Retailers hit at railway theft

Press, 19 October 1976, Page 4

Retailers hit at railway theft

PA Wellington The Retailers' Federation has attacked the Railways Department about what it terms the department's “appalling rate of losses through pillaging." “Railways staff are unperturbed by the situation, and treat it as a normal commercial risk, which they allow for, and expect retailers to budget for in the normal course of business,” according to the latest issue of “Retail News,” the federation’s official organ. The maximum carriers’ liability of $4O for a package now payable under law becomes “ludicrous” when it is applied to the railways, with their pillaging losses, says the report. “Efforts to get consignees’ insurance cover on ship-

ments, particularly of radio, stereo, and television equipment, fail in the light of the sky-high rates quoted by underwriting companies, although this is hardly surprising in view of the equally sky-high risk.” "Retail News” says that one Wellington retailer’s table of losses between the start of this financial year and August 1 stood at $2860 — nearly all stereo equipment. “There have long been grounds for suspicion that this pillaging is not casual, that it is the work of a highly-organised crime ring, organised both for initial pillaging operations and then for disposal of the stolen goods. “There is also the suspicion that they are a pretty heavy mob, quite capable of intimidating honest Railways staff who might otherwise be expected to ‘speak up.’ ”

The Railways Deputy Chief Traffic Manager (Mr R. L. Raine) replied that before the Railways could report a theft to the police, the deparment must be sure the item was stolen, and not merely misdelivered. This required investigation, and confirmation from the firm concerned, he said. Firms often took time to do this. Mr Raine repeated the comment of the Chief Traffic Manager (Mr K. M. Thompson) that incorrect tallying, documentation and addressing was often the cause of misdelivery. Each week, the Railways collected about 50 unidentifiable consignments because of shortcomings in addressing, he said. “It is preferable that the only marking on the outside of packages are the address and handling instructions, to discourage pillaging.” The $4O claimed was the maximum allowed for all common carriers, not just the Railways, he said. Individual consignments could be insured separately with the Railways or with an insurance company.