to deliver a parcel (or letter) from Point A to Point B should be all that is needed to ensure the parcel is delivered, and that people should not have to pay any more for added extras to ensure the job is done. This is entirely correct. You should not have to pay any more than the base postage rate for a parcel to be delivered. Adding a signature on delivery or extra cover does not change the likelihood of the parcel being delivered. 

Adding a signature on delivery does not mean your parcel is more likely to be delivered to the addressee, it simply gives you the peace of mind of knowing that the parcel will not be safe-dropped on the property and that someone at the address has to sign for it, and that if your buyer claims non-receipt despite the parcel being scanned as "delivered" further investigation is possible into the delivery of the parcel and who signed for it.

Adding Extra Cover likewise does not change the chance of something going wrong, it simply means that in the event of a worst case scenario, neither you or your buyer will be out-of-pocket for the contents of the parcel.

Regardless of all this though, if you have posted an item to your buyer it should be delivered (and delivered in good condition) regardless of what service you use or what add-ons you opt for and it is always concerning to hear when a parcel is not delivered and all reports of missing and delayed mail are taken very seriously, and recorded not only to investigate that parcel, but also to create an accurate statistical image of our delivery networks which allows us to identify areas for improvement.

Alice

[the_billycan]

Has the mail system actually fallen away that badly, that mail once lodged is no longer virtually sacrosanct? Is it true that a sender now only has to make a verbal request, for an attempt to be made to return an item to them AFTER lodgement? I was under the belief, apparently incorrectly that Australia Post still observed the relevent Postal & Telecommunications Act that would render that capability to be illegal, without at the very least, considerable red tape applied.

I would sincerely appreciate it if you could quote the portion of the Postal Guide that allows this capability for us all to see, because frankly I just don't believe it.

[*crikey*mate*]

Hi Billy, could you please direct me to the relevant section/part of the Postal & Telecommunications Act to which you refer?

Are you aware of any other related legislation relating to the Postal service?

yes, I know, I could google, but I'm sick and full of medicine and can't concentrate and I have to concentrate really hard just to hit the right buttons on my keyboard atm, far less sift through hundreds of entries in a piece of legislation.

[the_billycan]

re your request, that is actually what I asked the Australia Post rep to do, so we call all see it. Look at the previous posting. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. I genuinely want to know.

[*crikey*mate*]

remind me in a day or two Billy, then I'll have a look, I've tagged the post so I can hopefully find it again, but well, I'm a bit of a techy numpty, so might not know how to find my tag LOL

[*crikey*mate*]

and sorry, thought the guide and the Act were two different things - thought you were asking about the guide but knew what the Act said.

again, apologies.

[the_billycan]

As far as I know the Act hasn't changed significantly since 1975 at the time of separation. It is my understanding of standard procedure since then that I have been using to argue my case. The guide should reflect the Act but of course we have had franchises and a significantly higher use of contractors since then so both the Act and therefore the Guide may have changed under the radar so to speak.

Speaking of francises and contractors, the poor service we all seem to suffer from Australia Post these days stems from them as far as I am concerned. By definition, these people are not properly trained and don't really care about anything but the money compared to an employee who had/has made Australia Post their career. The original split up of the PMG came about because of a perceived inefficiency (postmen and telephone installers wouldn't work on the weekends) and a situation that telecommunications was subsidising postal. The government of the day decided a "user pays" principle would be the way to go. Of course, when it came to Telecom that just became "user pays way too much" while even the postal side suddenly had to make a profit.

AP did that mostly by selling off their prime locations in shopping centres and then leasing them back from whoever bought them. After the federal government got their ill gotten dividends, they decided reducing the workforce was the way to save money and that is when the rot really started to set in. Instead of postal clerks who had spent 9 months learning the regulations, you suddenly had newsagents and milk bar owners who didn't know one end of a posting box from the other. Instead of mail drivers and postmen who stayed on the same delivery round year after year, you got fly by night operators who do the job for a year, inflate the number of parcels they deliver (as they are paid per parcel) and then move on to something else more lucrative. This means you never get a delivery person who has any idea where anybody lives in their area. This alone has caused so many lost mail items over the years, that it makes my headache to contemplate.

I've seen it all and haven't liked any of it. Mostly I just think the Australian public did it to themselves by not voting any shortsighted politician, who so much as hinted at selling any of our assets, up against a wall to be shot for treason. I know that sounds extreme but so is what the greedy mongrels (from both sides of politics) have done to this country.