Why we need National Standards

via the tipline

How should this be responded to?

Please place your helpful suggestions of a reply in the comments.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Not knowing all the circumstances makes it hard, but…

    I’m presuming that the package was not sent for business purposes? If so, advise them that under the Consumer Guarantees Act CourierPost has to act with reasonable care and skill and it would be reasonable for them to advise that the packing was inadequate when it was collected.

  • ‘…accessed by two of our damage officers…’ – that looks like an admission of liability right there.

  • grizz

    It is hard to know how to evaluate this without knowing the circumstances. Clearly the company needs to access the items to assess the damage. However, the letter points out that the items were inappropriately packaged, hence the damage. From my point of view, the crux of this incident come down to who should have respnsibility for appropriate packaging. If it is the customer, then this needs to be clearly outlined at the time of purchasing the service. Otherwise, if there was another angle to all this, then I have missed the point completely.

    • My point, that I think Can was alluding to with the National Standards angle, is that ‘accessed’ should have been ‘assessed’. Access sounds too much like interference, and a damage officer’s responsibilities could be considered to be to cause damage.

      The standard terms and conditions of carriage make it quite clear that compensation for damage is not available for inadequately packaged goods. Purchase of the service is an implicit acceptance of the published conditions.
      Clearly, the sender is liable for any loss or damage sustained. Good luck to whoever – any trader that can’t be bothered packaging goods securely is unlikly to accept fault and refund.

      • grizz

        Looking at this letter on its own it is very feasable to think that the author means what is literally written. Considering there was an exchange of communication prior to this letter, the courior company may well have been asked to look at the contents of the package, hence the word “accessed”. You can argue about the correctness of the English, but the message is loud and clear: You did not appropriately package the goods, we are not responsible for the damage incurred.

  • mikeman

    I think Cam’s point is the quality (or lack thereof) in the language used.

    Accessed instead of what should have been Assessed.
    Damage Officers is a weird term.
    No taping????

  • abjv

    Several “standards” on show here. Accessed not assessed. Packing loose bits in a box with gaps in it in the first place. Did not CourierPost receive the package at some stage; did they not query the fact the package had gaps showing and there seemed to be stuff loose inside it?

    I am a taxpayer. Why have my taxes been used providing these people with an education? It does not seem to have worked.

  • Doc

    And don’t forget boxing instead of boxes.

  • tonyjoe

    If the only angle here is “Accessed” v “Assessed” then maybe I’m missing something, because despite the misuse of the correct word, nothing else seems amiss. I have to admit I only read the letter twice – I nearly feel asleep with boredom on the first reading. Surely there are better things to ponder than this!!

  • jman

    ummm…yeah…I don’t get it. Surely this can’t be about bad spelling or grammar as plenty of far more egregious examples abound.