let me explain some parts of the law

[joethenuts]

a lot of posters keep thinking that if its written in the law ,thats it.  well wrong ,ask any solicitor.

if that was the case we would not need any courts.

a law is written for instance law 1.   then there is only if  a  or   f   or section  bla , does not ocur.

lets talk about photos in a post office, once you hand over your letters and as soon as the postman stamps them ,they are deemed to be the property of the federal gov. once you touch or take a photo ,then theres privacy laws.  its simple its not yours anymore.

we also have posters complaining about paypal taking money out of your account when there is a problem.

read your contract with them , you agreed to there policy  ,if you dont agree dont sign up or take the contract to a solicitor. 

just because something is said in the law , companies have agreements with them  .  like the bank on charge backs  the law states a bank cant take money out of another banks client.  but the banks have an agreement that allows that.  and we all know that happens.

look at the law about porn movies , i still have had nobody answere that.  its simple the law states porn movies can only be sold in canberra.    have a look around  most suburbs have an adult shop.   i would say there is an agreement with the law.  these shops are not hidden , some are the size of small supermarkets.

in fact a couple of months ago i won an auction on ebay for some new steel paint tins and lids , when she gave me the pick up details  it was to an adult bookstore , i then looked at the  item number  in case i bid on the wrong line, but all correct. anyway i drive to the loading bay ,she opened up the roller door and my eyes nearly popped out , as i was loading the boxes , i did not ask why they had new empty paint tins , but i did ask why the girl on the corner wearing  just underwear was smiling at me ,she said thats a blow up doll , yes but whats her name.     lol

[bakeandfry]

What has being red carded got to do with anything? If i had a listing that had a postage price on it and you brought off me, you would be agreeing to have me post it, not pickup and not have a courier come to my place to come get it, can you show me where in the law it says i can not take a photo, no here say, no this person said this or that, but a link or screen shot.

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

---

@bakeandfry wrote:

So if the buyer owns it, can i take a photo of the article when it has been lodged, so i can prove to paypal i posted it, seeing as paypal gave me the buyers details, so no privacy law broken, i can relay the required information back to them as long as i uphold the buyers privacy and not relay buyers privacy so that anyone can see it. Does that make sence?

---

My opinion, simple answer: YES.

Whether PayPal will accept it is another question.  Some posters have had success with PayPal accepting photos and others have not.  Some posters have used photos to force PayPal to refund moneys as the FOS has accepted photos in complaints against PayPal.  If it was illegal then I would think that the FOS would not accept that evidence AND I think that PayPal's lawyers would be all over any decision of the FOS that used photos of lodged articles as evidence when making a decision that goes against PayPal.

Detailed answer: I have no legal expertise and this is just my opinion.  I will not try to grind posters into submission until they accept my opinion.  I have based my opinion on the inability of anyone here to prove that it is not allowed or even illegal (there is a difference) AND my own inability to find anywhere (other than in joe's posts) that such a practice is not allowed or illegal.  I have read the act that Rule 101 comes from and found nothing in that act, and I have read just about every one of the the 54 pages of the Aust Post Terms and Conditions and found nothing that tells me as an AP customer that the articles I post belong to AP once lodged.  I have not 'cherry-picked' posts from other threads to support my opinion and proffered them here as fact or 'the law'.

When I first started selling I would take photos at the counter, after I had paid for postage and the AP staff member had put the postage sticker on the parcel.  I would always ask if I could take the photo and most times the answer was "yes" and a few times the answer was "so long as you only have the parcel in the frame".  I would always make sure that I did not hold up any other customers.  Often, I would let people go ahead of me so that there were no customers after me at the time I was at the counter.  I would often send the photo to the buyer's email address so they knew what the parcel looked like.

I would encourage any seller to ask at the counter and make sure that only the parcel/envelope appear in the photo, and that the article remains on the counter in full view of staff at all times.  This would put to rest any question of tampering with the mail by having the envelope post-stamped and then removed and never posted.  I would also encourage sellers to make sure they do not delay the service of other customers when photographing articles/envelopes.

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

---

@joethenuts wrote:

ok this is how it works let say me  joe . i order an item online , and i cant stand being red carded because my post office is in a dam shopping centre , if it was in a shopping strip no problems. so instead of the seller posting my parcel . i will ask the seller for a convient time for either i pick up or my courier to pick up , as then i only have to go up the road and pick up , an easier pick up for me.

at the end of the day its the buyers item ,if he wants santa to pick it up or mickey-mouse ,we have buyers come by bike  tram only, one we had a electric wheelchair, what was the odds of that.

---

joe, for businesses, I am sure that the idea of courier pickup is not an issue as the business would be open during business hours.

