Took on the Post Office in 2016 - next steps thoughts please
Discussion
Long story
2016 an in-law bought a courier company in 2016
Having himself emptied his and his families bank account buying this business, he then discovered that the Post Office decided to refuse him a business account for handling parcels without him putting down some sort of bond for 20k. The upshot being they wouldn't let him interact with them or Parcel Force (despite the company having done so up to his takeover) without him handing over 20k for ko apparent reason
So far as i could tell they had no process that allowed them to do this, and on his behalf I decided to take them on. The stress it put on everyone was immense, as he had to get workarounds in place just to keep operating
Patiently following a process I got as far as Independent Tribunal requested when they suddenly backed down and offered to open his business account (albeit with attitude)
In light of recent events it is clear to me they were on a mission to extract money from all their partners to maximise profits at the time, with a compensation system internally that encouraged this behaviour
I am now thinking its time to pursue them for the aggravation and cost knowing what they did to those postmasters
Interested in thoughts/ opinions and any helpful information anyone might have. In my opinion as a minimum the person responsible should be sacked and compensation should be paid. My in-law was lucky to have my services for free, but why should he have needed any help in the first place? They have demonstrated that they operated as a law unto themselves, and a nasty piece of work at the best of times. What would you do?
2016 an in-law bought a courier company in 2016
Having himself emptied his and his families bank account buying this business, he then discovered that the Post Office decided to refuse him a business account for handling parcels without him putting down some sort of bond for 20k. The upshot being they wouldn't let him interact with them or Parcel Force (despite the company having done so up to his takeover) without him handing over 20k for ko apparent reason
So far as i could tell they had no process that allowed them to do this, and on his behalf I decided to take them on. The stress it put on everyone was immense, as he had to get workarounds in place just to keep operating
Patiently following a process I got as far as Independent Tribunal requested when they suddenly backed down and offered to open his business account (albeit with attitude)
In light of recent events it is clear to me they were on a mission to extract money from all their partners to maximise profits at the time, with a compensation system internally that encouraged this behaviour
I am now thinking its time to pursue them for the aggravation and cost knowing what they did to those postmasters
Interested in thoughts/ opinions and any helpful information anyone might have. In my opinion as a minimum the person responsible should be sacked and compensation should be paid. My in-law was lucky to have my services for free, but why should he have needed any help in the first place? They have demonstrated that they operated as a law unto themselves, and a nasty piece of work at the best of times. What would you do?
Edited by wsn03 on Thursday 25th January 10:37
Edited by wsn03 on Thursday 25th January 10:38
Edited by wsn03 on Thursday 25th January 11:00
Edited by wsn03 on Thursday 25th January 11:02
I don't think they had any legal requirement to provide banking services.
It is a relatively recent thing that basic banking services are required and even then, it is limited as to who has to provide them and what services they have to provide (i.e. the biggest 4 banks in the UK have to offer a basic account, which wouldn't include the post office).
Bonds for some business account services (payment processing) are afaik not that uncommon (covers refund obligations etc).
Also the post office don't run banking at all. They just act as a representative for other banks (Bank of Ireland according to google). Most of their banking stopped when NS&I was founded to separate it out.
I suspect you would have very little claim. The easy comparison would be a mechanic quoting £20k to change a lightbulb on a £5k car. They don't want to do the job so are quoting you something rediculous hoping you will go away.
That they stopped arguing at tribunal won't necessarily help you - They just decided it was cheaper to give in than arguing.
So for any compensation claim, all the post office would have to do is prove on balance of probability that they didn't demand the bond/refuse service due to a protected characteristic (i.e. it wasn't discrimination)
It is a relatively recent thing that basic banking services are required and even then, it is limited as to who has to provide them and what services they have to provide (i.e. the biggest 4 banks in the UK have to offer a basic account, which wouldn't include the post office).
Bonds for some business account services (payment processing) are afaik not that uncommon (covers refund obligations etc).
Also the post office don't run banking at all. They just act as a representative for other banks (Bank of Ireland according to google). Most of their banking stopped when NS&I was founded to separate it out.
I suspect you would have very little claim. The easy comparison would be a mechanic quoting £20k to change a lightbulb on a £5k car. They don't want to do the job so are quoting you something rediculous hoping you will go away.
That they stopped arguing at tribunal won't necessarily help you - They just decided it was cheaper to give in than arguing.
So for any compensation claim, all the post office would have to do is prove on balance of probability that they didn't demand the bond/refuse service due to a protected characteristic (i.e. it wasn't discrimination)
Ham_and_Jam said:
Move on. Sounds like it caused your family grief back then but with no lasting financial implications.
You would just be opening old wounds for the sake of it.
