Many Parcels Badly Packed

Press, Volume CV, Issue 30953, 8 January 1966, Page 14

Many Parcels Badly Packed

A piece of brown paper bearing the name of an Auckland business firm lies on a desk in the investigation room at the Chief Post Office in Christchurch.

A faint, almost imperceptible, smell of whisky still permeates the paper, which was used by the firm as a wrapper in which to send the bottle to a client in Christchurch as a Christmas present. On the way, the bottle was broken.

The Post Office considers this is just bad luck for the client A Post Office spokesman said that the department could not be expected to accept responsibility for the safe delivery of a bottle of whisky wrapped in one flimsy sheet of brown paper. The broken bottle was among a small collection cf damaged items held at the I Post Office after the Christ-] mas mail rush.

In all. the spokesman said there had been relatively little damage to mail over the

Christmas period or in the preceding months. Between April and December, 1965, the Post Office paid out compensation on damaged articles at the rate of 10 a month.

Most of the damaged goods were fragile articles such as drinking glasses, crockely, and plates. “Had they been packed properly they would have been delivered intact,” the spokesman said. Certain procedure in Post Office regulations governed the care and final dispatch of damaged goods. When persons complained after receiving damaged goods ir. the post, a senior postal official, usually the deputychief postmaster, examined them to decide whether compensation should be made. This depended on the standard of packing. If this was considered reasonable, the Post Office would accept responsibility.

The addressee would then be entitled to have the article replaced or would be invited to choose something else of

equivalent value. At times, this enabled persons who received unwanted goods to obtain something of their own choice.

Whenever postal officials found goods to be damaged the addressee was notified and advised whether the Post Office would pay compensation.

Although the incidence of damage had fallen recently, postal officials still found that thousands of parcels were inadequately packed. By comparison with goods arriving in parcels from overseas, New Zealand goods were generally badly packed. This was probably because New Zealand was one of only a few countries offering a fragile service. The Post Office spokesman said that because a parcel was marked fragile it did not mean that it was automatically immune from damage. Fragile mail was handled separately, but was still liable to damage if not properly packed. A box of coloured drinking glasses valued at about £5 sent at fragile rates had been damaged because the packing

around the glasses was almost useless. It was obvious that the sender had sent them in the container supplied by the store which sold (hem.

The spokesman said that the onus was on the sender to ensure that goods were properly packed if he wanted to be reasonably certain that they would arrive safely Persons who sent liquids through the post were liable for damage to other mail if the liquids escaped. They could also be liable for injury to mail handlers caused by broken glass. Regulations forbade the transit of such items as matches and ammunition because of their danger. Postal officials always removed such items from parcels if they became aware of their presence.

The Post Office has accepted responsibility for damage to foodstuffs if considered adequately packed Occasionally rats have gnawed their way into Christmas puddings and cakes. To ensure safe delivery of such articles as well as fruit the Post Office recommends the use of sealed tins.