Re: "Lost" post arrives one month late...
- From: Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:00:43 +0100
On 13 Sep 2006 14:28:23 -0700, "sk8terg1rl"
<sk8terg1rl_2006@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alex Heney wrote:
No, that would be fraud.
Thanks Alex Heney,
Under the fictitious circumstances, the person signing off the RM
claims form can honestly say they thought the post was lost if it had
not arrived after about 3 weeks. So there is no actual dishonesty on
the form at the time of signing.
Agreed. There was certainly no fraud involved at that stage.
So it will be difficult for any
accusations of fraud to stick.
I'm not so sure about that. I imagine the terms under which they pay
out state that you must tell them if the item turns up.
Also the sender genuinely lost money by buying a replacement only to
have the post arrive very late. If the item was time critical or there
was some schedule-dependent cost to it such as it being perishable,
deadlines or something like that then RM's delay could conceivably have
caused further losses.
No doubt.
And I would say he *should* be entitled to compensation on that basis.
Whether he is or not depends on the terms of their contract.
But it is still fraud to just keep the compensation paid out for a
lost item, without telling them that the item has now arrived.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Truck Pulls: for people who cannot understand the WWF
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Lost" post arrives one month late...
- From: ian henden
- Re: "Lost" post arrives one month late...
- References:
- Re: "Lost" post arrives one month late...
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: "Lost" post arrives one month late...
- Prev by Date: Re: 19 year old J.P.
- Next by Date: Re: Sky ADSL
- Previous by thread: Re: "Lost" post arrives one month late...
- Next by thread: Re: "Lost" post arrives one month late...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|