That is the reason outfits like the Post Office get away with stuff - there were lots of implications.You would just be opening old wounds for the sake of it.
For the sake of it? Good grief. For righting a wrong more like. Where have people's backbones gone?
I'm a bit confused.. OP tell me if I've got this wrong..
A family member of yours took over a parcel delivery company. They wanted to expand the business by taking on work for Royal Mail ( POL is just counter services, RM deals with the delivery of items ). One of the conditions of business was that the company pt down £20k. This was I am assuming some sort of security bond to stop any tom dick and harry starting a delivery company with a Transit and stealing a load of post.
After that I'm lost.... which bit are you unhappy with?
A family member of yours took over a parcel delivery company. They wanted to expand the business by taking on work for Royal Mail ( POL is just counter services, RM deals with the delivery of items ). One of the conditions of business was that the company pt down £20k. This was I am assuming some sort of security bond to stop any tom dick and harry starting a delivery company with a Transit and stealing a load of post.
After that I'm lost.... which bit are you unhappy with?
wsn03 said:
That is the reason outfits like the Post Office get away with stuff - there were lots of implications.
For the sake of it? Good grief. For righting a wrong more like. Where have people's backbones gone?
Can you highlight the ‘wrong’ please.For the sake of it? Good grief. For righting a wrong more like. Where have people's backbones gone?
I’m confused as it just sounds like they were asking for a bond, which I’m assuming was returned when the contract terminated.
Regarding backbone, I’ve been in business for 20 years and have fought many a battle but always choose wisely.
wsn03 said:
I need to edit my post. This was for a parcel servis account, nothing to do with banking
Though the arguments re no obligation to provide service still apply.They had a legal obligation for universal service - i.e. you can buy stamps and send items anywhere in the UK for a fixed rate (vs size/weight) with guarantees about how often they deliver and requirements for minimum service (i.e. average time for 2nd class delivery must be within X days, first class within Y days, delivering X days/week).
They also afaik had some obligations about letting companies buy stamps at a discounted rate for resale (i.e. royal mail stamp prices include a (30% iirc) profit for the retailer and I think almost anyone can apply to resell them).
But I can't see anything else that would obligate working with a parcel shop.
Nurburgsingh said:
I'm a bit confused.. OP tell me if I've got this wrong..
A family member of yours took over a parcel delivery company. They wanted to expand the business by taking on work for Royal Mail ( POL is just counter services, RM deals with the delivery of items ). One of the conditions of business was that the company pt down £20k. This was I am assuming some sort of security bond to stop any tom dick and harry starting a delivery company with a Transit and stealing a load of post.
After that I'm lost.... which bit are you unhappy with?
I assumed that it was to open an account to send parcels, ie. they would take parcels from businesses and deliver some themselves, send some to UPS, some to Royal Mail. Possibly the bond is to enable a credit account, to minimise the chances of the business sending a large number of parcels and then winding up?A family member of yours took over a parcel delivery company. They wanted to expand the business by taking on work for Royal Mail ( POL is just counter services, RM deals with the delivery of items ). One of the conditions of business was that the company pt down £20k. This was I am assuming some sort of security bond to stop any tom dick and harry starting a delivery company with a Transit and stealing a load of post.
After that I'm lost.... which bit are you unhappy with?
wsn03 said:
Long story
2016 an in-law bought a courier company in 2016
Having himself emptied his and his families bank account buying this business, he then discovered that the Post Office decided to refuse him a business account for handling parcels without him putting down some sort of bond for 20k. The upshot being they wouldn't let him interact with them or Parcel Force (despite the company having done so up to his takeover) without him handing over 20k for ko apparent reason
So far as i could tell they had no process that allowed them to do this, and on his behalf I decided to take them on. The stress it put on everyone was immense, as he had to get workarounds in place just to keep operating
Patiently following a process I got as far as Independent Tribunal requested when they suddenly backed down and offered to open his business account (albeit with attitude)
In light of recent events it is clear to me they were on a mission to extract money from all their partners to maximise profits at the time, with a compensation system internally that encouraged this behaviour
I am now thinking its time to pursue them for the aggravation and cost knowing what they did to those postmasters
Interested in thoughts/ opinions and any helpful information anyone might have. In my opinion as a minimum the person responsible should be sacked and compensation should be paid. My in-law was lucky to have my services for free, but why should he have needed any help in the first place? They have demonstrated that they operated as a law unto themselves, and a nasty piece of work at the best of times. What would you do?
