Posted or Not? Angry and frustrated

[artnor]

Hi, I'm new to this forum.
I have a specific question - and hope a guru out there can point/advise me. Sorry it's such a lengthy post.

I should say at the very outset that this has nothing to do with RM as an employer.

Recently at a Tribunal for my son, we lost - big-time - and a key deciding factor in our defeat was whether or not his employer had posted him his termination letter. He received no documentation on the day he was sacked.

They concluded it WAS posted, and concluded that sadly it just didn't arrive at his home address, ie it was a failure by the carrier and its system. It never arrived.

In Court the employer stated it was definitely posted, in Leek Staffs, over the Post Office counter, by a specific manager, and she herself stated on oath at the Tribunal that she recalled posting it (albeit she got the day wrong initially). She "remembered" claiming for the expenditure immediately after posting.

When eventually a duplicate copy of the letter was provided for my son, after several weeks, it was not signed.
Further the copy stated in bold that it had been posted Royal Mail FIrst Class Signed For. As per their usual admin process.
In Court the employer, and her boss both insisted it had been posted using that specific RM product, and that the post-office receipt bearing its unique number had found its way to Head Office, as part of her Expense Claim.

Repeated requests - from the very outset - for me to be provided with a copy of the receipt, or to learn of the unique number involved - have all met with a wall of silence.
Even when I insisted that it was the very purpose of unique numbering and having a tracking website to look up numbers, the Court understood but was told by the employer that they no longer possessed the SIgned-For receipt - apparently they had had it - but it was no longer in their control.

The posting window is very small - just a 3 hour slot on Wednesday 18 January 2016.
Leek is a small (sleepy) town with - I'm guessing - low levels of tracked/recorded products where a unique number would reveal all.

This employer, and the Court are content to have us all believe for evermore that Counters genuinely had this item, and then between themselves and the RM - they lost it.
THEREFORE
Q. Does anyone know of a service - free or chargeable - where I can request a type of query from RM or from an investigation unit - based on RM product, and posting window, and posting location, and sent local-to-local (Leek to Leek), some form of report that reveals to me either a stranded SIgned-For item (signalling it was indeed posted after all) - or that none at all meet the criteria - and that it was never posted as we suspected all along.

It seems too easy to just blame the middleman - whenever it suits posters to appear to have posted something - when not so.

I know this must be possible - given how vast databases are organised etc - but is there a facility that can provide it?
Sadly, my son has not smiled since the Tribunal - and has depression - and I would give anything to demonstrate that his termination letter was deliberately never posted to him, and that the receipt "was invented".

Thanks for reading
Artnor

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Moved from Introductions to Customers

[WallaceCat]

If it is sent signed for, then they would have a log on the system with your signature on it. If they don't have that on there system, they are either telling porkies, or the postman has pushed it through without getting it signed. Either way, they have no proof you have received it, so it should of gone in your favour. Go to your sorting office where your adress gets posted from and ask them to look into it

[Snaggletooth]

I am not aware of a report which lists Signed For items sent. There are two main problems here:

1. The data does not seem to be retained in a form which is searchable in this way;
2. Even if the data did exist, it belongs to the customer, in this case the employer, so it would be problematic for RM to give it to you.

I would attempt to get legal advice. There is a whole load of case law on civil claims and letters that didn’t arrive, but you need a lawyer to sort through the thicket. The wording of the contract of employment is important here.

Your son could consider making a Subject Access Request to see what his former employer said about him. Not sure if this will work though.

Lastly, if you intend to appeal this, make sure you don’t miss the deadline to apply which may be soon.

[artnor]

Snaggletooth and WallaceCat - many thanks for your prompt and welcome replies. Good clear advice all round.

The employer has painted a picture that the carrier failed, and there was/is a stranded item that was posted (Leek to Leek) but never reached us.

We suggested that they chose to not post his Term-Letter, ie deliberately. They claim they did post it but cannot/will not produce the PO receipt, or the unique number, nor cannot produce a copy of a signed version of the letter. GIven that the purpose of unique-numbering and tracking is to assist poster, recipient, and carrier too - the only situation I can think of where any of these 3 players would avoid sharing the number - whoever held it - is where someone has something to gain or something to hide. If they had actually posted it as claimed -then there would be still be a minimum of the Over The Counter "track" being recorded at point of purchase. And yes I agree - that as the paying customer only they would then be entitled to its associated data held by the carrier. But their resistance to share the number in order to give clarity to all parties - confirms our feeling that porkies are involved. They are hiding behind the fact that without the unique number, the haystack is immense. If all was well and above board – then why not just share the unique number?

Rather than seeking out a single item among millions, whose number I was being denied, and which I hadn't purchased and which I don't believe existed anyway - I was instead interested in learning how many items were sold over a particular PO Counter, within a very small time-window, and recorded as going to my particular postcode. I wouldn't need the actual data - just to learn whether there were none. In other words reduce the size of the haystack, without possessing the unique number - and learn if there are zero matches.

I may well take up WallaceCat's suggestion of visiting the local depot, and seeing if/how they might help, albeit much after the events. In my dreams I get an RM-headed letter saying "For Pete's sake Artnor - nothing was delivered because there were no Signed For items at all posted to your address on 18 Jan 2016".

( And just fyi - PILON/Holiday-Pay were not addressed at all in my son's termination meeting, but are mentioned in the letter. However, we only got a copy of by persistent chasing afterwards - 4 weeks late. Such payments were then triggered only after we had winkled this copy from them by email. It's suspicious to me that had we never pestered and kept going, my son might never have received the letter mentioning his PILON etc. )

Again - many thanks

[Snaggletooth]

I see what you mean about the report. The Post Office’s till system records the sale of a Signed For item in it’s sales ledger, with different entries for Signed For first class letter, Signed For second class small packet etc. These entries are entirely separate from the data on barcode number and destination post code, which go to Royal Mail. This system only records sales where payment is received from the customer at the time, not items which were pre-paid for in advance by stamps, etc.

The bad news is that even a small post office probably does at least one Signed For in a three hour period, which may make it difficult if you are attempting to prove an absence. Also, after about a month the data is archived to a central data centre, after which time it is quite hard to get hold of.

[artnor]

Thanks Snaggletooth - that's interesting.

I didn't know this - re PO separate records - so thanks for that. The employer's "story" does indeed include them paying at the time - at the Counter - then directly claiming reimbursement.
And yes it would be perfect for me if it turned out there were absolutely none at all sold in that time-window, at the claimed point of access, but sadly I do agree there will have been be more than one sold in that time (but my guess is less than ten). So, rather than a straightforward "zero sold proves absence", I recognize there will have been at least some sold, so some checking of the individual outcomes of those would be needed to eliminate them by demonstrating they had all landed safely and outside of Leek. Then we would have a zero.

The receipt printed and handed to the paying customer does include the unique RM barcode number. But I think you're saying the sales ledger entries merely relate to PO's own finances - and so won't point to individual RM barcode numbers.

So close eh?

One other thing:
When avoiding an Order for Disclosure, the employer provided to the Court "evidence of posting". This was instead of the receipt they insisted they once had - and it took the form - believe it or not - of a screenshot/mock-up from their own computer expenses system showing a single line-item of expenditure claiming "postage" for 18 January 2016, for £8-51. No other detail. In Court, they labelled it "Tracked Postage Expense Confirmation" and the Judge accepted it. Conveniently for the Court, his boss remembered posting it, as Signed For, and receiving the PO receipt with unique-number, and then back at work using the computer to record that expense, and sending-off the receipt to reclaim from Head Office. However, £8.51 is a distinct amount - so I wondered if there was any way this specific amount could be searched for, ie within the same short time-window, and just for the particular PO Counter involved? I can't help feeling they do this whenever they wish to imply posting but it suits them to not actually do so. As a result, blokes like me get frustrated, and PO/RM get bad-mouthed for losing what they never had in the first place.

Either way - I'm really grateful for your input Snaggletooth !

[Snaggletooth]

£8.51 is a strange amount. This does not tie up with the current Royal Mail prices. But it falls between the current prices for a 1 and 2Kg medium parcels sent first class Signed For: not what you expect to see in relation to a company serving papers. In other words, it looks like too much money for the contents & service. Are you sure about that value, and how much stuff are they claiming to have sent?

[artnor]

Indeed Snaggletooth - a strange amount. Yes deffo it's £8.51, and deffo just 2 pages of A4.

My opposition are brilliant at just making stuff up. I am as certain as I could be that it does not relate to the purchase of a lightweight letter.
I believe their default is to use "Royal Mail Signed For First Class" - and this wording is what appears on their emailed copy sent 4 weeks later, ie they just ran a copy off the computer (not signed).
And so only then - 4 weeks after being sacked - did we learn from this copy that the letter "they had definitely sent on 18 Jan" had used that particular service. Prior to that my son had assumed it was an ordinary mail item he was looking for each day - in vain. Initially my son had returned daily to the employer - saying no letter yet - and asking for his docs, but was sent away each time. He lives just 200 yards away, and they could easily have run off a copy - or even walked round with it.

I pounced and demanded the unique number from them - to learn when/where posted etc - and its "status" in the RM system - and they replied saying receipt was then on the way to Head Office, and that given I now had the email copy they didn't need to share the number with me anyway. They then pulled up the drawbridge, and said it was the end of communications with me.
They assumed we'd pack in - which we didn't = and so months later when push came to shove they say receipt cannot be found etc. and instead a line-item for an inexplicable £8.51.

Perhaps they'd simply claim other miscellaneous items from the same outlet were purchased at the same time, in addition to 1 x "lightweight" SIgned For, and totalling £8.51. It simply shows as "postage". They have not been shy of invention and trickery - all along the way - and my instinct tells me that this line-item was just made up to plug their gap.

It's been a bit like a child telling you a fib and then getting deeper and deeper. Rather than own up - or even say they just used "ordinary mail", they have said indignantly ....... they did use that product, and was on that day, and was from that outlet, and that they did truly have a physical receipt.

So unless RM can identify and then eliminate ALL candidate Signed-For items, it boils down to a Quiz Question from the Counters angle ..... what single or combination of "postage" products in January 2017 could be purchased - at the same time - to yield his boss departing clutching her single £8.51 receipt from Counters. We all know it's nonsense, but just how do I prove it - or show that it is extremely unlikely.

I really do appreciate your feedback on this - helping to clear my mind. Artnor

[artnor]

The employer claims to have spent exactly £8.51 on 18 Jan 2017, and got a single receipt from the PO Counter for this amount, and which included 1 x Signed For FIrst Class, papers comprising just 2 pages of A4. What on earth adds up to £8.51 as postage? I'm certain this is all porkies - and is merely to hide the fact it was never posted at all.

Q. Does anyone know what that would have cost, ie sending from Leek to Leek in January 2017? Have RM prices risen since then?

Artnor

[yellowbelly]

The employer claims to have spent exactly £8.51 on 18 Jan 2017, and got a single receipt from the PO Counter for this amount, and which included 1 x Signed For FIrst Class, papers comprising just 2 pages of A4. What on earth adds up to £8.51 as postage? I'm certain this is all porkies - and is merely to hide the fact it was never posted at all.

Q. Does anyone know what that would have cost, ie sending from Leek to Leek in January 2017? Have RM prices risen since then?

Artnor

Even at today's prices from RM website, even a Special Delivery by 1pm (which needs a signature) for a 100g large letter is only 6.50 and for
the service you state the company sent the letter at (First Class Signed For) it's only 2.11. Either someone is telling porkies or the
claimant claimed for their petrol/parking expenses to the post office or bought some stamps/paid for something else to make it up to 8.51...?????

[artnor]

Thanks Yellowbelly - much appreciated !

This "suspicious" employer shows it simply as "postage" - and other factors and evidence mean that this sale - if it ever took place - must have happened between 12:08 and 14:54 on 18 Jan 2017 - and from a particular Post Office. I'd take a wager that there isn't a single entry for £8.51 at all during that small posting window, for that outlet.

It infuriates me how they can just claim that they once did have the original receipt and unique item-number - but now won't share it. The Judge agrees - and so it stays as another case of Post Office & RM losing an item between them - one they never had an opportunity to deliver.

Artnor

[Snaggletooth]

The employer claims to have spent exactly £8.51 on 18 Jan 2017, and got a single receipt from the PO Counter for this amount, and which included 1 x Signed For FIrst Class, papers comprising just 2 pages of A4. What on earth adds up to £8.51 as postage? I'm certain this is all porkies - and is merely to hide the fact it was never posted at all.

Q. Does anyone know what that would have cost, ie sending from Leek to Leek in January 2017? Have RM prices risen since then?

Artnor

Prices change at the start of each financial year usually. Have found the prices from the time online, it would most likely have cost £2.06 or £1.74, depending on what type of envelope they used. Can't see anything at all at £8.51.

http://deltastamps.com/pdf/RoyalMail_2016_Prices.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SpacePhoenix]

Another one who'll get everything P739'd that won't go through the letter box or needs signing for?