Royal mail "Fee to Pay" card

[Joseph_Pestell]

I too, was caught out like that - very annoying indeed. My mission here after, has been to send as many prepaid/freepost junk mail return envelopes back  (empty) as I can.

Sad, I know, but it brings me a certain perverse pleasure (excluding reg. charities of course).

 

Guy

 

I do not see this as a perverse pleasure at all. If we all did the same, the cost of sending out all this junk mail would increase enormously and they would stop doing it.

 

And I am sorry but I don't exclude "charities" from this. One recently informed me, as though it was some source of pride, that  27p of every £1 given goes to raising the next pound. So it's financially inefficient as well as wasting resources.

[StoneRoad]

Yep, I send back the freepost filled with another company's spam, having torn off any personal information.

I have noticed that some now expect you to pay ... so they'll have extra costs on that one.

 

I do exempt the "better" charities ie the ones I support. (but not the "suspect" ones). 

 

Political spam goes into the recycling wheelie bin - usually unread !

Edited December 11, 2018 by StoneRoad

[Sir TophamHatt]

Looking on other websites the general advice seems to be to go to the DO and the postie on duty will normally show you the item, so you can ascertain whether to cough up or not.

This is what I've done - even with a "we missed you" card.

Annoying as you have to wait but understandable.

 

I understand if someone has underpaid postage but if it's had a printed label from Royal Mail, it should be accepted as the fault of the underpayment is with the counter staff not the person sending or receiving it!

 

There was a news article about this a few years ago where Royal Mail was stopping letters going through as they were put through as a normal letter when they should have been large letter, but many were done over the counter.

Shame they use normal stamps at the counter as then it would be easy to see who is to blame here.

 

 

I printed about 500 labels of "Return to Sender" so there's no writing for me.

Stick a label on and pop it back in the post box.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Sir TophamHatt

[Dave Hunt]

Before the Midland Railway Society started getting the printers to send out our Journals and Newsletters, one of our members and his family used to put them in envelopes and post them at their local post office. A year or so ago the weight of one of the Journals was just under the limit before the next highest charging band but he was told at the PO that it was still OK. Then many members started getting notices of underpayment and demands for not only the excess but an 'administrative' charge as well. Despite several people weighing the envelopes themselves and contesting the supposed 'official' figure, very few managed to get it rescinded. When we contacted the Royal Mail to ask why, when the receiving PO had declared the weight to be within the lower band, people were receiving these demands we were told that it was up to the sorting offices receiving the envelopes to decide whether excess postage was applicable. The next question, which was, of course, why was there obviously a discrepancy between the various offices involved, was met with a deafening silence followed after more prodding by a typical 'jobsworth' response that really didn't answer the question at all.  

[melmerby]

Mine turned out to be a Christmas card where the stamp had obviously been removed from another letter and Sellotaped onto the envelope.

It wasn't franked but to a Postie it would look like cheating and presumably the Sellotape stops the automatic scanning of the stamp.

 

Keith

[Jonboy]

Mine turned out to be a Christmas card where the stamp had obviously been removed from another letter and Sellotaped onto the envelope.

It wasn't franked but to a Postie it would look like cheating and presumably the Sellotape stops the automatic scanning of the stamp.

 

Keith

This was in the news a couple of weeks back: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6449355/Rising-cost-stamps-fuelling-illegal-black-market-eBay-quarter-price.html

[melmerby]

This was in the news a couple of weeks back: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6449355/Rising-cost-stamps-fuelling-illegal-black-market-eBay-quarter-price.html

Usual Daily Wail (lack of) accuracy.

 

Keith

[hayfield]

Usual Daily Wail (lack of) accuracy.

 

Keith

Keith

 

I am not a Daily Mail reader or supporter (have not bought a paper for years) but please what is inaccurate within the article ? I have read it and it seems a standard bit of reporting and in my opinion the only folk who should be worried are those who are suggesting a crime should be committed. 

 

Neither am I a postal worker but an uncancelled stamp has been used, therefore should not be used again. Buying these stamps knowing they have been used but not cancelled is in my opinion fraud Like other forms of crime this illegal action of using used stamps just puts up the cost of posting by law abiding customers, just the same as shoplifting is paid for by honest customers.

 

I sometimes reuse padded envelopes and there have been occasions where the counter staff have told me the stamp had not been cancelled and could be re-used, every time I declined the offer and paid the correct price.

 

I understand in the case of the OP this was not the case as it was an unused stamp which had lost its glue

[Sir TophamHatt]

...an uncancelled stamp has been used, therefore should not be used again. Buying these stamps knowing they have been used but not cancelled is in my opinion fraud Like other forms of crime this illegal action of using used stamps just puts up the cost of posting by law abiding customers, just the same as shoplifting is paid for by honest customers.

If a stamp hasn't been cancelled, I have no quarms about using it again.

If Royal Mail couldn't/didn't frank it, that's their problem.

 

Reusing stamps isn't what pushs the price up. Competition (certainly in parcel delivery!) and the lust for making more profit than last year (to give more to shareholders no doubt) is what drives prices up.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Sir TophamHatt

[hayfield]

If a stamp hasn't been cancelled, I have no quarms about using it again.

If Royal Mail couldn't/didn't frank it, that's their problem.

 

Reusing stamps isn't what pushs the price up. Competition (certainly in parcel delivery!) and the lust for making more profit than last year (to give more to shareholders no doubt) is what drives prices up.

 

Just because the stamp has not been cancelled does not mean it is lawful to reuse it, I would imaging there is provision within the Royal Mail's terms and conditions excluding these items from being reused

 

Fraud of any kind reduces a companies profit margins, in Royal Mail's case it would be harder to justify a price increase if margins were higher. However I would assume if you knew the stamp had been used and knowingly reused it to obtain a service without paying for said service its fraud

 

If someone stole an item from your garden you would be rightly aggrieved, what's the difference ? 

[melmerby]

Keith

 

I understand in the case of the OP this was not the case as it was an unused stamp which had lost its glue

Not sure about that as it had obviously removed from whatever it had been stuck to, so not a case of just losing it's stickiness.

I understand why the PO refused it, even if it hadn't been through the postal service.

I've occasionally stuck a stamp on an envelope then realised that it needed to be removed (for whatever reason*) but make sure it looks pristine and re-affix it with a thin layer of glue.

*I tore one once with was too far gone to repair so had to be dumped, but didn't want to waste the stamp.

 

Keith

[hayfield]

Not sure about that as it had obviously removed from whatever it had been stuck to, so not a case of just losing it's stickiness.

I understand why the PO refused it, even if it hadn't been through the postal service.

I've occasionally stuck a stamp on an envelope then realised that it needed to be removed (for whatever reason*) but make sure it looks pristine and re-affix it with a thin layer of glue.

*I tore one once with was too far gone to repair so had to be dumped, but didn't want to waste the stamp.

 

Keith

 

 

Keith

 

There is a world of difference between a used and unused stamp. Also if I buy something and accidentally damage it, in all but exceptional cases where unconditional guarantees apply the liability is down to the user not supplier

[hayfield]

Whilst going off topic slightly, but rather than worry about saving the odd few pence buy reusing stamps and run the risk of the person receiving the item having to pay a penalty, save the world and recycle the packing. I must own up tp not buying either new padded bags, small boxes, bubble wrap or polystyrene worms for years, looking at the prices some establishments charge for these items some weeks I must save £5 or £10 by reusing these items, but equally importantly reducing my black bin waste 

[GeoffAlan]

A friend of mine sold some property of a deceased relative, including their home as he wound up the estate. For months afterwards he got 'fee to pay' mail from the Estate Agent Scum who sold the house for him. They were brochures for local properties and vastly under stamped. After the first he popped into their office and mentioned that they owed him the unpaid postage plus fee, they refused to pay. As he runs a business from home he couldn't afford to ignore under-paid items, and ended up with nearly 20 of these mails.  A solicitor's letter, plus the threat to publicise the firms 'customer disservice' in the local papers got all his money back plus a fat 'distress caused' bribe, sorry compensation.

[Sir TophamHatt]

If someone stole an item from your garden you would be rightly aggrieved, what's the difference ?

The difference is, I am a single person, not a multi million pound company.

 

Royal Mail has decided the re-use of stamps happens on a small enough scale not to bother to invest in machines that ensure ALL stamps are franked. If it hurt them so much, they'd be investing in better systems to stop this happening.

 

I certainly wouldn't think anyone cares about the odd few (maybe even thousands a day) being reused. Royal Mail clearly don't appear to be doing anything significant about it. And if you're seriously suggesting Royal mail would cut the prices if everyone bought and used stamps honestly... I don't think so.

 

I'm not trying to convince you to re-use stamps - the effort in peeling it off and gluing back on is hardly worth the effort. But however you want to dress it up, re-using a stamp is not the same as someone stealing from a garden.

 

If there's a way round it, people will do it.

You will never change the morality of people, especially when you're facing them against a huge company rather than Mr. Franks whose owned the hardware store for 50 years.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Sir TophamHatt

[hayfield]

Sadly we will never agree on this, and I am not having a go at you but the society we live in.

[pinzaboy]

I had one last week and I duly paid the £2. It arrived today - it was from Dapol advising my collectors club subs were due. It had no stamp or frank machine mark at all

[brianusa]

.

I haven't had a telly for about 12 years and nor do I want one, this doesn't seem to compute with these goons though.

They don't have my name, and of course they can't send a summons to 'The Occupier' but sometimes I feel like going to the Magistrates Court in order to tear them a new one.

 

.

 

Sometimes I wonder at those who eschew TV.  I realise that its not as good as it could be but in this day and age, what other options are there to get ones information of the worlds goings ons.  Similar problems with newspapers depending on their political coverage.  Fox news is a disgrace and serves republican interests in this country and is primarily viewed by those who like their presenters blonde with short skirts!

Luckily we can get the BBC.

 

Brian.

[Reorte]

Sometimes I wonder at those who eschew TV.  I realise that its not as good as it could be but in this day and age, what other options are there to get ones information of the worlds goings ons.  Similar problems with newspapers depending on their political coverage.  Fox news is a disgrace and serves republican interests in this country and is primarily viewed by those who like their presenters blonde with short skirts!

Luckily we can get the BBC.

 

You're using the internet - that's one other means. Anyway there's a lot to be said about giving up on what's going on in the world, ignoring it, and hoping like hell it ignores you.

[Torper]

Luckily we can get the BBC.

 

Unfortunately so can we.  Unusually I sympathise with E3109 - night after night these days I find literally nothing on any channel (we've got Freeview) that I want to watch, and best not mention the awful news coverage on all the main channels, particularly the government controlled one.   Presently I'm binge watching a box set of that 1960s cult classic, "The Prisoner".

 

DT

[hayfield]

DT

 

I sort of agree with you as I tend to watch more on other channels than the BBC, having said this there are still some wonderful programs, last night the a Repair shop Christmas special was well worth watching on catch up (I was at the club last night) Panaroma looks promising about HS2.

 

I do disagree with your views about the news on the BBC, whilst sometimes I get a bit frustrated on some of their reporting, in my opinion the BBC news is the best around, all sides of the political spectrum complain about bias, so I guess they must be doing things right, even given that many in the industry have a very much left leading agenda. 

 

It does seem sometimes the BBC takes political/cultural/gender/religious correctness too extreems, however there is a diverse range of presenters rather than what was "white middle England" , just look at the alternatives the BBC is head and shoulders above them

[Nick C]

You're using the internet - that's one other means. Anyway there's a lot to be said about giving up on what's going on in the world, ignoring it, and hoping like hell it ignores you.

