[h=1]SINGPOST GAVE MY CONFIDENTIAL LETTERS TO OTHERS AND IDA DOESN'T CARE[/h]
Post date:
25 Apr 2015 - 11:00am
Dear TRS,
This is in continuation to my former complaint on Singpost in November 2014 DEAR TRS, SINGPOST BLATANTLY LEAVES OPEN THE MASTER DOORS AND DELIVERS JUNK MAIL, they have just created another unforgivable erroneous mistake again in January 2015. Previously, they have left the HDB Letterbox Masterdoor unlocked jeopardising the security and confidentiality of all mails to the residents.
I was supposed to receive my annual consolidated CPF statement from CPF Board in January 2015 but did not receive it. During late February 2015, I received a letter from CPF asking me to confirm my address when I did not relocate myself. Later, I called up CPF Board and it was confirmed that my Private and Confidential CPF Statement was bound back to them when they tried to send it to me earlier in January 2015.
As such, I made a formal request for them to write to me officially stating the reason demanding me to confirm my address so that I can bring it up to IDA. But however, IDA decided to cover up for Singpost for the mis-delivery of my Private and Confidential by NOT taking any form of action on them! At first, they tried to push my complaint to them by forwarding my complaint email directly to Singpost without my permission. Then, later on they said "While IDA evaluates the overall delivery performance of SingPost against the standards set, IDA recognises that mail delivery is labour-intensive and isolated cases of mail misdelivery may still occur".
Does it mean that residents should accept the fact that their Private and Confidential Mails from official authorities are compromised? What is wrong with the affected resident complaining to IDA about the mis-delivery service by the Postal Service Licensee? IDA is supposed to be the authority overseeing their performance but they are not taking any form of actions on mis-delivery of mails by Singpost although they claimed that they are very serious about ensuring risk of loss, theft and damage is minimised. Have Singpost not been found to have breach of Public Postal Licence in these two cases? Have the service standard of Singpost improved after the increase in postage pricing in October 2014?
Would you mind if your neighbours read your CPF Statement of Account when the postman deliver wrongly? What do you think?
Please refer to the sequential email replies from IDA. Their message to me were as follows:
Post date:
25 Apr 2015 - 11:00am
Dear TRS,
This is in continuation to my former complaint on Singpost in November 2014 DEAR TRS, SINGPOST BLATANTLY LEAVES OPEN THE MASTER DOORS AND DELIVERS JUNK MAIL, they have just created another unforgivable erroneous mistake again in January 2015. Previously, they have left the HDB Letterbox Masterdoor unlocked jeopardising the security and confidentiality of all mails to the residents.
I was supposed to receive my annual consolidated CPF statement from CPF Board in January 2015 but did not receive it. During late February 2015, I received a letter from CPF asking me to confirm my address when I did not relocate myself. Later, I called up CPF Board and it was confirmed that my Private and Confidential CPF Statement was bound back to them when they tried to send it to me earlier in January 2015.
As such, I made a formal request for them to write to me officially stating the reason demanding me to confirm my address so that I can bring it up to IDA. But however, IDA decided to cover up for Singpost for the mis-delivery of my Private and Confidential by NOT taking any form of action on them! At first, they tried to push my complaint to them by forwarding my complaint email directly to Singpost without my permission. Then, later on they said "While IDA evaluates the overall delivery performance of SingPost against the standards set, IDA recognises that mail delivery is labour-intensive and isolated cases of mail misdelivery may still occur".
Does it mean that residents should accept the fact that their Private and Confidential Mails from official authorities are compromised? What is wrong with the affected resident complaining to IDA about the mis-delivery service by the Postal Service Licensee? IDA is supposed to be the authority overseeing their performance but they are not taking any form of actions on mis-delivery of mails by Singpost although they claimed that they are very serious about ensuring risk of loss, theft and damage is minimised. Have Singpost not been found to have breach of Public Postal Licence in these two cases? Have the service standard of Singpost improved after the increase in postage pricing in October 2014?
Would you mind if your neighbours read your CPF Statement of Account when the postman deliver wrongly? What do you think?
Please refer to the sequential email replies from IDA. Their message to me were as follows:
31 Mar 2015 (Latest)
Dear Sir
We have provided you with the information and explanation to your case. We note your concerns on SingPost’s delivery performance and as shared in our earlier replies, IDA recognises the importance of ensuring that SingPost maintains certain minimum service delivery standards. IDA is monitoring, and will continue to monitor, closely SingPost’s performance to ensure that it meets the required mail integrity and delivery service standards. In this regard, we regret to inform you that unless there is new information that you would like to share with us, we are unable to assist you Further on this matter.
Thank you for your understanding.
Fatimah Marican (Ms)
Dear Sir
We have provided you with the information and explanation to your case. We note your concerns on SingPost’s delivery performance and as shared in our earlier replies, IDA recognises the importance of ensuring that SingPost maintains certain minimum service delivery standards. IDA is monitoring, and will continue to monitor, closely SingPost’s performance to ensure that it meets the required mail integrity and delivery service standards. In this regard, we regret to inform you that unless there is new information that you would like to share with us, we are unable to assist you Further on this matter.
Thank you for your understanding.
Fatimah Marican (Ms)
31 Mar 2015
Dear Sir/Mdm
IDA notes SingPost’s explanation that the 2 black lines and the word “Moved” on the envelope were not written by its postman. SingPost acknowledged that the letter could have been misdelivered to another unit in the block and the unit where the letter was misdelivered to wrote the ‘Moved’ word.
IDA has imposed stringent service delivery standards on SingPost for compliance and had imposed financial penalties against SingPost for failing such service delivery standards (please refer to the weblink http://www.ida.gov.sg/Policies-and-Regulations/Industry-and-Licensees/Competition-Management/Enforcement-Decisions/Determinations-and-Enforcement for more details on these past cases). While IDA evaluates the overall delivery performance of SingPost against the standards set, IDA recognises that mail delivery is labour-intensive and isolated cases of mail misdelivery may still occur.
SingPost has apologised for the unpleasant experience you had with their services on 10 March 2015, and IDA has reminded SingPost to monitor mail addressed to your unit to minimise reoccurrences of mail misdelivery.
We hope the above clarifies.
Fatimah Marican (Ms)
Dear Sir/Mdm
IDA notes SingPost’s explanation that the 2 black lines and the word “Moved” on the envelope were not written by its postman. SingPost acknowledged that the letter could have been misdelivered to another unit in the block and the unit where the letter was misdelivered to wrote the ‘Moved’ word.
IDA has imposed stringent service delivery standards on SingPost for compliance and had imposed financial penalties against SingPost for failing such service delivery standards (please refer to the weblink http://www.ida.gov.sg/Policies-and-Regulations/Industry-and-Licensees/Competition-Management/Enforcement-Decisions/Determinations-and-Enforcement for more details on these past cases). While IDA evaluates the overall delivery performance of SingPost against the standards set, IDA recognises that mail delivery is labour-intensive and isolated cases of mail misdelivery may still occur.
SingPost has apologised for the unpleasant experience you had with their services on 10 March 2015, and IDA has reminded SingPost to monitor mail addressed to your unit to minimise reoccurrences of mail misdelivery.
We hope the above clarifies.
Fatimah Marican (Ms)
25 Mar 2015
Dear Sir/Mdm
We refer to your email dated 21 March 2015.
IDA has replied your email of 19 March 2015 on 20 March 2015.
When end users highlight their individual service issues with us, we will ask the service provider concerned to look into the matter and to address the issue with the end user quickly. In your case, as the feedback relates to a mis-delivered mail, we have shared your feedback with SingPost in confidence so that they may investigate your case. We sincerely apologise for not seeking your agreement earlier for us to share your email with SingPost to facilitate the investigation.
We noted that SingPost has apologised for the unpleasant experience you had with their services on 10 March 2015. As explained in our reply of 20 March 2015, SingPost had interpreted the “moved” marking on the letter cover to mean that the occupant of the unit who received the mail was no longer the addressee indicated on the letter and that the addressee had moved. Hence, SingPost returned the mail to the sender, CPF. We have requested SingPost to monitor the mail delivery in your area to keep incidents of mis-delivery or lost mails to the minimum.
We hope the above has addressed the concerns raised.
Thank you for your feedback.
Fatimah Marican (Ms)
Dear Sir/Mdm
We refer to your email dated 21 March 2015.
IDA has replied your email of 19 March 2015 on 20 March 2015.
When end users highlight their individual service issues with us, we will ask the service provider concerned to look into the matter and to address the issue with the end user quickly. In your case, as the feedback relates to a mis-delivered mail, we have shared your feedback with SingPost in confidence so that they may investigate your case. We sincerely apologise for not seeking your agreement earlier for us to share your email with SingPost to facilitate the investigation.
