‘I was a marked woman': Meet Britain's most controversial barrister
But Proudman, 36, has also had a lot of flack. Her constant battle against inequality and her fight for justice in the legal system has led to her being branded a Feminazi by the Daily Mail, and a lot worse ('a joke in legal circles', 'a c—t ', an 'insufferable w—ker') by others in her profession.
I meet Dr Proudman, as she is known (she has a PhD, in female genital mutilation law and policy), at Goldsmith Chambers at the Temple in London. I had been slightly disconcerted to see a photograph of her on her website, commissioned by King's College, Cambridge, where she did her doctorate between 2013 and 2017, posing in a long legal gown with a bare midriff, next to Ted, her cavapoo, on a chair, but here she is in person – composed, friendly and sympathetic, wearing chunky pearls and a black suit.
The best possible riposte to all the contentiousness and criticism levelled against her is her recent victory in court. It was not a case that she was representing as a barrister – it was a case against her, brought by the Bar Standards Board (BSB).
In March 2022, a judge named Jonathan Cohen ruled against her in a high-profile divorce case which involved allegations of coercive control, in which Proudman had been representing the wife. Proudman thought the judgment unfair, and took to Twitter (as it was then) to complain that the judge had not taken the issue of domestic abuse seriously. In a 14-thread tweet, she posted a summary of the judgment, and commented that 'this judgment has echoes of the 'boys' club' that still exists among men in powerful positions'.
As a result, she was taken to a tribunal by the BSB, which – she claims in her book – had been looking for a test case to establish what barristers could and couldn't say on social media about judges and their judgments. It was completely unexpected, and she was terrified, she says. 'It could have been the end of my career.'
In December 2024, after the BSB had pursued it relentlessly for three years, the case was finally dismissed.
It was 'a clear instance of sex discrimination', Proudman said at the time. Does she mean if a man had done this they would not have held him to account?
'We know they wouldn't, because we had the comparators – male barristers who had said things about judges and nothing had happened to them. And they didn't just investigate me or give me a warning – they went full force, five charges. It's not insignificant. They really went for it. I do think it was very personal.' Proudman is now taking action against the BSB for discrimination.
A senior KC, who does not want to be named, told me that he thought the BSB was entirely wrong to have brought the case, as did many of his colleagues. 'My sense is that there was almost no support at all for the BSB proceedings. Apart from anything else, we all think the BSB are f—king useless.' He says that opinions fell into different categories: 'A lot of people felt some sympathy for Charlotte, but also thought she had brought it on herself, because why did she need to say it publicly, even if it's true? It was asking for trouble. And there is a small group – like me – who thought that the proceedings were wholly wrong, and that the failure of the BSB/SRA [Solicitors Regulation Authority] to tackle the kind of abuse that Charlotte has received from other professionals over the years was also wrong.'
Proudman is more philosophical about the abuse she gets these days, though she still finds it hard to take. 'I realise that it comes with the territory. I really struggle when it comes from colleagues.' She does get support from colleagues too, she says, but 'largely in private, because they don't want to speak publicly about it. The loudest voices are often very critical and nasty, and the supportive ones are the quiet ones – so it doesn't look very balanced.'
It all stems back to an incident that happened 10 years ago, she believes: the LinkedIn incident.
'I was a marked woman'
The writing was already on the wall when she started out. She was called to the bar in 2010, and was taken aback by 'the most male environment' she had ever encountered, especially after growing up in an all-female household and going to a university in which 60 per cent of the students were female (she originally got a degree in law and sociology at Keele University in 2009, followed by an MPhil in criminology at Queens' College, Cambridge, in 2011). At lunch with someone who had been assigned as her mentor, she was told, 'You've done really well to get here and get this far, but you'll never make it.'
Subsequently, when she applied for work experience at a firm of solicitors, one of the partners suggested that, instead of submitting a CV, she should send a bikini picture instead.
