claiming compensation from Royal Mail

I am a small business seller trading items from bulk purchases.

Recently a few items have gone astray with Royal Mail and despite having Proof of Postage and supposed £20 compensation , they only offer me postage refund as i cannot prove what i paid for the said item.

e.g a £5 sale to me was gained from splitting a £300 bulk purchased at auction into many and various priced listings.

 

Is it viable and within Ebay regulations to pass the onus on to the Buyer to claim their lost money back from Royal Mail as I can them provide Proof of Postage?  

This may not be well received by a customer but it seems unfair for me to be penalised.

Message 1 of 4
See Most Recent
3 REPLIES 3

claiming compensation from Royal Mail

"Is it viable and within Ebay regulations to pass the onus on to the Buyer"

 

No,buyer has to open a not received claim via the MBG,you refund in full and claim off RM.

Message 2 of 4
See Most Recent

claiming compensation from Royal Mail

Just a thought but could you not provide Royal Mail with, using your example, both proof of the original cost of the bulk purchase and the apportioned cost of the item for which you are claiming?

 

Granted I don't know if RM would accept the above as proof of original item cost but unless you have an invoice showing each individual item's cost as part of the bulk purchase I don't think you'll be able to jump through RM's compensation hoops.

 

As for a buyer claiming from RM for the loss of an item, RM will only deal with the sender as it is the sender with whom the contract is created when purchasing postage. Not want you want to hear, I know, but that is part of RM's Ts&Cs.

 

Message 3 of 4
See Most Recent

claiming compensation from Royal Mail

I find Royal Mail to be quite reliable, so haven't had to claim in awhile, but in a similar situation my proof of value is the eBay invoice page. Royal Mail accepts the sale cost as the value of an item.

Message 4 of 4
See Most Recent
Got buying related questions? Start here: