Rare coin lost in post

[secret santa]

That's an interesting one - the Royal Mail compensated me because I had refunded the buyer but I hope they won't pursue me for a refund as I would be completely out of pocket then. They may pursue the buyer but if they don't he may end up with a very rare coin free of charge.

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

That's an interesting one - the Royal Mail compensated me because I had refunded the buyer but I hope they won't pursue me for a refund as I would be completely out of pocket then. They may pursue the buyer but if they don't he may end up with a very rare coin free of charge.

Will RM even be aware that they've delivered an item previously reported as missing? If they've just pushed it through the buyer's door, probably not.

ETA: what does track and trace say? 

Edited January 3, 2021 by 1949threepence

[secret santa]

It was more complicated than that. It was eventually found in the bottom of a sack at Swindon and the next steps are vague but the buyer's neighbour then went to a local post office to pick it up (in Scotland) when there was some discussion around the issue of the compensation. So, the RM are aware of the issue but I don't know what, if anything, happens next.

I've lost details of the tracking.

[jelida]

I really wouldn’t be too worried even if the RM quite correctly demand the compensation back. The purchaser accepted the re-fund, so title has reverted to you even if he is now in possession. If he wishes to keep it, he has to pay you again. Otherwise he can send the coin back to you. A small claims court would find in your favour, though I’m sure it won’t go that far. I would simply ask him politely which option he would prefer. The purchaser can hardly deny receipt, the RM could not request return of compensation without evidence of delivery, or at least collection by his representative.

Jerry

[copper123]

why not just dont tell anyone - I would - post office deserve to lose out with such bad customer service

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

It was more complicated than that. It was eventually found in the bottom of a sack at Swindon and the next steps are vague but the buyer's neighbour then went to a local post office to pick it up (in Scotland) when there was some discussion around the issue of the compensation. So, the RM are aware of the issue but I don't know what, if anything, happens next.

I've lost details of the tracking.

Interesting. Keep us posted Richard.  

[secret santa]

2 hours ago, jelida said:

The purchaser accepted the re-fund, so title has reverted to you even if he is now in possession.

I wonder if he sees it like that ! 

[jelida]

32 minutes ago, secret santa said:

I wonder if he sees it like that ! 

I doubt he would have any choice in law. The only other potential owner to you is Royal Mail, but they are much more likely to want their money back. When my 1858 large rose small date disappeared in the post, I made a point of not accepting a refund on that basis- I wanted to retain title in case it does eventually appear, though that is not to say that the actual acquisition in that circumstance would be straightforward. Much more so in your case,  providing you still have his name and address. I would gently suggest he pays for it now, if he wants it, though not unreasonable to wait for the right moment. The matter of the RM compensation is nothing to do with him.
 

Jerry

[blakeyboy]

I would side with Jerry on this one, but.....did the guy who has it now tell you had arrived, in a pleased and amazed manner, 

or is has he kept quiet thinking he's won a free coin?  The answer to that would determine my next course of action....

[1949threepence]

2 hours ago, jelida said:

I doubt he would have any choice in law. The only other potential owner to you is Royal Mail, but they are much more likely to want their money back. When my 1858 large rose small date disappeared in the post, I made a point of not accepting a refund on that basis- I wanted to retain title in case it does eventually appear, though that is not to say that the actual acquisition in that circumstance would be straightforward. Much more so in your case,  providing you still have his name and address. I would gently suggest he pays for it now, if he wants it, though not unreasonable to wait for the right moment. The matter of the RM compensation is nothing to do with him.
 

Jerry

Indeed. Assuming RM pursue the now void compensation claim amount, I assume their stance would be to ask Richard for it, and whether Richard is, in turn, paid by the original buyer, would be a private matter between the two of them, which RM would have no legal interest in. 

To be honest, it's a bit of a slightly unfair loophole as it confers advantage to the person who now possesses the item in question. Be that a coin or anything else.     

Maybe in such cases, the item should be automatically returned to the sender.  

[PWA 1967]

17 hours ago, jelida said:

I really wouldn’t be too worried even if the RM quite correctly demand the compensation back. The purchaser accepted the re-fund, so title has reverted to you even if he is now in possession. If he wishes to keep it, he has to pay you again. Otherwise he can send the coin back to you. A small claims court would find in your favour, though I’m sure it won’t go that far. I would simply ask him politely which option he would prefer. The purchaser can hardly deny receipt, the RM could not request return of compensation without evidence of delivery, or at least collection by his representative.