In 2015 she received a message in her inbox on LinkedIn, saying, 'Delighted to connect, I appreciate this is probably horrendously politically incorrect but that is a stunning picture!!! You definitely win the prize for the best Linked in [sic] picture I have ever seen…'
It was from Alexander Carter-Silk, a senior partner at a London office of solicitors. Taken aback, Proudman replied saying that she found his message offensive as her use of LinkedIn was entirely for professional reasons and 'not to be approached about my physical appearance or to be objectified by sexist men'. Then she put a screenshot of the message she had received on Twitter, asking if anyone else had had similar approaches.
She was immediately branded an attention seeker, though in fact the attention was instigated by Roll On Friday (a 'cheeky and irreverent' legal website) which retweeted her. From there it was picked up by the Daily Mail. 'Heaven help the poor man who actually tries to ask her out on a date, let alone try to get her into his bed,' wrote the ever sympathetic and sisterly Sarah Vine. 'He'd have better luck propositioning a porcupine.'
Two days on the front page of the Mail 'set me up as target practice for the media. I was a marked woman.'
Proudman is an only child who grew up in Leek, in Staffordshire. Her mother was a teacher, and a single parent – her father was an alcoholic who died in a car accident when he was drunk when Proudman was four.
Her mother was a strong believer in education and ambitious for her daughter, and Proudman's achievements have been pioneering. Her particular speciality is in family law and domestic abuse. In He Said, She Said, she writes in detail about some of the cases she has been involved in, and one of the things she is most proud of is her work in the area of implementing FGM protection orders, together with Forward, a group of lawyers and FGM survivors.
Proudman was also responsible for a change in the law at women's refuge centres, where previously, police were able to turn up in full uniform with court orders obtained by perpetrators that the women were fleeing from, which revealed their whereabouts and put the refuges in very difficult positions.
On the day I interviewed her she was about to achieve another first, in a case where a woman she had represented whose original allegations of rape and domestic abuse had been dismissed 'in error' (which was reversed two years later) was given the legal right to talk publicly about her case. (The family courts used to be entirely secret, but recently have been open to reporting, after a two-year pilot. Previously, journalists could report what they witnessed in family courts but this will be the first time that a parent has made a successful application to speak out without having to go through the press.)
In this case, the judge ruled that the woman's ex-partner, who had countered her accusations with his own – of 'parental alienation' – should have no contact with the child. Parental alienation is something that Proudman takes particular issue with. Its premise is that one parent has turned the child against the other, and it is often used by the estranged parent to get access to the children, or to overturn custody arrangements. It is not new, but has become increasingly weaponised in custody cases, and the reason it's so alarming to Proudman is the fact that allegations of parental alienation are certified by psychologists who are often unregulated.
'Parental alienation syndrome was first recognised by Richard Gardner, in the USA in the 1980s,' she says, and although it has been discredited in the States, 'it's made its way over here. It never used to be as prevalent as it is now – I see it in 98 per cent of the domestic abuse cases that I am involved in.
'It's a contentious label which is now a whole industry – you have a lobby of so-called experts, regulated and unregulated, who specialise in it and purport to diagnose it when they're instructed, which can result in a transfer of residence for the child.' Even if that means returning the child to the parent from whom they have been removed.
'This 'expert' will meet the parents and talk to the children and then offer their opinion in court. Sometimes they will try to pathologise with some sort of psychological condition – histrionic personality disorder is quite a common one we see mothers labelled with, though I certainly don't see fathers labelled with personality disorders. Then, if the experts have a veneer of legitimacy, the courts accept their opinion.
'In this country 'psychologist' is not a regulated title. And it's lucrative – if you win one [case] you get a name for yourself, and you're instructed in more cases, and that becomes your niche.'