 

Agreed - I get most of my news from the internet these days. I find it's good to use a news aggregator so I can read the same story from several different sources and thus cut through the bias they all have (the level of bias on the BBC in particular seems to have got a lot worse over the last couple of years). If anyone knows of a genuinely neutral news source I'd love to hear about it... Or for that matter a more reliable way of achieving the last part of your post!

[Cmax]

Sometimes I wonder at those who eschew TV.  I realise that its not as good as it could be but in this day and age, what other options are there to get ones information of the worlds goings ons.  Similar problems with newspapers depending on their political coverage.  Fox news is a disgrace and serves republican interests in this country and is primarily viewed by those who like their presenters blonde with short skirts!

Luckily we can get the BBC.

 

Brian.

 

 

You're using the internet - that's one other means. Anyway there's a lot to be said about giving up on what's going on in the world, ignoring it, and hoping like hell it ignores you.

 

 

Unfortunately so can we.  Unusually I sympathise with E3109 - night after night these days I find literally nothing on any channel (we've got Freeview) that I want to watch, and best not mention the awful news coverage on all the main channels, particularly the government controlled one.   Presently I'm binge watching a box set of that 1960s cult classic, "The Prisoner".

 

DT

 

 

DT

 

I sort of agree with you as I tend to watch more on other channels than the BBC, having said this there are still some wonderful programs, last night the a Repair shop Christmas special was well worth watching on catch up (I was at the club last night) Panaroma looks promising about HS2.

 

I do disagree with your views about the news on the BBC, whilst sometimes I get a bit frustrated on some of their reporting, in my opinion the BBC news is the best around, all sides of the political spectrum complain about bias, so I guess they must be doing things right, even given that many in the industry have a very much left leading agenda. 

 

It does seem sometimes the BBC takes political/cultural/gender/religious correctness too extreems, however there is a diverse range of presenters rather than what was "white middle England" , just look at the alternatives the BBC is head and shoulders above them

 

 

Agreed - I get most of my news from the internet these days. I find it's good to use a news aggregator so I can read the same story from several different sources and thus cut through the bias they all have (the level of bias on the BBC in particular seems to have got a lot worse over the last couple of years). If anyone knows of a genuinely neutral news source I'd love to hear about it... Or for that matter a more reliable way of achieving the last part of your post!

 

Hi All, Can we get back on topic please, what's the above got to do with Royal Mail ? 

 

Gary

[rodent279]

Sometimes I wonder at those who eschew TV. I realise that its not as good as it could be but in this day and age, what other options are there to get ones information of the worlds goings ons. Similar problems with newspapers depending on their political coverage. Fox news is a disgrace and serves republican interests in this country and is primarily viewed by those who like their presenters blonde with short skirts!

Luckily we can get the BBC.

 

Brian.

Obviously some new use of the word "lucky" that I am unaware of.....

 

I avoid the Beeb like the plague now. MasterChef and Strictly are the only things we watch, and I wouldn't bother with them if it wasn't for Mrs Rodent.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...When we contacted the Royal Mail to ask why, when the receiving PO had declared the weight to be within the lower band, people were receiving these demands we were told that it was up to the sorting offices receiving the envelopes to decide whether excess postage was applicable. The next question, which was, of course, why was there obviously a discrepancy between the various offices involved, was met with a deafening silence followed after more prodding by a typical 'jobsworth' response that really didn't answer the question at all.  

 

Nothing much changes. I was with a business forty years ago that was sending out workshop manual updates by post and got into dispute with the Post Office over this very calibration error between the sending offices and the sorting offices. It couldn't be resolved, they just hid behind 'we can do it because we can'.. Once I had determined that 'nobody' read the updates until the physical kit with the relevant updates on it arrived, it was simple to suggest that the document updates were trucked out in the first month's production of the updated physical parts and complete systems, and the world continued to turn perfectly satisfactorily with a considerable postage saving, and the document updates more reliably in the hands of the people who needed it. (Our internal systems were in their way as flaky as those of the Post Office, but we didn't detectably foist charges on other parties as a result.)