Case Studies
CASE 1: Just my mail—please!
What the concern was
Sally lives in a rural community and her mail delivery is to a centralized mailbox. Sally contacted the ombudsman because she’s tired of receiving her neighbour’s mail and her neighbour is tired of receiving Sally’s mail. Although she reported her concerns to Canada Post, the problems continued.
What the ombudsman discovered:
- The people sending mail to Sally had been using her rural route (RR) designation rather than her civic address.
- The delivery employee recently assigned to the route lacked local knowledge to match Sally’s rural route to the proper civic address, resulting in misdeliveries.
- The labelling in the centralized mailbox and the sortation case used by the delivery agent reflected the correct civic address and customer name.
- Sally had not informed all her correspondents of her proper mailing address.
Lessons learned
The delivery employee should have alerted his supervisor of the continued use of the rural route designation in Sally’s address. Local management could have notified Sally of the addressing problem and its impact on accurate delivery service.
CASE 2: Old deals get challenged
What the concern was
Bob lives in a rooming house. Several years ago, the mailbox for the building was removed due to concerns about vandalism. At that time, the landlord requested that all tenants’ mail be delivered in a mailbag to his off-site office. Bob came to the ombudsman challenging Canada Post’s delivery practice; he wanted his mail to be delivered directly to him, rather than through the landlord.
What the ombudsman discovered:
- The primary mode of delivery to this address is to the door by letter carrier.
- The building in which Bob resides is recognized by the municipality as one civic address, meaning that all mail should be delivered to one receptacle at the front of the building, regardless of the number of tenants who reside in the building.
Lessons learned
Delivering a consolidated mailbag to the landlord at an off-site address is not in compliance with company delivery policy. Bob was advised that since the building in which he resides is considered a single civic address, mail delivery would be to a single mailbox. Bob learned that, for a fee, he could rent a postal box as an alternate mode of delivery if he didn’t want his landlord or other tenants to access his mail in the shared mailbox.
CASE 3: Product knowledge is important
What the concern was
John is a business owner who often mails jewelry by Priority™ from the same local post office. He always purchases additional insurance coverage for the items he sends. When one of John’s shipments was declared lost, he came to the ombudsman challenging Canada Post’s decision to provide him with only a refund of $500 rather than $2,000, which is the coverage he claimed to have purchased.
What the ombudsman discovered:
- John’s postage receipt showed that additional coverage in the amount of $2,000 was indeed purchased, even though product specifications only allow maximum coverage of $500 for jewelry.
- By means of a “mystery shopper” call to the post office, the ombudsman was able to confirm that the staff was not aware of the insurance limitation on jewelry.
Lessons learned
In the spirit of fairness, both parties share responsibility in this instance. Since John’s business mails jewelry frequently, he should be familiar with Canada Post’s insurance restrictions for items of such value. On the other hand, Canada Post sold John the insurance coverage, thus leading him to believe that he was entitled to the coverage. As a one-time good will gesture, Canada Post reimbursed John for 50 per cent of the jewelry’s value.