Grievance on Maltapost investigated

I refer to Francis Borg’s letter No Explanation Yet On Mail Tampering in which the correspondent alleged that the Ombudsman “opted to stay away” from investigating his complaint. This is definitely not the case.

Even though Maltapost after privatisation is not subject to his jurisdiction, the Ombudsman tried to help and the following results of the investigation were communicated to this reader on November 8, 2010.

“This Office has made further enquiries with the Authority in regard to your allegations, and this in view of the fact that Maltapost does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.

“The Malta Communications Authority has informed this Office of the following:

i) It has enquired with Maltapost on various occasions so as to help in the resolution of your complaint, however, it does not have the power to intervene directly given that the letter was posted in Italy and not in Malta. The authority does not have any means of accelerating investigations being undertaken by the Italian postal operator and cannot influence the extent of progress achieved in this regard.

ii) Maltapost has forwarded evidence to the authority (which was also forwarded to this office) that the mailbag containing your letter was received by Maltapost on December 9, 2009, sealed and in good condition. It was only after the bag was opened that irregularities among hich your torn and tampered letter, were noted. This shows that the tampering occurred in Italy and not in Malta.

iii) As already explained to you by Maltapost, the mail was then passed on to Maltapost Corporate Security Manager for investigation. A report was submitted by the company’s Corporate Security Officers to their Italian counterpart on December 16, 2009. This report indicates that although the seal Poste Italiane on the bag containing items posted from Italy was intact and the bag in good condition on arrival, once the bag was opened and the seal broken, it resulted that 13 registered items (among which the letter addressed to you) had been tampered with and their contents were missing or damaged.

iv) You were informed (by letter dated December 21, 2009) that you could pick up the item, following a procedure which damaged mail undergoes in accordance with standard practice.

v) The Authority has ascertained that Maltapost has raised the matter with the Poste Italiane. It has not only reported the tampering of the particular items to its Italian counterpart but its head of corporate security is following up the issue of tampered mail received from Italy with the foreign operator and has also requested the latter to take immediate action and collaborate in the investigation.

vi) Finally, the authority has already informed you that it would provide you with all relevant information once the cross-border investigations are finalised.

“In view of the above considerations, it is evident that the authority has been doing all that is within its power to facilitate the resolution of your grievance with Maltapost since it cannot intervene with the Italian company. Consequently there is no act of bad administration on the part of the authority. The case need not be investigated further.”

Further communication on this complaint has to be addressed to Maltapost directly.