Jerry

Is that information legally correct Jerry or just your opinion or thoughts please ?

 

13 hours ago, jelida said:

I doubt he would have any choice in law. The only other potential owner to you is Royal Mail, but they are much more likely to want their money back. When my 1858 large rose small date disappeared in the post, I made a point of not accepting a refund on that basis- I wanted to retain title in case it does eventually appear, though that is not to say that the actual acquisition in that circumstance would be straightforward. Much more so in your case,  providing you still have his name and address. I would gently suggest he pays for it now, if he wants it, though not unreasonable to wait for the right moment. The matter of the RM compensation is nothing to do with him.
 

Jerry

Also this and mainly " The matter of the RM compensation has nothing to do with him "

I assume you have checked Jerry or know what you are saying is correct .

Does the overwritter (Royal mail ) contact Richard or the other person ,if or should they contact anyone at all ?

Pete.

[jelida]

Hi Pete,

It is covered by the laws relating to the sale of goods, and the transfer of title. Although other terms can be agreed between purchaser and vendor (for example the commitment at auction is made at the fall of the hammer ) it is usual that goods are paid for in full, and received by the purchaser for title to transfer. This is why the seller is responsible for ensuring delivery, and re-imbursement or replacement in the event of non delivery.  Return of the payment if accepted effectively cancels the transaction,  just as if you return goods to a shop and get your money back. Even if one party chooses not to abide by this,  just as no seller is allowed to accept money and not provide the goods,  a purchaser has no right to expect something for nothing and either party has recourse to the courts. Obviously what I write is my interpretation of the law, but I think the gist is correct.

In terms of the Royal Mail compensation, the contract is between the RM and the individual who actually purchases the postage and insurance- the seller. It is after all the seller who needs the compensation, he is already committed in law to reimbursing the purchaser under the sale of goods act.

Jerry

[PWA 1967]

Thank you for your reply Jerry and could not understand why if someone received payment for something regardless who from they would ask for the money again or the return of something .The contract was resolved and full payment made to the sender by the insurance company and is upto the insurance company if they wish to proceed. As you mention Jerry it is afterall the seller who needs compensation and he has had it.

I also thought possibly wrongly that the packet had been wriiten off and was not up to the person the insurance company had paid to ask for payment again or the return of something they NO LONGER OWN.

Is this not a matter for the insurance company to contact the purchaser if they wish and not the sender who has accepted full payment ? 

The purchaser notified the seller straight away and was delighted and IMO not hiding anything or done anything wrong.I feel IF Richard was contacted for a return of any money by the insurer (which i dont think they will ) the purchaser only at that time would be responsible to make a payment or return to the insurance company or Richard.

I dont profess to be right but asking for another payment ,return or court all does not sound right to me.......although i dont have a clue 😃

As it is today nobody is out of pocket apart from the insurer ,although i am sure they are still making a few quid and a rare coin has turned up that can be continued to be passed down over generations.👍

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by PWA 1967

[jelida]

1 hour ago, PWA 1967 said:

Thank you for your reply Jerry and could not understand why if someone received payment for something regardless who from they would ask for the money again or the return of something .The contract was resolved and full payment made to the sender by the insurance company and is upto the insurance company if they wish to proceed. As you mention Jerry it is afterall the seller who needs compensation and he has had it.

I also thought possibly wrongly that the packet had been wriiten off and was not up to the person the insurance company had paid to ask for payment again or the return of something they NO LONGER OWN.

Is this not a matter for the insurance company to contact the purchaser if they wish and not the sender who has accepted full payment ? 

The purchaser notified the seller straight away and was delighted and IMO not hiding anything or done anything wrong.I feel IF Richard was contacted for a return of any money by the insurer (which i dont think they will ) the purchaser only at that time would be responsible to make a payment or return to the insurance company or Richard.

I dont profess to be right but asking for another payment ,return or court all does not sound right to me.......although i dont have a clue 😃

As it is today nobody is out of pocket apart from the insurer ,although i am sure they are still making a few quid and a rare coin has turned up that can be continued to be passed down over generations.👍

 

Hi Pete, I did say that the other potential claimant over the coin was the Royal Mail, but they would almost certainly want the compensation back, rather than the coin. At the moment the buyer has had the coin for nothing - that is certainly not right- nor can the two parties split the compensation as a potential windfall, as if it is eventually re-claimed, that liability falls upon Richard. So any other course than the one I outlined is fraught with risk for Richard. I hope that the purchaser plays fair and pays for his purchase, and is happy with it, I think that outcome is most likely; penny collecting is a small world, and word gets about. Reputation is important.

Jerry

[secret santa]

I've written to a solicitor colleague of mine to establish the exact legal position before I contact the buyer, in order to make sure all the facts are clear.

I certainly don't want to start a dialogue with the buyer based on assumption and hearsay. He was honest enough to tell me that he'd received the coin so I hope that it can all be resolved amicably.

[PWA 1967]

36 minutes ago, jelida said:

Hi Pete, I did say that the other potential claimant over the coin was the Royal Mail, but they would almost certainly want the compensation back, rather than the coin. At the moment the buyer has had the coin for nothing - that is certainly not right- nor can the two parties split the compensation as a potential windfall, as if it is eventually re-claimed, that liability falls upon Richard. So any other course than the one I outlined is fraught with risk for Richard. I hope that the purchaser plays fair and pays for his purchase, and is happy with it, I think that outcome is most likely; penny collecting is a small world, and word gets about. Reputation is important.

Jerry

 

Yes the buyer as of today has a coin for nothing but that is due to the insurance ,who may still settle or ask for a payment from them .So the purchaser playing fair and square is exactly the same as the sender asking for the money twice ,although the second time they no longer own it ?

As far as i can see the insurance company as of today have bought the coin with compensation and given it to the purchaser ?

As far as i can see up untill today no liability or risk for anyone unless a further payment is made and that should maybe only be done when or if either party is contacted by the insurer.

Forgetting the two people involved ,what happens every other time this happens ,perhaps even more so on a packet with a value of much less

Reputation and word gets about sounds like someone is hiding something or doing some thing wrong 😃

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by PWA 1967

[secret santa]

Pete, I received the Royal Mail compensation and I'm paranoid that I would be liable to repay it if they pursue that course of action. That would leave me nearly £2.5K out of pocket with no recourse to the buyer. 

[PWA 1967]

49 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Pete, I received the Royal Mail compensation and I'm paranoid that I would be liable to repay it if they pursue that course of action. That would leave me nearly £2.5K out of pocket with no recourse to the buyer. 

I would not worry about it ,they have written the packet off and paid you as the packet was not delivered in a reasonable time. 

They know you dont have it anymore and IF they were to ask for some kind of settlement i think would contact the current owner.

If i am wrong and they do get in touch with you first then just inform the current owner before you make any payment who i am sure if he has not been contacted will be able to sort it out with you. 

It will sort itself out and would not worry about something that i doubt will happen 🙂

 

[terrysoldpennies]

Surely if the Royal Mail  paid you compensation, then as it was also them that subsequently delivered the coin,  they are responsible as they should have withheld the coin and not deliver it .

[pokal02]

I think I've had 4 or so purchases not reach me over the years.  The sellers have always refunded me.  One of these turned up months later -  I notified the seller and paid again.  I don't know whether he had borne the loss himself, or if not, whether he reimbursed the carrier  (it was from Italy - I've had more problems with (non-coin related) post from there than anywhere else).      

[jelida]

2 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

 

Yes the buyer as of today has a coin for nothing but that is due to the insurance ,who may still settle or ask for a payment from them .So the purchaser playing fair and square is exactly the same as the sender asking for the money twice ,although the second time they no longer own it ?

As far as i can see the insurance company as of today have bought the coin with compensation and given it to the purchaser ?

As far as i can see up untill today no liability or risk for anyone unless a further payment is made and that should maybe only be done when or if either party is contacted by the insurer.

Forgetting the two people involved ,what happens every other time this happens ,perhaps even more so on a packet with a value of much less

Reputation and word gets about sounds like someone is hiding something or doing some thing wrong 😃

 

Pete, you are wrong in the way you are looking at this. The reason the purchaser has the coin for nothing is that Richard gave him his money back quite correctly under consumer protection and sale of goods laws, but the item subsequently arrived. That is the essence of the situation, as I explained before the compensation has nothing to do with the purchaser whether paid by RM or an insurance underwriter acting for RM. I suspect that Richard is under a legal obligation to return the compensation, if the small print is examined, whether or not the RM or underwriters pursue it. You really cannot expect Richard to carry legal and financial liability of a four figure sum just so the purchaser gets a free coin. He has not paid for the coin, as Richard gave him his money back, and until he does pay he has no right to the coin. The law really is pretty straightforward in this case, and I am sure if he is honourable he will make the payment or return the coin. If he refuses - which I doubt is likely- then he would be doing something wrong and word should get about, for the protection of us all!