'You need a judiciary which reflects the society we live in'
He Said, She Said details many of the cases in which she has acted to try to protect women in the family courts, and there are some horrific stories: the English girl, Lisa, who had escaped with her child from her abusive partner in Australia, and was ordered to return, even though she feared for her safety; Beth, who wanted another child but whose husband said she had to agree to certain 'conditions', including that she should 'entertain all sex requests – whenever and whatever – with a smile on my face and as a willing participant'; Mary, whose allegation of being raped and strangled by her ex-husband was disbelieved by a judge who, in part, deemed her 'too intelligent' to have allowed it to happen. Or Daria, who was ordered back to Sudan with her daughter, even though the 11-year-old was likely to be subjected to FGM, from which two of Daria's sisters had died.
It must be distressing to lose cases, having exhausted all legal avenues. How does Proudman detach herself?
'I'm not sure that I do detach from them – I suppose that's why I'm the person I am. I'm a campaigner as well as a barrister, and that's why I've written the book. Many people – and I'm not criticising them, in some ways I'm quite envious – will finish a case and move on to the next, and that's it for them. But for me – especially if it goes wrong and I think the decision is unjust – I will rant and rave about it, and try everything to secure some sort of justice for these people. I will make it my mission.'
She says in the book that she keeps going 'because misogyny and sexism are everywhere in the legal profession'. Does she get disillusioned? Is it mainly male judges she is referring to, or is it to do with a certain generation?
Statistics suggest that diversity within the courts is slowly improving, she says, 'but it's at a glacial pace. Change is so incredibly slow.
'I think we probably have to recognise that the legal establishment is still very white, male and privileged. If you look at the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court, the vast majority of those sitting in really senior positions are white public school/Oxbridge-educated men who just don't have the same experience as many of the people in front of them – and I do think that you need a judiciary which reflects the society we live in, so they can understand some of their experiences and what people have been through.'
'There is a substantial 'old school' element,' says my anonymous source, the senior KC, 'who are not wholly unthinking, and I'm sure don't consider themselves misogynistic, but in fact inhabit a world steeped in sexism. They are perfectly happy for women to succeed, and recognise the value and merit of successful women colleagues, but they want them to do so within the established norms of the profession. What they don't like is those who want to do it on their own terms, which I think Charlotte Proudman represents: making a fuss, calling out behaviours, and drawing attention to the massive gender pay disparities. I think that there is a deep-seated defensiveness in the profession, which remains (white) male-dominated at senior levels. I also have a female colleague who feels that Charlotte is doing women no favours, because she is just picking fights. Everyone agrees that women should be treated fairly, but we would all much prefer it if they just quietly got on with the job, instead of bleating about the various insults, obstacles, aggressions etc with which they are confronted.'
Which is not Proudman's style. Is she now a member of the Garrick?
'I wish! I'm still waiting for my invitation – it must have got lost in the post. I hope in time they will see it as a real benefit when they actually start opening their doors to more women, rather than the three or four or whatever it is now. I'd want to be a member in order to bring in other women, which is probably why they don't want me.'
What advice might she give to aspiring female barristers? 'Just carry on even in the face of adversity – and never give up,' she says, and adds a quote from American lawyer and activist Florynce Kennedy, with which she ends her book: 'Rattle cages, make noise. Cause trouble.' (Hear, hear.)
The following is an extract from He Said, She Said: Truth, Trauma and the Struggle for Justice in Family Court
The silver bullet
I squinted into the laptop screen to catch my first sight of my newest client. A pale, cautiously smiling face peered back. We were about to begin a conversation that had been long in the making. Florence was not the first client who had approached me directly to represent her, but she was undoubtedly the only one who'd had to fight in court to earn representation in the first place. Her legal battle against a situation she felt was fundamentally unjust had now been going on for several years. What made this all the more remarkable was that she was still just 15 years old.
Florence had been put in this unconventional, unreasonable situation because, five years earlier, her father had obtained a court order saying that she should live with him. After her parents separated when she was eight, she had been living happily with her mother and having regular contact with her father. But because there were, as there often are, difficulties with a child being passed between two parents at odds with each other, the case ended up in court.
