Story of a complaint: Israel Postal Company

In conjunction with the publication of the report on the Israel Postal Company, the Office of the Ombudsman continues to handle on a regular basis complaints received about the company

In conjunction with the audit report relating to the Israel Postal Company, which was published on 05.02.2019, the Office of the Ombudsman in the Office of the State Comptroller continues to handle, on a regular basis, complaints received about the Postal Company. In recent years, the number of complaints filed with the Office has increased.  The Israel Postal Company is the audited body against which the highest percentage of justified complaints were filed: 74.2% in 2017, whereas the overall percentage of justified complaints for that year stood at 32.2%. It appears that this trend continued into 2018.

The main complaint issues were the returning of post on the grounds of its "not being claimed", without two notices having been sent to the addressee; disorder in the postal courier service; hitches in the dispatch of post; mishaps in the distribution of postal items and their delivery to addressees and faults with the 171 call center.

The following are examples of complaints about the Postal Company that were investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman over the past two years:

The parcel did not arrive and the bridgegroom had to spend the "Groom's Sabbath" without the "Sabbath Night Seder" booklets of blessings and songs

The owner of a printing house sent by postal courier service a parcel containing 80 "Sabbath Night Seder" booklets of blessings and songs, ordered for the "Groom's Sabbath". The parcel did not reach its destination at the promised time, nor did it arrive the next day. The complainant was told that the parcel had disappeared and its whereabouts unknown. So as not to ruin the event, nor cause anguish to the family celebrating it, the complainant was forced to reprint and resend the booklets, at his own expense. Following his complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman, the postal company compensated the complainant. [The complaint was published (in Hebrew) in Annual Report 44 of the Office of the Ombudsman]

The courier could not find parking - the delivery was cancelled

A courier of the postal courier service asked a disabled complainant to go down into the street in order to receive his parcel. After the complainant explained to him that he could not go down due to his disability, the courier left without delivering the parcel. The courier reported to the Postal Company that the complainant had refused to receive the item. Following the Ombudsman's investigation, it transpired that the courier had not gone up to the complainant's apartment because of parking difficulties. In response, the courier was summoned to the manager who clarified before him the procedures in order to prevent similar incidents. Furthermore, the manager of the call center contacted the complainant and ensured that the parcel was delivered to him.

The disabled person's card was not honoured in the queue at the post office

The complainant was forced to wait in a queue at a post office despite her holding a disabled person's card entitling her, by law, to exemption from queuing. Following the inquiry of the Office of the Ombudsman, the manager of the post office spoke to the complainant and apologized for the incident. He claimed that the mistake was caused by the transmission of incomplete information. The Office of the Ombudsman pointed out to the Postal Company the need to refresh the matter of queue exemption for holders of appropriate disabled person's cards in the post offices.

The postman delivered the parcel to a person without checking his identity

A complainant who expected to receive a parcel from the Postal Company discovered, in the framework of the "delivery tracking" service on the website of the company, that the parcel she was waiting for had already been delivered. The complainant insisted that she had not received the parcel and that the signature appearing on the delivery confirmation was not her signature. The investigation of the Office of the Ombudsman disclosed that when the postman arrived at the complainant's apartment building, he was approached by a man coming out of a mourning tent on the building's grounds. This man asked the postman if he had something for apartment number 12, claiming that he lived in that apartment. The postman gave him the parcel without checking his identity. Following the investigation, the postman was summoned and informed that the delivery had been made in an improper manner. Attempts to locate in the building the man to whom the parcel had been delivered failed, and the complainant was advised to file a complaint with the police. [The complaint was published (in Hebrew) in Annual Report 44 of the Office of the Ombudsman]