Jerry

[jelida]

1 hour ago, terrysoldpennies said:

Surely if the Royal Mail  paid you compensation, then as it was also them that subsequently delivered the coin,  they are responsible as they should have withheld the coin and not deliver it .

I think the RM has a legal obligation to deliver the mail (unless to do so would in itself break the law) irrespective of ownership of the contents. The matter of compensation previously paid is dealt with independently. I suspect they would rather have the money back, than assume ownership of the temporarily lost item, which could of itself be subject to legal ownership dispute.

Jerry

[1949threepence]

2 hours ago, secret santa said:

Pete, I received the Royal Mail compensation and I'm paranoid that I would be liable to repay it if they pursue that course of action. That would leave me nearly £2.5K out of pocket with no recourse to the buyer. 

Richard, I'm not convinced that Royal Mail can pursue any claim against you, as the possibility of the item subsequently turning up much later, and being delivered, is not (as far as I can see) in their terms, conditions and exclusions of claim for loss. They define loss as follows:-

 

Quote

 

an item shall be deemed as lost if Royal Mail has not delivered it at the place to which it is addressed by the end of the tenth working day (or the fifth working day for Royal Mail Special Delivery Guaranteed by 1pm® (not posted on account) after its due date of delivery, unless there is evidence to the contrary to demonstrate that the item has not been lost.

 

There is no further qualification to this (as far as I can see). Hence, in the absence of such provision, the item surely remains still legally "lost". The "evidence to the contrary to demonstrate that the item has not been lost" surely only applies up to and including the end of that tenth day. If it doesn't exist then, which it didn't, it never can.

link to RM loss/compensation rules       

 

 

    

[PWA 1967]

42 minutes ago, jelida said:

Pete, you are wrong in the way you are looking at this. The reason the purchaser has the coin for nothing is that Richard gave him his money back quite correctly under consumer protection and sale of goods laws, but the item subsequently arrived. That is the essence of the situation, as I explained before the compensation has nothing to do with the purchaser whether paid by RM or an insurance underwriter acting for RM. I suspect that Richard is under a legal obligation to return the compensation, if the small print is examined, whether or not the RM or underwriters pursue it. You really cannot expect Richard to carry legal and financial liability of a four figure sum just so the purchaser gets a free coin. He has not paid for the coin, as Richard gave him his money back, and until he does pay he has no right to the coin. The law really is pretty straightforward in this case, and I am sure if he is honourable he will make the payment or return the coin. If he refuses - which I doubt is likely- then he would be doing something wrong and word should get about, for the protection of us all!

Jerry

I think for his own peace of mind Richard has done the right thing by asking someone who can give him the right legal answers.

I am sure it will get sorted out quickly and easily , my initial concern was someone doing or asking for something that was not legally right.

[jelida]

52 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Richard, I'm not convinced that Royal Mail can pursue any claim against you, as the possibility of the item subsequently turning up much later, and being delivered, is not (as far as I can see) in their terms, conditions and exclusions of claim for loss. They define loss as follows:-

 

There is no further qualification to this (as far as I can see). Hence, in the absence of such provision, the item surely remains still legally "lost". The "evidence to the contrary to demonstrate that the item has not been lost" surely only applies up to and including the end of that tenth day. If it doesn't exist then, which it didn't, it never can.

link to RM loss/compensation rules       

 

 

    

And there is further and more ‘in depth’ discussion of the rules regarding loss and compensation elsewhere on their site. The problem is that the coin is now known not to be lost, and as far as I can see the compensation is only an entitlement where the object is lost, as at one stage it was. The provision may no longer stand. However there is no mention of subsequently recovered objects in the published rules, though in general terms insurance compensation paid is taken to be in lieu of the object ownership in the event of recovery. If the purchaser is intent on getting the coin for free, then Richard is wise to be seeking legal advice, if indeed this is the case, and I look forward to hearing the outcome.

I would not feel comfortable selling/posting coins to any individual who declined to pay under these circumstances, on moral grounds irrespective of the law, and I hope it is not the case here.

Jerry