As a result, Florence was ordered to move from living with the parent she chose to the one she had not. When her case crossed my desk in mid-2021, I was still unfamiliar with the approach her father had used to achieve this, though it would soon become a regular part of my work. I was about to learn about 'parental alienation', the allegation that one parent has turned the children against the other. Soon I would see the almost extraordinary power this can have in court: how a deceptively simple argument, dressed up as science and supported by carefully chosen experts, can be used to upend children's lives, persuading the court that they should live with the parent who was accused of being abusive in the first place.
I was late to the party in a case whose history went back seven years to when her parents had separated. Initially, Florence had lived with her mother and had regular contact with her father. In the legal proceedings that began after contact broke down, the court found the father had been abusive on several occasions – he had slapped the mother and 'held Florence down and shouted at her when she had a tantrum'.
Far from the case going against him, however, it was turning his way. As his own abusive behaviour was being established by the court, in parallel, the narrative of parental alienation was being established. A child psychiatrist interviewed Florence and gave evidence to the effect that the problems over contact had arisen 'because of the mother's distress and unresolved angry feelings about the breakdown of the relationship [which] was being communicated to Florence'. The judge picked up this thread and concluded that the mother 'was not giving Florence permission in an emotional sense' to have a relationship with her father. She ordered the contact arrangements to be reversed, and for Florence to live with her father.
It was a classic example of how parental alienation can be used to flip a family dispute on its head. The father did not have custody of Florence and was found by the court to have been abusive to both her and the mother. Yet with the right expert in his corner, Dr Mark Berelowitz, he had been able to persuade the same judge that the mother was the real root of the problem and to rule that Florence should instead live with him. 'Parental alienation' was the silver bullet that allowed this man to override the objections of his child, and the reality of his former abuse, to get the court to rule in his favour.
My new book, He Said, She Said, covers a collection of real family court cases that reveal how the system protects some and fails too many. This book is my call to action for change. Out 1 May. Preorder now.
🔗 https://t.co/GBUXEx2tNv
🔗 https://t.co/cRjVVlQcxp pic.twitter.com/LcP6DVr8Qb
— Dr Charlotte Proudman (@DrProudman) March 20, 2025
From the age of 12, Florence had been repeatedly trying to gain her own legal representation, with support from her maternal family, to make the case that she should live primarily with her mother. One judge had refused this, and another actually banned her from making these applications for two years. After the two-year prohibition had passed, she applied again and was rejected once more. Only when she appealed this to the High Court did a decision finally go her way. With Florence then nearing the age of 16, at which point her wishes could no longer legally be ignored, her father consented, and a judge granted the appeal. Now, finally, she had been granted the right to be independently represented and to put her case in front of a High Court judge, Mrs Justice Frances Judd. I argued that Florence being forced to live with her father did little good for their relationship, just as it was unfair to her and her mother. The guardian recommended that she alternate between parents on a weekly basis, which Florence's father supported. We argued that this would not reflect her wish to live primarily with her mother, and the judge ultimately agreed, ordering an arrangement that saw her granted this right for the majority of each month.
As my career has gone on, I have increasingly seen parental alienation as a straw that fathers are keen to offer and which professionals are eager to clutch. That is despite the fact that parental alienation does not exist in any credible medical guidance, is not a recognised syndrome, or a condition that can be formally diagnosed. The UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has listed parental alienation syndrome as discredited. The Family Justice Council has also issued draft guidance on parental alienation, stating that instructed experts should be regulated and that 'parental alienation' is not a diagnosable condition or disorder.
Yet, in my time as a family law barrister, I have seen it grow rather than diminish in significance. Academic research underlines quite how widespread a legal tactic this has become, weaponised against vulnerable women. In a University of Manchester study, published in September 2023, which assessed and interviewed 45 women who had been through family court proceedings in England after alleging domestic abuse, 39 had been accused of parental alienation. Those mothers described how allegations of alienation 'not only shifted the focus of proceedings once raised but also diminished and often completely sidelined the investigation of [domestic abuse] and child abuse'.
Parental alienation is not just junk science and bad law. It is a symptom of how women are too often treated in the family justice system – pathologised, blamed and stripped of their rights. While it is true that one parent can negatively influence their children against the other, such cases are the exception. And they should always be matters of fact for the court to determine, not ones of spurious, quasi-medical diagnosis.
Five years on from the original order that had taken her away from her mother, Florence had finally got what she had repeatedly asked for. But it had taken an unreasonable amount of struggling against the system for her to get there. Florence could never get back the years of her childhood she had lost with her mother or the time that she had dedicated to a personal legal battle that started when she was not yet a teenager.
He Said, She Said: Truth, Trauma and the Struggle for Justice in Family Court, by Dr Charlotte Proudman (W&N, £20), is out on 1 May. Preorder now by clicking here
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Hero who saved Princess Anne from kidnap slams decision to release her attacker
The man who thwarted the attempted kidnapping of Princess Anne has expressed his fury after the man responsible for the attack was released from custody The man who stopped the attempted kidnapping of Princess Anne has condemned the decision to free the man responsible for the attack, saying he "should've hit him harder". In March 1974, the Princess Royal was stalked by then 26-year-old Ian Bell who attempted to then kidnap the princess on The Mall, shooting four people who tried to stop the attack. Ball appeared at the Old Bailey and was detained "without limit of time" under the Mental Health Act after he admitted to kidnap and attempted murders. But Ball, who is now 77, was quietly released from the high-security Broadmoor Hospital, much to the dismay of Ronnie 'The Geezer' Russell, who rushed to Anne's aid during the terrifying attack. It comes after news that Prince Harry will 'never be forgiven' by two major royals despite reconciliation hope. READ MORE: Joanna Lumley says King Charles 'really is ill' as she shares rare health battle insight Ronnie was driving past when the then 23-year-old Anne was approached by Ball, who was attempting to abduct her and demand a £3million ransom from Queen Elizabeth. Despite being threatened with a gun, Ronnie confronted Ball and landed three punches during the tense standoff, before police were able to overpower the would-be kidnapper. Since his release, Ball has launched a campaign to overturn his conviction, while maintaining that the kidnap attempt was a 'hoax,' despite having admitted his crimes, including the attempted murder of two police officers, at the Old Bailey in 1974. Speaking to the Daily Mail, Russell said of Ball's freedom: 'I can't believe Ball's been released, it's ridiculous. I should have hit him a bit harder. Am I worried he might come and find me? Let's go further – give him my address, and I'll go one better this time. 'He's saying now, 'None of it ever happened, there was supposed to be no gunpowder in the bullets.' It's absolutely impossible, because it did happen. I was there, watching him plead guilty. He should be recalled to Broadmoor.' After the attempted kidnapping, Ball went on to spend 45 years in high-security psychiatric care, first at Rampton, then Broadmoor, where he spent thousands to publish his book To Kill a Princess in 2019 through the self-publishing firm Publish Nation Limited. Russell seethed at Ball's actions, saying: 'When Ball was put away 'at Her Majesty's pleasure' we were all sure he'd never be out. 'I can't see any reason why he's been released, why a publishing company agreed to print his autobiography, or how come he's had benefits to save the money to go to Barbados. I'm going to Barbados later this year, but that's because I worked for it. He's been mollycoddled, and it's been too easy for him.' Ronnie then recalled his version of events from the night of the attempted kidnapping, saying he was working for a cleaning firm when he drove down the Mall that night in 1974 and saw the scene unfolding. The heroic man jumped from his vehicle and landed a punch on Ball, before running around the side of the car to the aid of a terrified Anne. He said: 'I was lifting Princess Anne out of the car by her forearms, saying 'Now we're going to walk away, and he's going to have to go through me to get to you'. I was a big lad. But Ball came round the car. 'When I turned, he was stood there with his gun pointed at me... shouting, 'Come on, Anne, you've got to come.' That's when I decided it was going to be me, or him. I had to hit him first, and harder. I was quite prepared to sacrifice myself for a member of the Royal Family.' After the attempted kidnapping, Ronnie was invited to Buckingham Palace where he received the George Medal from the late Queen. Recalling the event, Russell remembered: 'The Queen went, 'This medal thanks you as the Queen of England – I want to thank you as Anne's mother.' That was a touching moment.'
