HL Deb 15 July 1975 vol 362 cc1107-10

3.1 p.m.

Lord WIGODER

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to give directions of a general character to the Post Office to make ex gratia payments as full compensation to customers aggrieved by the loss of registered inland packets who have been misled by out-of-date literature distributed by the Post Office into paying an insufficient charge.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I am advised that the Post Office is in principle and in certain cases prepared to give ex gratia payments to customers who have suffered financially as a result of negligence on its part. I do not think it would be appropriate to invoke the powers of the Secretary of State for Industry in order to direct the Post Office to make ex gratia payments. I can however tell the noble Lord that the Post Office is currently instructing its offices to destroy stocks of registered envelopes with the out-of-date fees printed on them.

Lord WIGODER

My Lords, I accept with gratitude the reply of the noble Lord. Will the noble Lord do his best to persuade the Post Office to deal with the following matter? In a recent case an unfortunate Mr. Thomas Moffatt of Cambridge purchased a registered envelope and paid the appropriate fee as printed on the envelope to cover himself against the loss of £500. He then found the Post Office, as a matter of law, successfully resisting his claim for the loss of the money on the ground that the envelope was out-of-date. Mr. Moffatt had covered himself, unbeknown to him, for only £150. Would the noble Lord indicate to the chairman of the Post Office that it would be appropriate in this case that not only should full compensation be paid, but also Mr. Moffatt's costs should be paid in bringing his unsuccessful action against the Post Office?

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I am aware of the recent case that has prompted the noble Lord's sympathy and concern, as indeed it has mine. This matter has been the subject of legal proceedings, and although the plaintiff lost the case I have noted the remarks of the judge, as quoted in the Press, which were critical of the Post Office. I am in no position to take sides, but I am sure the Post Office will have regard to any lessons which may be learned from this case.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that where the State has a monopoly on a necessity, such as in this case, they have a special responsibility to be fair to the customers who have no alternative but to use that service? The case quoted by the noble Lord would seem to be one where fairness will not be seen to be done unless, in addition to destroying out-of-date literature, which has now been done, the State faces up to the fact that, through the Post Office, they have a responsibility to this customer who was put to some trouble, expense and loss through no fault of his own.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I will pass on what the noble Lord has said to my right honourable friend. Without taking any sides, the account in the Press was not wholly accurate. I am informed that at one post office this customer bought an envelope with the wrong amount on it, then took it to another one where he was advised that he should pay rather more but, for some reason or other, did not do so.

Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON

My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us for how many months the Post Office was selling fraudulent registered envelopes, and what kind of proceedings would be taken against any private monopolist who engaged in a similarly fraudulent practice?

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I am advised that registered envelopes carrying information about registration fees, since superseded by those announced in February of this year, have, up to now, continued to be issued to the public. All post offices had been instructed to draw purchasers' attention to the fact that information carried on the backs of these envelopes was out of date by striking it through. The Post Office had decided to adopt this course, apparently, for reasons of economy. I understand that supplies of new envelopes are available now and the Post Office, since yesterday, have been instructing their offices to destroy old stock.

Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON

My Lords, will the Government assure us that this fraudulently obtained money will be repaid? To issue envelopes of this sort with this instruction is a fraud by any law.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, the Post Office of course always make ex gratia payments in what they regard as appropriate cases and where the negligence and liability is theirs.

Lord GOODMAN

My Lords, could the Minister tell us in a word why the Post Office does not regard this to be a suitable case in which to make an ex gratia payment?

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I must repeat that the Post Office is no longer a Government Department. It won its case, although the judge clearly had great sympathy with the plaintiff. For that reason, it is not prepared to give an ex gratia payment.

Lord KENNET

My Lords, is the Post Office going to fire the fool who permitted this to happen? If not, are the Government going to fire the head of the Post Office?

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, we will certainly take note of what my noble friend has said. I am still not happy that the new wording printed on the registered envelope is sufficiently clear. In fact, I bought one this morning and I was more confused when I left the post office than when I went in! I have therefore suggested this morning to the Post Office that the counter staff should give every customer buying a registered envelope an information sheet setting out clearly the registration fees and the various amounts of compensation. This suggestion is being considered.

Lord WIGODER

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the trial judge in this case found as a fact that the plaintiff was entirely truthful and was given no warning or indication whatsoever at any time by the Post Office that he was paying an insufficient charge.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I believe the judge was very sympathetic to the plaintiff; but there again, I do not want to take sides in this case.

Lord GOODMAN

My Lords, does the Minister know whether the amount of Ministerial and official time which has been expended on this matter may not in cost equate to considerably more than the £500? Would it not have been highly respectable to have made the payment without this rather discreditable argument?

Lord BYERS

My Lords, as the new stock is not satisfactory, is this going to be destroyed too?

Lord STRABOLGI

I hope not, my Lords. As I say, the instructions to destroy the old stock were given yesterday.

Lord MONSON

My Lords, in view of the grievous loss suffered by this innocent individual, can the noble Lord say whether the Post Office can be prosecuted, either under the Sale of Goods Act, or the Trade Descriptions Act 1968?

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, the charges and other terms and conditions applying to registration of postal packets and the limitations of Post Office liability are spelt out in Sections 28 to 30 of the Post Office Act 1969.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, is this not another case of one law for the rich and another for the poor?

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, with that useful rejoinder, may I suggest that we move to the next Question?