A taxi driver is taking Royal Mail to the small claims court after the company rejected his compensation claim for approximately £3,000 of silver bullion he says disappeared in the post.
Robert Devereux, 45, from Southport, sent the bullion in a parcel to a reputable dealer in Blackpool on June 9. He paid £32.95 for Royal Mail Special Delivery, including an extra £10 for enhanced compensation covering a declared value of up to £5,000, and said the package complied with the 20kg weight limit.
He said he sent the package in an 'industry standard' brown padded envelope, marked it as 'fragile', and fully sealed it with parcel tape. But the delivery did not go according to plan.
Parcel arrived damaged
The parcel arrived at the dealer the following day inside a Royal Mail damaged parcel bag bearing the words 'our sincere apologies', Mr Devereux said. The recipient told him a 1kg hand-poured silver bar, worth around £2,500, and a 10-ounce silver bar, worth around £500, were missing.
Mr Devereux said the bullion dealer opened the package under CCTV and compared the contents with the inventory he had supplied before confirming the bars were no longer inside. He submitted a compensation claim to Royal Mail, which initially said enquiries were continuing while checks were carried out with its National Returns Centre.
However, the postal service later rejected his claim. In an email seen by the Echo, Royal Mail said the contents should have been placed 'in a strong rigid container and surrounded with enough cushioning material (5cm minimum) to prevent it moving within the packaging', adding that 'sending the contents in a large padded jiffy envelope would not be adequate'.
Dispute over packaging
Mr Devereux strongly disputes that conclusion. He told the Echo: "I usually deliver the parcels myself, but I thought paying for Special Delivery with enhanced compensation meant I was protected. That's why I paid the extra money.
"They're happy to sell you the premium service and take the insurance payment, but when something goes wrong they look for loopholes. They're blaming the packaging, but if it wasn't packaged correctly, why did they accept it in the first place?"
Mr Devereux said he declared the parcel's contents when posting it and said staff were aware it contained precious metals. He also questioned why a damaged special delivery parcel continued through the postal network instead of being returned to him.
"I thought everything was covered by CCTV and tracked all the way through the system," he said. "I don't understand how something like this can happen without anyone being able to explain it."
Claims process described as 'stressful'
Mr Devereux described the claims process as 'stressful', claiming he spent hours on hold attempting to obtain updates. He said: "There was no communication about what stage the investigation was at.
"I was constantly ringing, sometimes two or three times a day. You just get told someone will log your call, but nobody keeps you updated."
In a later email seen by the Echo, Royal Mail confirmed it had recorded the details provided and would continue searching for the missing items. However, it added: "With respect to compensation, our decision is final and will not be changed."
Mr Devereux has now escalated his complaint to Royal Mail's Postal Review Panel and said he has also begun a claim through the small claims court in an attempt to recover his losses.
A Royal Mail spokesperson said: "We take the loss of any item in our network very seriously. In this case, we carried out a thorough investigation but were regrettably unable to locate the missing silver bullion.
"Parcels are moved, sorted, loaded and unloaded several times during their journey, using both machinery and manual handling. This can involve movement, pressure and contact with other parcels, so they need to be securely packaged to prevent the contents being damaged or falling out.
"We reviewed Mr Devereux's compensation claim and concluded that the packaging used was not sufficient for the items inside. The case has since been referred to the independent Postal Review Panel."
