@thecatspjs wrote:
@crikey*mate wrote:
@thecatspjs wrote:
@phorum_junkie* wrote:You have no proof you sent anything, you have proof you paid for postage but I know that my PO often give me letters back after stamping them as the box outside is going to be emptied before a pick up is made from the PO.
How can any buyer have confidence in sellers with statements like these PJ - I am sure that you must have meant something different than it sounds - as has happened once before ?
PO returning lodged post articles outside of correct process to do so is just not on - ever. I think Australia Post made that clear the last time you posted something like this.
They may have made it clear, but unless PJ is making things up, it obviously has and does happen.
and I think that it is good that buyers know this can/does happen as well as Australia Post in the hopes that they will crack down on their staff.
but then, I believe in transperancy, not providing a false sense of security.
That any seller would initiate such deceptive conduct in relation to the lodgement of a postal article and then post about it on the boards is astounding.
Given the same poster admonishes others for far far less it sets a new height for double standards in this case, and a new low for seller performance in relation to the handling of goods for post.
I believe most sellers would not undertake nor condone this behaviour, nor put themselves or their post office staff at potential risk of serious penalties.
I agree with paragraph 1, however it is good that buyers are aware that this could and does happen. not all sellers are as pure and perfect as you and I are cats, they need to know that some shomky practises do take place.
paragraph 2 - I'm not getting into an interpersonal slanging match about another poster. That's your agenda, not mine.
paragraph 3 - most probably wouldn't, but then we are all too aware that there are doidgy sellers out there and scam artists and all sorts of ethically and morally challenged persons - we see this over and over again and it is good that the buyer is aware of it and trying to keep this information hidden out of fear of penalties is, in my opinion also less than ethical. If the relevant parties are doing nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about.
kinda curious what other 'crimes" that you think are ok to cover up for fear of a penalty being administered? What other "crimes" do you not agree to disclosure in the pursuit of secrecy and deceit rather than transperancey and exposure?
again, unless PJ is telling porkies, this does happen and it is good that people are aware of it.