However, for 'mum-and-dad' or 'casual' sellers who have day jobs there is not any convenient time and the idea of having to be at home so that a courier can pickup is simply unworkable.  Now I know you read tall_bearded01's opinion that the item belongs to the buyer and they have a legal right to demand the carrier of their choice and that choice can be a courier, but that is simply not a workable impost on sellers who are not able to be available at the times that the buyer's courier would call on them.  Some will say to these sellers "then leave it with a neighbour for pickup" , but that too is also an unreasonable impost on the seller.

I have bought pickup items from Melbourne where the listing has said that the seller is happy to have the item picked up by a courier organised and paid for by me.  Every time I have done this the courier company has told me the hours to expect them item to be picked up and asked me to inform the sellers of these times.  As an example, the timeframe for pickup might be 10am-1pm.  This means the seller needs to ensure that they are available from 10am until 1pm for courier pickup.  This hasn't been a problem yet BECAUSE the sellers that include the courier pickup comment in their listings are available during the day for courier pickup.  BUT, sellers who live in outer Melbourne suburbs who leave home at 7am to catch a train and don't get home until well after 6pm at night are simply not available at courier pickup times, which is why they don't include courier in their listings, and is why it is unworkable for a buyer to buy the item and demand that they be allowed to have the item picked up by courier as they own the item once it is paid for.

[bakeandfry]

Love the detailed answer. Im not a lawyer also.

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

as one who likes to include screenshots, links and URLs in their posts, I sometimes find myself banging my head against a brick wall when others simply cite posts from old threads as 'fact' or 'the law'.

One of the problems with this thread is that in the Opening Post has essentially stated that laws really mean nothing as people/business/bank can make agreements that disregard the law.  Here is the part of the OP that says this:

"just because something is said in the law , companies have agreements with them  .  like the bank on charge backs  the law states a bank cant take money out of another banks client.  but the banks have an agreement that allows that."

Now, I don't know who "them" is referring to but I suspect it refers to those that police or enforce the law i.e. those that police or enforce the law agree to the laws being ignored by agreement.

That is just laughable.

[joethenuts]

well i sopose if its not mine , i am allowed to take to handle and to film anybodys items .

[joethenuts]

i get red carded a bit because i am not home ,my post office is in a shopping centre,, try parking there   then if you get a park ,walk hundreds of meters then line up at a dhopping centre post office then waiting in line up to 50 meters depending on a good day then carry if heavy  please.

[joethenuts]

as i said k1000 , if you think that you can take or handle or  photo an item  that is in the pocesion of the aust post . good luck   and if you dont agree with mr tall bearded1 thats fine this is his post a few months ago then i did a bit of looking around  and i must admit i was like you now  not then because you all thought he was better than than anybody on this earth. but after reading ,[ i have to admit he is 100% correct]

it makes sence why ebay dont allow it it makes sence mr zig when asked aust post head office about his item ,they told him no go.  have a nice day

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

---

@joethenuts wrote:

as i said k1000 , if you think that you can take or handle or  photo an item  that is in the pocesion of the aust post . good luck   and if you dont agree with mr tall bearded1 thats fine this is his post a few months ago then i did a bit of looking around  and i must admit i was like you now  not then because you all thought he was better than than anybody on this earth. but after reading ,[ i have to admit he is 100% correct]

it makes sence why ebay dont allow it it makes sence mr zig when asked aust post head office about his item ,they told him no go.  have a nice day

---

tall_bearded01 has never been accepted as an authority on legal matters by all on these boards.  There are many members who have taken TB to task over his posts.  You posted "but after reading".  What did you read joe?  What did you find when you looked around?  Where did you look? (other than posts on public forums from faceless posters with unverifiable credentials).

zontwiggi was not told by Aust Post Head Office that they can not take photographs of lodged articles.  What they were told was that they could not get information from the post office that delivered the item due to privacy laws.  Here's what they actually posted:

"It is  areal shame as I thought there was a reasonable chance they might remember my letter as I have a photo of it to send them and I plastic seal them so that's a bit different and they might remember, plus it would be a small Post Office. Absoulete no way, can't even ask due to privacy laws apparently."

[joethenuts]

so you dont believe in the tallbearded1   thats up to you   dont blame me i was asked last night to say were i got this info from, its up to you if you dont regard him as anything.  i have changed my mind on his posts , i looked upplenty of law books ,slowly ,some of those words wow, but it has stuck to my head , now if you wanna try  ,i am sure on the net or at a libary it will take a long time , but you might get some answeres ,   

ps  of course its not going to say in your books you cant take a photo  but it wont also say you cant chew on a parcel only mmmmmm

 now i dont buy a lot online but i have used this before with sucess and i am sure in the future i will use it again.

also mr zig in hisn and your eyes had proof of item that was his but was refused as  the po   said privacy act