If you mail glasses, you’re not covered for loss unless insured

The reason is that under the present Australia Post regulations, the organisation is not bound to pay compensation in the event of loss, despite having changed its ‘house rules’ in April without any warning to its clientele (before or after) – which is still the case eight months later.This state of affairs came to light when Mr MacMahon decided to take on Australia Post after it initially denied him compensation, later offering him a paltry $50, which he refused to accept.Mr MacMahon took the matter to the New South Wales Consumer, Traders & Tenancy Tribunal on 30 October.After a brief discussion with Mr MacMahon (Australia Post did not appear), Tribunal Mber Gray ordered Australia Post pay Chris MacMahon Optometrists Pty Ltd the sum of $525, being $475 refund (payable immediately) for the lost it plus $50 paid previously by money order by Australia Post (but not banked by Mr MacMahon).The orders said that if Australia Post did not comply with the order to pay money, a certified copy of the money order could be obtained from the tribunal for the purpose of enforcent action through the Local Court.Australia Post had the opportunity to appeal the decision, however decided not to do so.The article concerned was posted from the University of Sydney (where Mr MacMahon practises) on 22 May, but was never received by the addressee (Mr MacMahon’s patient), nor was any note left in her letterbox to inform her that the article had been returned to the Post Office and could be collected there.A check of the Australia Post website showed the article was “on board with driver for delivery today”. It was never shown as “delivered”.Mr MacMahon took up the matter with Australia Post, to be told the article was probably lost and, initially, that no compensation was payable.He was told at various stages that he was entitled to compensation, then he was told that Australia Post had altered its terms and conditions in April and that no compensation was payable.All though this, Mr MacMahon had to deal with various people, known as ‘Amber’ (no surname), ‘Fotini A’ (no surname) and ‘ID#64957880’. Towards the end of the saga, he got to deal with a person who actually divulged his surname as well as his first name or his #ID!Mr MacMahon informed Australia Post that he purchased bags at Rozelle Post Office and was never informed of the new insurance requirent, either by staff or by in-store signage.Furthermore, on a previous occasion he had been compensated when an article was lost in the mail.By contrast, he had to supply a new pair of spectacles to the patient in the current instance.When he referred the matter to the Ombudsman, it was passed on to yet another Australia Post ployee, who said he had no knowledge of Mr MacMahon’s complaint nor any correspondence between him and his organisation.That eventually led to an offer of $50 ‘special compensation’ as the article was probably delivered to the wrong address and lost.Mr MacMahon refused to accept the offer and then complained to NSW Consumer Affairs’ Consumer, Traders & Tenancy Tribunal.

Chris MacMahon

Send this to a friend