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Strictly 'drug probe' star also 'suspected of boozing' while working on BBC show after crew smelt alcohol on their breath
One of the Strictly Come Dancing stars involved in the drugs probe was also suspected of drinking while working on the show after crew smelt alcohol on their breath. It comes after it was revealed the broadcaster has hired a law firm to probe allegations of drug taking by two individuals, whose drug use is said to be 'well-known' on the show. The Sun alleged that it was widely known that the pair, who have not been named, took the Class A substance, and that one of these Strictly performers were known for being a drinker. The publication have now reported that junior members of the team were asked to keep an eye on them during last year's show and to look for signs that they may have been boozing during work hours. A TV insider said: 'The person in question is renowned for loving to party, and that is a major problem when it impacts on their ability to do the job they need to do on Strictly in a safe and professional manner. 'It's not just about something being illegal or legal, it's about the BBC 's workplace policies and how the behaviour of certain individuals can impact on their work colleagues. 'On a very physical show like Strictly, with lots of sets and moving parts, the idea of someone being intoxicated in any way is wholly unacceptable.' A BBC spokesperson told Daily Mail: We do not recognise these claims and any suggestion that anyone has been asked to monitor an individual is completely untrue. BBC bosses are reportedly set to offer professional support to two stars of hit dancing show Strictly, amid allegations they took cocaine on the programme. It was revealed the broadcaster has hired a law firm to probe allegations of drug taking by two individuals, whose drug use is said to be 'well-known' on the show. The claims were reportedly made in a legal submission to the BBC by law firm Russells back in March, on behalf of former contestant Wynne Evans. A source told the newspaper: 'The BBC is taking the allegations really seriously. 'Bosses are aware of the two stars in question and have a duty of care to make sure they're okay. 'As per BBC policy, the option of specialised professional support is on the table and will be offered.' He used a vile sexual innuendo and was also caught up in a 'wandering hand' incident with dance partner Katya Jones [pictured with Wynne], who seemed to remove his arm from her lower waist on the show They added: 'While drug testing won't happen on the main show, bosses are considering bringing in random checks for the tour next year. 'The BBC needs to be sure nothing illegal is going on. It all depends on what the investigation finds.' The shock allegations come just amid a long period of controversy for the BBC and Strictly over the past year or so. In July last year, more than six months after quitting the show citing 'personal reasons', actress Amanda Abbington accused pro dancer Giovanni Pernice of 'unnecessary, cruel and mean behaviour' during their time dancing together on Strictly . Giovanni rejected the claims immediately, and a BBC investigation ruled in September that her claims of physical aggression and threatening behaviour were not upheld. When BBC bosses published their report into Giovanni's behaviour, it cleared him of the most serious allegations of physical aggression, but upheld verbal bullying and harassment. Complaints of verbal bullying and harassment meant the BBC issued an apology to Amanda, but Giovanni said he was 'pleased the report has not found any evidence of threatening or abusive behaviour'. Elsewhere, the show was plunged into crisis after Welsh opera singer Wynne Evans made a controversial joke during his time preparing for the Strictly tour in January. He used a vile sexual innuendo and was also caught up in a 'wandering hand' incident with dance partner Katya Jones , who seemed to remove his arm from her lower waist on the show. While his co-star John Torode [left] was also sacked after two decades over allegations that he used the N-word, which he claims to have 'absolutely no recollection' of After the BBC launched an investigation into his conduct, bosses decided not to renew his radio contract for his show. The TV star confirmed in May that they will not be renewing his one-year rolling contract following a four-month investigation after the inappropriate comments made during his time on Strictly. Elsewhere, in further scandals for the BBC, Gregg Wallace was recently dismissed from MasterChef after more than 40 complaints against him were upheld following a BBC investigation. While his co-star John Torode was also sacked after two decades over allegations that he used the N-word, which he claims to have 'absolutely no recollection' of. In separate further controversy, it's recently been reported that Naga Munchetty could face an investigation from BBC bosses after she was accused of bullying a junior colleague. The BBC Breakfast host, 50, has been placed 'under review' while bosses consider escalating complaints to a formal investigation, The Sun reports. A source said higher-ups had heard from several colleagues and logged concerns over her 'hard' and 'bullying' behaviour on the breakfast show, as well as her Radio 5 Live show.
Daily Mail
10 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Sally made a complaint about an Australia Post driver for an unbelievable act... then came an unexpected visitor and email that will shock you
An Australia Post customer claimed they were left 'scared' after a delivery driver confronted them for leaving a complaint about him. Melbourne woman Sally said she was expecting a parcel from a small pet business in Queensland, but had to leave her home to visit her terminally ill grandmother. The customer claimed the delivery driver falsely signed off on the package before it was stolen by a mystery thief - prompting her to make a complaint. Sally said the delivery driver then turned up at her front door and demanded to know why she made the complaint, and that he even tried to look inside her house to make sure she hadn't stashed the package inside. In a stunning twist, she said she ordered a replacement and the same Australia Post worker later delivered her the package and threw it at her. 'It was a bit scary, I wasn't expecting the delivery man to come to our house to confront me over his wrongdoing!' she told Daily Mail. An Australia Post spokesman said the postal service 'takes customer concerns of this nature very seriously'. 'We are currently investigating this matter with the local delivery team and will update the customer in the coming days,' he said. Sally shared her experience on Reddit, claiming Australia Post told her that her first package would be taken to a local post office if no one was home. 'All good, except it was "delivered" whilst we were away. I came home and there was no sign of our parcel, so I went to the local post office to see what was going on,' she wrote. At her local post office, Sally learnt a delivery man had signed for the parcel on her behalf and left it at her door. Unsurprisingly, the package was stolen. The clerk at the Australia Post office urged Sally to lodge an online complaint, which she did. 'Literally two days later that delivery man came to my door while I was home and asked me why I'd submitted a complaint,' she said. 'I told him he'd fraudulently signed on my behalf and his actions had led to my parcel being stolen. He tried looking into my house, probably to see if I'd stashed it. 'I was fuming. It seemed so inappropriate, and I'd been afraid something like this would happen if I complained.' Sally shared a screenshot of an email sent by Australia Post, informing her the company was investigating the incident. 'The facility has confirmed the delivery officer did not follow property delivery procedures,' the email read. 'Management has since taken interest in this incident and have since spoken to the delivery officer in question, in regards to delivery procedures and to ensure proper delivery practices are performed for future deliveries.' Australia Post urged Sally to contact the small business to help organise a replacement parcel. However, she claimed the service didn't offer to help cover the cost. 'My replacement order came yesterday and it was the same delivery man!' Sally wrote in an update on Saturday. 'He literally threw my parcel at me as soon as I opened the door! 'I've lodged another complaint with Australia Post, and have lodged two separate complaints to the ombudsman for the fraudulent signature, and for turning up to my house and using my private details in an improper way.' Sally claimed she has heard nothing from Australia Post regarding the delivery man showing up on her doorstep.