We noted that SingPost has apologised for the unpleasant experience you had with their services on 10 March 2015. As explained in our reply of 20 March 2015, SingPost had interpreted the “moved” marking on the letter cover to mean that the occupant of the unit who received the mail was no longer the addressee indicated on the letter and that the addressee had moved. Hence, SingPost returned the mail to the sender, CPF. We have requested SingPost to monitor the mail delivery in your area to keep incidents of mis-delivery or lost mails to the minimum.
We hope the above has addressed the concerns raised.
Thank you for your feedback.
Fatimah Marican (Ms)
20 Mar 2015
Dear Sir/Mdm
Further to our email dated 11 March 2015, we have clarified with SingPost on your feedback.
With regard to your feedback on the returned letter from CPF board with the reason marked as “Moved”, SingPost shared that it was unable to ascertain the reason of the mis-delivery as such a marking would usually imply that the occupant of the unit has received the mail and confirmed that the addressee is no longer residing in the unit. In this case, the mail was endorsed and returned to the sender. SingPost verified with the postman serving your area and confirmed that the 2 black lines and the word “Moved” indicated on the envelope were not written by the postman. SingPost further shared that the mentioned mail was found in the Returned Mail Box.
We would like to assure you that IDA recognises the importance of ensuring that SingPost provides and maintains a good and reliable public postal service system. IDA has put in place a Quality of Service (QoS) framework for SingPost’s basic letter delivery service. However, we seek the public’s understanding that, as mail delivery is a labour-intensive business, involving physical collection, sorting, transportation and delivery, there may be instances whereby mail delivery could be delayed or mis-delivered due to various operational reasons on the ground. Tracking of individual ordinary mails that are not registered and are posted via the public postal network is also not possible due to the large volume of ordinary mails handled daily. IDA’s QoS requirements seek to ensure that SingPost keeps incidents of mis-delivery or lost mails to the minimum.
We hope the above clarifies and thank you for your feedback.
Regards,
Fatimah Marican (Ms)
Dear Sir/Mdm
Further to our email dated 11 March 2015, we have clarified with SingPost on your feedback.
With regard to your feedback on the returned letter from CPF board with the reason marked as “Moved”, SingPost shared that it was unable to ascertain the reason of the mis-delivery as such a marking would usually imply that the occupant of the unit has received the mail and confirmed that the addressee is no longer residing in the unit. In this case, the mail was endorsed and returned to the sender. SingPost verified with the postman serving your area and confirmed that the 2 black lines and the word “Moved” indicated on the envelope were not written by the postman. SingPost further shared that the mentioned mail was found in the Returned Mail Box.
We would like to assure you that IDA recognises the importance of ensuring that SingPost provides and maintains a good and reliable public postal service system. IDA has put in place a Quality of Service (QoS) framework for SingPost’s basic letter delivery service. However, we seek the public’s understanding that, as mail delivery is a labour-intensive business, involving physical collection, sorting, transportation and delivery, there may be instances whereby mail delivery could be delayed or mis-delivered due to various operational reasons on the ground. Tracking of individual ordinary mails that are not registered and are posted via the public postal network is also not possible due to the large volume of ordinary mails handled daily. IDA’s QoS requirements seek to ensure that SingPost keeps incidents of mis-delivery or lost mails to the minimum.
We hope the above clarifies and thank you for your feedback.
Regards,
Fatimah Marican (Ms)
11 Mar 2015
Dear Sir/ Mdm,
We refer to your email dated 10 March 2015.
We will like to explain that as your feedback involved SingPost and the mis-delivered mail you had highlighted to IDA, we have shared your email in confidence with SingPost so that they can contact you to find out more details and better investigate your case. SingPost, being the service provider, will be in a better position to address your feedback.
We apologise if we have not made this clear to you thus far. Nonetheless, we hope to provide you a reply as soon as possible on the findings. We seek your kind understanding and patience in the meantime. Thank you.
Regards,
Fatimah Marican (Ms)
Is this acceptable?Dear Sir/ Mdm,
We refer to your email dated 10 March 2015.
We will like to explain that as your feedback involved SingPost and the mis-delivered mail you had highlighted to IDA, we have shared your email in confidence with SingPost so that they can contact you to find out more details and better investigate your case. SingPost, being the service provider, will be in a better position to address your feedback.
We apologise if we have not made this clear to you thus far. Nonetheless, we hope to provide you a reply as soon as possible on the findings. We seek your kind understanding and patience in the meantime. Thank you.
Regards,
Fatimah Marican (Ms)