Bearing in mind that this is a completely different issue to the Sub Postmasters / Horizon one you will have to prove that they behaved illegally (you won't be able to say "Look, they were dodgy over there so they must have been dodgy over here". FWIW having a £20k bond doesn't increase their profits, it's not income from their point of view, it just sits in a suspense account somewhere until it's repaid or utilised.2016 an in-law bought a courier company in 2016
Having himself emptied his and his families bank account buying this business, he then discovered that the Post Office decided to refuse him a business account for handling parcels without him putting down some sort of bond for 20k. The upshot being they wouldn't let him interact with them or Parcel Force (despite the company having done so up to his takeover) without him handing over 20k for ko apparent reason
So far as i could tell they had no process that allowed them to do this, and on his behalf I decided to take them on. The stress it put on everyone was immense, as he had to get workarounds in place just to keep operating
Patiently following a process I got as far as Independent Tribunal requested when they suddenly backed down and offered to open his business account (albeit with attitude)
In light of recent events it is clear to me they were on a mission to extract money from all their partners to maximise profits at the time, with a compensation system internally that encouraged this behaviour
I am now thinking its time to pursue them for the aggravation and cost knowing what they did to those postmasters
Interested in thoughts/ opinions and any helpful information anyone might have. In my opinion as a minimum the person responsible should be sacked and compensation should be paid. My in-law was lucky to have my services for free, but why should he have needed any help in the first place? They have demonstrated that they operated as a law unto themselves, and a nasty piece of work at the best of times. What would you do?
So, given how long it took and how much it cost for the Subpostmasters to prove their case, are you willing to go through a similar process, especially when your grounds for doing so aren't as robust?
Gareth79 said:
Nurburgsingh said:
I'm a bit confused.. OP tell me if I've got this wrong..
A family member of yours took over a parcel delivery company. They wanted to expand the business by taking on work for Royal Mail ( POL is just counter services, RM deals with the delivery of items ). One of the conditions of business was that the company pt down £20k. This was I am assuming some sort of security bond to stop any tom dick and harry starting a delivery company with a Transit and stealing a load of post.
After that I'm lost.... which bit are you unhappy with?
I assumed that it was to open an account to send parcels, ie. they would take parcels from businesses and deliver some themselves, send some to UPS, some to Royal Mail. Possibly the bond is to enable a credit account, to minimise the chances of the business sending a large number of parcels and then winding up?A family member of yours took over a parcel delivery company. They wanted to expand the business by taking on work for Royal Mail ( POL is just counter services, RM deals with the delivery of items ). One of the conditions of business was that the company pt down £20k. This was I am assuming some sort of security bond to stop any tom dick and harry starting a delivery company with a Transit and stealing a load of post.
After that I'm lost.... which bit are you unhappy with?
Nurburgsingh said:
I'm a bit confused.. OP tell me if I've got this wrong..
A family member of yours took over a parcel delivery company. They wanted to expand the business by taking on work for Royal Mail ( POL is just counter services, RM deals with the delivery of items ). One of the conditions of business was that the company pt down £20k. This was I am assuming some sort of security bond to stop any tom dick and harry starting a delivery company with a Transit and stealing a load of post.
After that I'm lost.... which bit are you unhappy with?
^^^^ This. The story makes no sense whatsoever. I expect that RM rolled over because they couldn't stand arguing with the OP as it was like arguing with Professor Stanley Unwin A family member of yours took over a parcel delivery company. They wanted to expand the business by taking on work for Royal Mail ( POL is just counter services, RM deals with the delivery of items ). One of the conditions of business was that the company pt down £20k. This was I am assuming some sort of security bond to stop any tom dick and harry starting a delivery company with a Transit and stealing a load of post.
After that I'm lost.... which bit are you unhappy with?
I have been running a courier company for 30 years
Never needed to have a parcel account so I can only assume that his plan was to be a parcel reseller
Rm/ Parcel force would have seen the business model and would have recognised the risk as these resellers go bust all the time owing them thousands . They simply required a bond
Only a few days ago on Monday a parcel reseller went bust owing thousands to the main parcel companies
So in my experience nothing out of the ordinary. He had a choice to go to one of the other parcel company's RM were not forcing him to do business and hand over a security payment
Never needed to have a parcel account so I can only assume that his plan was to be a parcel reseller
Rm/ Parcel force would have seen the business model and would have recognised the risk as these resellers go bust all the time owing them thousands . They simply required a bond
Only a few days ago on Monday a parcel reseller went bust owing thousands to the main parcel companies
So in my experience nothing out of the ordinary. He had a choice to go to one of the other parcel company's RM were not forcing him to do business and hand over a security payment
MrBen.911 said:
Sounds mostly that the relative did not do their due diligence before buying the company. If the company was reliant on an account with Royal Mail, that would be one of the first things to check out, surely?
This plus a basic understanding that Royal Mail and Post Office are not the same organisation and were not in 2016 either?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff