Friday, April 16, 2004

Royal Mail
5 weeks ago I posted a curriculum package to a lady not 30 miles away, in London. Two weeks later she phoned me to enquire as to whether I had posted it - I assured I had. Again a week or so later she phoned again and I gave her the 'parcel number' and exact posting information urging her to enquire at her local p.o. with this information. A week or two later she phoned again and I photocopied all the relevant information (order form, certificate of posting etc etc) and sent it first class to her. Two days ago a Royal Mail van pulled up outside my house and the driver handed to me this very package..... I phoned my customer telling her that at least we knew now where it WAS but having spent £7.54 to have it do a round trip was unsatisfactory and a more secure method of posting would have to be investigated. The small local p.o. I normally use were unable to help me so I went to the large p.o. in Addlestone. The account I offered included the amusing thought that my customer enquired at her local post office on two occasions while they had the parcel in their very office, telling her that it wasn't to be considered 'lost' until after a certain amount of time, which had not yet elapsed, and therefore investigations could not be entered into.... To say that the Addlestone staff 'split their sides' at the story might be a little bit of an overstatement - and they DID apologised for laughing..... The staff there were more than helpful and recommended that I send it parcelforce 48 (which, having posted it on Thurs afternoon will likely mean it won't arrive until MONDAY morning, but, however......) at a cost of £13. On studying the booklet the post-office lady gave me yesterday I see that this would be a good option for posting any of my curriculum packages in future - one lives and learns! I am claiming against the post office for the cost of re-sending the parcel and only hope that, 6 weeks after originally posting it, the child for whom the books were destined will begin to enjoy them.

No comments: