OT: Postal charges for forwarding mail?

[Tim Downie]

Whenever I've had to forward any unopened mail I've just readdressed the
envelope and stuck it back in a post box without paying any more postage.

Usually this works although earlier this week one letter "bounced" and came
back to our house despite my attempts to obliterate the old address.

What I've never been sure of though is the what the rules/laws are regarding
postal charges. I've always assumed that for standard letters there is no
charge. How about bigger letters or parcels?

I've tried googling but that just seems to throw up info about Royal Mail's
paid for forwarding service (after a house move say)..

Just what are the rules? Are they online anywhere?

Tim

[Dave Osborne]

I always thought that (certainly for a letter) the Post Office contracts
to deliver to the person, rather than the address, so you should be able
to amend the address on unopened mail and it will be forwarded on. I
don't know if this is written down anywhere, but you could call Royal
Mail customer service and ask them.

General Personal enquiries.
Call this number to contact a Customer Service advisor.
within UK - 08457 740 740
8am - 6pm, Monday to Friday.
8am - 1pm on Saturdays

[Part timer]

We do it all the time and perfectly within the rules (I used to work
for them). Just obliterate the barcoding with a black permanent pen so
it doesn't come back to you. These are the things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RM4SCC
DIY redirections get treated as 2nd Class (no doubt to encourage
people to pay for their official service). That's only really an issue
approaching Christmas.

[pcb1962]

Yes, here: ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rm/ilp_scheme_6_april_2010_ps.pdf
Forwarding is covered in section 6, basically you mustn't open it and
you mustn't obscure the name of the original recipient.

[Harry]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:58:21 +0100, Dave Osborne
<Dave...@SPAMymail.com> wrote:

>Tim Downie wrote:
>> Whenever I've had to forward any unopened mail I've just readdressed the
>> envelope and stuck it back in a post box without paying any more postage.
>>
>> Usually this works although earlier this week one letter "bounced" and
>> came back to our house despite my attempts to obliterate the old address.
>>
>> What I've never been sure of though is the what the rules/laws are
>> regarding postal charges. I've always assumed that for standard letters
>> there is no charge. How about bigger letters or parcels?
>>
>> I've tried googling but that just seems to throw up info about Royal
>> Mail's paid for forwarding service (after a house move say)..
>>
>> Just what are the rules? Are they online anywhere?
>>
>> Tim
>
>I always thought that (certainly for a letter) the Post Office contracts
>to deliver to the person, rather than the address, so you should be able
>

Minor point, but they deliver to the address, not the person.

[Dave Osborne]

Harry, I fear you are missing the point. If the Royal Mail just
delivered to the address, then they would demand additional payment to
forward an unopened letter. As they don't demand additional payment and
indeed will continue to forward an unopened letter indefinitely for no
extra charge, then the principle *must* be that you pay for the letter
to be delivered to the person.

This is no doubt a hold-over from when the postal service started.
Without sending an agent or going to find somebody yourself, the only
way to be in contact with anybody was by letter and the sender may well
not know the whereabouts of the recipient at any given time.

Therefore, the sender had the option of writing to someone at their home
or business address and waiting an indeterminate time for a response or,
if the recipient was know to be travelling, address the correspondence
as dictated by some kind of previously agreed planned itinerary in the
hope that the letter would be held, delivered or forwarded as appropriate.

The principle was (and is) that you simply could not expect a third
party intermediate (such as an innkeeper) to pay to forward a letter
that had nothing to do with them, nor could you expect a recipient to
pay accumulated forwarding charges.

[pcb1962]

"Our duty is to deliver items to the address and not the person whose
name is written or printed on the item."
ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rm/rm_general_ts&cs_dec09_update.pdf

[Tinkerer]

"Dave Osborne" <Dave...@SPAMymail.com> wrote in message
news:85l3l6...@mid.individual.net...

Harry was correct. Delivery is to the address, not the person. This is
true of all mail including Recorded Delivery and Special Delivery (that
which used to be called Registered Post). However, under the provisions of
the Post Office Act, mail marked by a resident for fowarding and reposted is
indeed carried free of charge. The charge raised for redirecting mail,
which is collected through a single fee, covers the costs of gathering mail
for an addressee who has moved and marking it up for redirection, the actual
carriage is not charged.
--
Tinkerer (ex of The London Postal Training School)

[rosemaryc...@yahoo.co.uk]

I've tried googling and ringing Customer Help Desk, and still don't know. The woman I spoke to at Customer Help said she thought it would be better to repackage and pay again because then I'd have proof of postage if anything went astray. She also said that if I just readdressed it the recipient might be surcharged but she wasn't able to tell me under what circumstances they would or wouldn't be surcharged. I suppose the point about proof of posting was valid but otherwise, not much help regarding the legal position of simply changing the address and putting it back in the post box.

[Davey]

Surely the Post Office is obliged to deliver it to the original
addressee, if the correct postage was paid at the time?
I have just re-addressed such mail several times, and then given it
back to the postman. Then it has a chance of getting a little more
attention than normal.

--
Davey.

[F]

Do you realise you're replying to a post from 20 May 2010?

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - keep the last remaining Vulcan flying

[Davey]

Good point. I wonder what the final answer was?

--
Davey.

[Tim+]

According to our local postmistress, if a letter was delivered by Royal
Mail, then you can forward it without additional postage. That said, we
recently had a bad spate of mail going missing that was forwarded to
Belfast so we ended up repackaging and re-stamping anything important.
Make of that what you will.

Tim

[Andy Burns]

rosemaryc...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> On Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:44:50 AM UTC+1, Tim Downie wrote:
>
>> Whenever I've had to forward any unopened mail I've just readdressed the
>> envelope and stuck it back in a post box without paying any more postage.
>> Usually this works although earlier this week one letter "bounced" and came
>> back to our house despite my attempts to obliterate the old address.

I know this is a 'zombie thread' but could it be that the envelope has
either an RM4SCC postal barcode on it, or those orange fluorescent dots,
and is being re-delivered based on those?

[News]

In message
<1819018293440957435.91873...@news.eternal-septemb
er.org>, Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

>
>According to our local postmistress, if a letter was delivered by Royal
>Mail, then you can forward it without additional postage.

This highlights the problem highlighted by the OP. There is no formal,
written instruction. I retired as sub postmaster last year, and was
always told that I could not accept unpaid unofficial redirections at
the counter BUT if they were posted in the box outside, RM would deliver
them. Yes, RM did know which mail came over the counter and which was
collected from their boxes, because sacks from the counter were
segregated, tied and labelled but mail from boxes was not. I used to
accept stuff that I shouldn't at the counter, then take it outside and
post it in the RM box.

--
Graeme

[Andy Burns]

News wrote:

> RM did know which mail came over the counter and which was
> collected from their boxes, because sacks from the counter were
> segregated, tied and labelled but mail from boxes was not. I used to
> accept stuff that I shouldn't at the counter, then take it outside and
> post it in the RM box.

Because you /knew/ they wouldn't re-deliver it from the counter sacks,
or just in case they didn't?

[News]

In message <yNydnf-UxLInrQTJ...@brightview.co.uk>, Andy
Burns <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> writes

Just in case :-)

It just seemed silly to tempt fate. You just need some jobsworth
further down the line to slap a surcharge on the item, and I've upset a
customer.
--
Graeme

[bert]

In message <m78vs5$tgp$2...@dont-email.me>, Davey <da...@example.invalid>
writes

The rules changed with the liberalisation of the mail system and the
introduction of private carriers. For letters which have originated on a
private network. AIUI RM. not unreasonably is not expected to carry the
cost of returning mail when they haven't been paid much to deliver it in
the first place. BIMBW
--
bert

[giles....@gmail.com]

Yes Royal Mail's website is no help at all. Last time I searched it, only 6 months or so ago, I found after much looking pre-2012 of the Inland Postal Scheme on it and that contained section 6 about forwarding as mentioned earlirer in this thread. I searched their website again to see, if Royal Mail Tracked 24 was included and this time section 6 is just shown as 'deleted'. Eventually I also found this google group, and the pre 2010 copy again which someone had posted on another site, and this showed me that I was not mad, I had seen it before! Daughter will need to reimburse me for forwarding if she has things delivered here during the University term and wants them forwarding!

[giles....@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 9:57:41 PM UTC+1, giles....@gmail.com wrote:
> Yes Royal Mail's website is no help at all. Last time I searched it, only 6 months or so ago, I found after much looking pre-2012 of the Inland Postal Scheme on it and that contained section 6 about forwarding as mentioned earlirer in this thread. I searched their website again to see, if Royal Mail Tracked 24 was included and this time section 6 is just shown as 'deleted'. Eventually I also found this google group, and the pre 2010 copy again which someone had posted on another site, and this showed me that I was not mad, I had seen it before! Daughter will need to reimburse me for forwarding if she has things delivered here during the University term and wants them forwarding!

I've now found it's in clause 15.7 at http://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/the-royal-mail-united-kingdom-post-scheme-10-august-2015.pdf Bizzarely Bing did not find that when I searched for 'United Kingdom Postal Scheme'. It found a consultation document in the first several references.

So I looked for 'scheme' on their website, this returned the old scheme higher up the list so I did not look further down.

When I looked for 'charge for forwarding' their website returned only the previous scheme and 'forwarding' gave only the consultation version of the UKPS.

[NY]

<giles....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb1e2e59-3ff9-4510...@googlegroups.com...

> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 9:57:41 PM UTC+1, giles....@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> Yes Royal Mail's website is no help at all. Last time I searched it, only
>> 6 months or so ago, I found after much looking pre-2012 of the Inland
>> Postal Scheme on it and that contained section 6 about forwarding as
>> mentioned earlirer in this thread. I searched their website again to see,
>> if Royal Mail Tracked 24 was included and this time section 6 is just
>> shown as 'deleted'. Eventually I also found this google group, and the
>> pre 2010 copy again which someone had posted on another site, and this
>> showed me that I was not mad, I had seen it before! Daughter will need to
>> reimburse me for forwarding if she has things delivered here during the
>> University term and wants them forwarding!
>
> I've now found it's in clause 15.7 at
> http://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/the-royal-mail-united-kingdom-post-scheme-10-august-2015.pdf
> Bizzarely Bing did not find that when I searched for 'United Kingdom
> Postal Scheme'. It found a consultation document in the first several
> references.

This is interesting. I've been brought up to believe that the Royal Mail
would always forward mail from one address to another if the addressee was
no longer at the original address, and that it was not at the discretion of
the Royal Mail. Also I'd expect that they would try to deliver *all* mail,
even if it was regarded as unpaid for, even if i meant that it would be held
at the local sorting office for the new address until the recipient paid any
outstanding charges. The idea that they reserve the right to dispose of it
without even giving the recipient the option of paying any outstanding
charges seems very wrong.

The difficulty arises when as the new occupant of a house you keep receiving
important-looking mail for the previous owner who has not left a forwarding
address, as happened with us. All you can do is return it to the sender.
Maybe we should have contacted the estate agent to see if they had a
forwarding address and would forward mail for us.

[Davey]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:26:47 +0100
"NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

snip

>
> This is interesting. I've been brought up to believe that the Royal
> Mail would always forward mail from one address to another if the
> addressee was no longer at the original address, and that it was not
> at the discretion of the Royal Mail. Also I'd expect that they would
> try to deliver *all* mail, even if it was regarded as unpaid for,
> even if i meant that it would be held at the local sorting office for
> the new address until the recipient paid any outstanding charges. The
> idea that they reserve the right to dispose of it without even giving
> the recipient the option of paying any outstanding charges seems very
> wrong.

My upbringing taught me that the Post Office would forward mail to a
new address for a fee, which was high, and went higher the longer it
was used. When I moved to the US, I found this service to be offered
free.

--
Davey.

[NY]

"Davey" <da...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:mugdle$tat$1...@dont-email.me...

I've never heard of having to put a new stamp on a letter to redirect it.
I've always understood that the Royal Mail did it as a free service, with
the only advantage of the paid-for service being that it was more certain to
arrive and didn't depend on the original recipient be at home at the time
and being willing to readdress.

[Chris French]

In message <fv2dnRz7WuBHJZbL...@brightview.co.uk>, NY
<m...@privacy.net> writes

><giles....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:eb1e2e59-3ff9-4510...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 9:57:41 PM UTC+1,
>>giles....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Yes Royal Mail's website is no help at all. Last time I searched it,
>>>only 6 months or so ago, I found after much looking pre-2012 of the
>>>Inland Postal Scheme on it and that contained section 6 about
>>>forwarding as mentioned earlirer in this thread. I searched their
>>>website again to see, if Royal Mail Tracked 24 was included and this
>>>time section 6 is just shown as 'deleted'. Eventually I also found
>>>this google group, and the pre 2010 copy again which someone had
>>>posted on another site, and this showed me that I was not mad, I had
>>>seen it before! Daughter will need to reimburse me for forwarding if
>>>she has things delivered here during the University term and wants them forwarding!
>>
>> I've now found it's in clause 15.7 at
>>http://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/the-royal-mail-united-king
>>dom-post-scheme-10-august-2015.pdf Bizzarely Bing did not find that
>>when I searched for 'United Kingdom Postal Scheme'. It found a
>>consultation document in the first several references.
>
>This is interesting. I've been brought up to believe that the Royal
>Mail would always forward mail from one address to another if the
>addressee was no longer at the original address, and that it was not at
>the discretion of the Royal Mail.

I suspect that it was always one of those things which they just did,
but they weren't obliged to do...Because they did it everyone assumes
that they had to :-)

My in laws still get the odd letter for my wife, FIL forwards them by
with no problem.
--
Chris French

[Davey]

When I moved away from home, I paid for the redirection service. It did
not involve the mail arriving at the old address and being redirected,
it was automatically diverted to the new address.
The USPS does this free, you just fill in the form and send it in to
your Post Office. "Letter Carriers" also collect mail from you and take
it to the sorting office, another nice little benefit. But in most
places, they will only deliver your mail to a box, with very tight
rules as to height, condition, etc, at the roadside.

See:

"The USPS Domestic Mail Manual states that “no part of a mail receptacle
may be used to deliver any matter not bearing postage, including items
of matter placed upon, supported by, attached to, hung from, or
inserted into a mail receptacle.” In other words, the mailbox may not
be used for anything other than for pieces of mail with postage
attached. The USPS Domestic Mail Manual goes on to states that it is a
federal offense and there is a significant penalty for violating this
law.
http://www.residential-mailboxes.net/mailbox-laws-and-regulations/law-for-residential-mail-box "

So there!

--
Davey.

[Richard Conway]

If you corresponded with somebody on a regular basis back and forth you
could use this to your advantage by having two resealable envelopes, one
with your address written and crossed out and redirected to them, the
other with their address crossed out and redirected to you. The it's
simply a matter of posting it in the right envelope. If you include the
unused envelope inside the one being sent the other party could use that
when replying! This could go on for some time!

[Tim Lamb]

In message <300920151251322886%timst...@greenbee.net>, Tim Streater
<timst...@greenbee.net> writes
>That's right, that's the redirection service that you pay for for a
>fixed period after you move house. That is not the same thing as being
>in a house and receiving mail for a previous owner who either did not
>arrange for their mail to be redirected after they moved out, or did
>not do it for long enough so you start receiving their unredirected
>mail after the period expires.
>
>We had that; the previous owners mail started arriving here a year
>after they left. For a further year we re-addressed it and bunged it
>back in the post with no extra stamps (fuck that!). After a further
>year I started returning to sender and writing "Not known at this
>address" on it.
>
>Why would anyone add a stamp under those conditions?

Quite!

After my sister died, postie advised us to put *deceased* on her charity
begging letters and re-post. 13 months and counting......
>

--
Tim Lamb

[Davey]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:51:32 +0100
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <mughm0$tat$2...@dont-email.me>, Davey <da...@example.invalid>

> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:44:15 +0100
> >"NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Davey" <da...@example.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:mugdle$tat$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:26:47 +0100
> >> > "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> This is interesting. I've been brought up to believe that the
> >> >> Royal Mail would always forward mail from one address to
> >> >> another if the addressee was no longer at the original address,
> >> >> and that it was not at the discretion of the Royal Mail. Also
> >> >> I'd expect that they would try to deliver *all* mail, even if
> >> >> it was regarded as unpaid for, even if i meant that it would be
> >> >> held at the local sorting office for the new address until the
> >> >> recipient paid any outstanding charges. The idea that they
> >> >> reserve the right to dispose of it without even giving the
> >> >> recipient the option of paying any outstanding charges seems
> >> >> very wrong
> >> >

> >> > My upbringing taught me that the Post Office would forward mail
> >> > to a new address for a fee, which was high, and went higher the
> >> > longer it was used. When I moved to the US, I found this service
> >> > to be offered free.
> >>
> >> I've never heard of having to put a new stamp on a letter to
> >> redirect it. I've always understood that the Royal Mail did it as
> >> a free service, with the only advantage of the paid-for service
> >> being that it was more certain to arrive and didn't depend on the
> >> original recipient be at home at the time and being willing to
> >> readdress.
>
> >When I moved away from home, I paid for the redirection service. It
> >did not involve the mail arriving at the old address and being
> >redirected, it was automatically diverted to the new address.
>

> That's right, that's the redirection service that you pay for for a
> fixed period after you move house. That is not the same thing as being
> in a house and receiving mail for a previous owner who either did not
> arrange for their mail to be redirected after they moved out, or did
> not do it for long enough so you start receiving their unredirected
> mail after the period expires.
>
> We had that; the previous owners mail started arriving here a year
> after they left. For a further year we re-addressed it and bunged it
> back in the post with no extra stamps (fuck that!). After a further
> year I started returning to sender and writing "Not known at this
> address" on it.
>
> Why would anyone add a stamp under those conditions?
>

Not me, for sure. I would never add a stamp if one was already there.

The previous occupiers of this house kept on getting letters
from the council delivered here, and despite them telling the council
to change their address, (to a different council's area), nothing ever
changed. I started to return them to the sending council, marked 'Not
Known Here', and still they came. I eventually contacted the council's
helpline, and got the wording of what to write on the returned envelope
to get the right treatment. That worked, thankfully.

--
Davey.

[Jonathan]

Which was?

Jonathan

[Chris J Dixon]

Davey wrote:

>When I moved away from home, I paid for the redirection service. It did
>not involve the mail arriving at the old address and being redirected,
>it was automatically diverted to the new address.
>The USPS does this free, you just fill in the form and send it in to
>your Post Office. "Letter Carriers" also collect mail from you and take
>it to the sorting office, another nice little benefit. But in most
>places, they will only deliver your mail to a box, with very tight
>rules as to height, condition, etc, at the roadside.
>
>See:
>
>"The USPS Domestic Mail Manual states that “no part of a mail receptacle
>may be used to deliver any matter not bearing postage, including items
>of matter placed upon, supported by, attached to, hung from, or
>inserted into a mail receptacle.” In other words, the mailbox may not
>be used for anything other than for pieces of mail with postage
>attached. The USPS Domestic Mail Manual goes on to states that it is a
>federal offense and there is a significant penalty for violating this
>law.
>http://www.residential-mailboxes.net/mailbox-laws-and-regulations/law-for-residential-mail-box "

I wonder if they caught up with this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq9jSEq0enw

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
ch...@cdixon.me.uk

Plant amazing Acers.

[Davey]

The name of the person who answered the helpline 'phone, and a reference
number.

--
Davey.

[bert]

In article <mugdle$tat$1...@dont-email.me>, Davey <da...@example.invalid>
writes

And for a family there is a separate charge for each individual
addressee.
--
bert

[bert]

In article <LNqdnVs-SoZvIZbL...@brightview.co.uk>, NY
<m...@privacy.net> writes

Those days are long gone. Royal Mail under Universal Obligation are paid
to deliver a letter once. Bear in mind that in may cases the original
letter will have been delivered to them by an independent carrier so
they won't have received full postage (if anything),
AIUI royal mail rules are that they will redeliver a letter if it was
originally posted with Royal Mail is unopened and the name of the
original addressee is visible. Otherwise it requires a new stamp. In our
part of the world they seem not to be too strict
--
bert

[News]

In message <300920152206371697%timst...@greenbee.net>, Tim Streater
<timst...@greenbee.net> writes
>In article <tvhlVrH8...@m.raefell.co.uk>, bert

><be...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>AIUI royal mail rules are that they will redeliver a letter if it was
>>originally posted with Royal Mail is unopened and the name of the
>>original addressee is visible. Otherwise it requires a new stamp. In
>>our part of the world they seem not to be too strict
>

>Well I just bunged it in the box and let RM decide whether they'd
>deliver it or not.
>
During twelve years as a sub postmaster, this was one of those questions
to which I could never get a straight and definitive answer from either
POL or RM. The bottom line seemed to be that I could (or should) not
accept redirected mail over the counter without a new stamp, but, as I
told customers, there was nothing to stop anyone just posting it in the
box outside. Experience suggests that anything like that, put in the
box outside, would always be (re)delivered.
--
Graeme

[NY]

"News" <Gra...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9moPpshM...@nospam.demon.co.uk...

The concept of the new owner of a house having to pay to forward mail to the
addressee at his new house is clearly unacceptable, so there are three
solutions:

- addressee pays Royal Mail for a period of redirection, as I did when I
moved house and couldn't remember all the once-a-year companies that sent me
financial statements of savings etc, so as each one arrived I was able to
contact them with my new address

- Royal Mail undertakes to return letters to sender for free (I presume it's
acceptable for then new house owner to write the forwarding address that he
has been given so the sender can update their records and forward the
letter)

- Royal Mail forwards readdressed mail

The last is the that I have been making use of, and I imagine many people
have done, because at one time it was standard practice. I thought it still
was, but evidently with little publicity the facility was withdrawn at some
stage, even if it continues unofficially.

[damdu...@yahoo.co.uk]

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:14:14 +0100, "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:


>
>- Royal Mail undertakes to return letters to sender for free (I presume it's
>acceptable for then new house owner to write the forwarding address that he
>has been given so the sender can update their records and forward the
>letter)
>
>- Royal Mail forwards readdressed mail
>
>The last is the that I have been making use of, and I imagine many people
>have done, because at one time it was standard practice. I thought it still
>was, but evidently with little publicity the facility was withdrawn at some
>stage, even if it continues unofficially.

It wasn't that long ago ,sometime in the last 10 years?
There was the usual moaning in small local newspapers and to finish of
regional news programmes as to how the country would grind to a halt
and that it wasn't fair that because elderly Doris had Alzheimer and
kept posting to addresses that her rellies had long left that they
would have to pay the surcharge if some body readdressed them and sent
them on.

We got one from someone long forgotten who had sent a letter to a
former address, the postie knocked on the door and asked for the cost
of the extra stamp, same thing used to happen if somebody had posted
a letter and forgot to put a stamp on at all, the Post Office/Royal
Mail would deliver it but ask the recipient for the cost ,way back it
was standard practice to have a choice, 1d for putting a stamp or 2d
if the recipient had to pay. Naturally people may not want to get some
letters so they would not pay up so the latter practice died out.
I suspect the same thing happens with collecting the charge for a
redirected letter and no matter what Manglement may wish most posties
can do without the hassle and just carry on as for.

G.Harman

[Tim+]

That was my general understanding. Our local post office said that if a
letter was sent by Royal Mail, then it could be forwarded.

That said, when our daughter was working in Belfast, a *lot* of fowarded
mail never made it and we had to repackage/re-stamp mail to be sure of
delivery.

Tim

[NY]

"Tim+" <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1812450481465385164.70353...@news.eternal-> That

said, when our daughter was working in Belfast, a *lot* of fowarded
> mail never made it and we had to repackage/re-stamp mail to be sure of
> delivery.

The Royal Mail don't like you forwarding several letters (to the same
address) in a single envelope, though there's sod all they can do about it.
I had a post office counters guy give me a bollocking for doing this, though
under sufferance he had to admit that what I was doing was perfectly legal
because the new envelope had the correct postage for the size.

I think he thought that each letter should have its own stamp, rather that
putting them in a single A4 envelope and putting a large-letter stamp on
that. Tough titty :-) I do it for birthday cards: it so happens that my
sister and two of my nephews all have birthdays within a few days of each
other so I send all the cards in a single envelope rather than paying nearly
three times the postage.

[Andy Burns]

Huge wrote:

> damduck-egg wrote:
>
>> We got one from someone long forgotten who had sent a letter to a
>> former address, the postie knocked on the door and asked for the cost
>> of the extra stamp,
>

> Why, did he actually *want* to be laughed at?

I'm surprised you didn't get a "you were out" postcard, asking to visit
the sorting office and pay the extra plus a £1 handling fee ...

[NY]

"Andy Burns" <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bZydnbVZPNwzpJDL...@brightview.co.uk...

I bet if it had been my old postman he'd have done that. He was a stickler
for playing by the rules. I was once bringing something in from the car so I
left my front door open while I walked across from the car park. I'd seen he
postie walk up to my front door but all he'd left was a "while you were out"
postcard. When I walked a few doors away to challenged him he said that he
wasn't allowed to put letters on a front door mat through an open door and
had to put it through the letter box. He wouldn't hand over the letters even
if I produced my driving licence as ID (although he knew who I was because
he addressed me by name). With very bad grace he walked back with me and
insisted that I should shut my front door and then open it with my key to
prove I lived there. Even then he wouldn't give me the letters until I had
closed the door so he could put the letters through the letter box. Very
obsessive behaviour :-)

Interestingly I got a new postman a few weeks later. I commented on this to
him "ah you're new" and he said with a mischievous wink "I'm not allowed to
tell you why because that would be disloyal to a former colleague" which
told me everything I needed to know, especially as he emphasised "former".

[Chris J Dixon]

Is it just my imagination, or does a far smaller percentage of
stamps get visible franked these days? Once upon a time there
would be the temptation to soak them off and re-use, but my
Yorkshire roots must be wearing off.

I wonder if there is cancellation we can't see, or do
self-adhesive stamps resist soaking off?

[NY]

"Chris J Dixon" <ch...@cdixon.me.uk> wrote in message
news:44mq0bhrdo0soq2rl...@4ax.com...

> Is it just my imagination, or does a far smaller percentage of
> stamps get visible franked these days? Once upon a time there
> would be the temptation to soak them off and re-use, but my
> Yorkshire roots must be wearing off.
>
> I wonder if there is cancellation we can't see, or do
> self-adhesive stamps resist soaking off?

They have vertical oval cutouts embossed in the bottom left and bottom right
which in theory will stay attached to the envelope when you remove the rest
of the stamp, though I've managed to remove the whole stamp before now when
I've had to move the stamp onto a new envelope because I realise I've
forgotten to put something (usually a cheque!) in and had to open the
envelope.

The other option is to cut/tear the stamp off with a bit of envelope round
the edge and then stick that onto another envelope of the same colour.

I'm only advocating doing this before posting. I wouldn't reuse an unfranked
stamp that had been used to deliver a letter. No way. (By the way, did I
tell you that my nickname is Pinocchio?)

[Adrian]

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 20:13:16 +0100, NY wrote:

> ... when I've had to move the stamp onto a new envelope because I

> realise I've forgotten to put something (usually a cheque!) in and had
> to open the envelope.

Sellotape the envelope closed again?

[damdu...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 1 Oct 2015 13:42:48 GMT, Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>On 2015-10-01, damdu...@yahoo.co.uk <damdu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> We got one from someone long forgotten who had sent a letter to a
>> former address, the postie knocked on the door and asked for the cost
>> of the extra stamp,
>

>Why, did he actually *want* to be laughed at?

Because he knew that I'm not inherently an arrogant bully like you
sometimes give the impression of being whether or not it that is true.
.

New on the job was just applying the rules as instructed and was
barely weeks into it and probably on a probationary period.
Jobs for someone about 20 were not that easy to get around here when
the recession kicked in and he probably did not want to lose it.
I had the choice of accepting the letter or not and as the long
forgotten sender was of no importance I said take it back, if it had
been from someone settling a debtl for a reasonable sum it would have
been a worthwhile cost.

The previous older chap had chucked the job in as he could not get on
with the new style of management. He was past retirement age anyway.
That was six years ago and the young chap now has some experience and
is quite sensible now ,leaves things in an agreed hidden spot if we
are out . Fortunately compared to some we have a relatively early
deliver at around 8.30 so that is rare.
Must be on leave this week as a rather attractive young lady appeared
this morning.

G.Harman

[bert]

In article <44mq0bhrdo0soq2rl...@4ax.com>, Chris J Dixon
<ch...@cdixon.me.uk> writes

>Is it just my imagination, or does a far smaller percentage of
>stamps get visible franked these days? Once upon a time there
>would be the temptation to soak them off and re-use, but my
>Yorkshire roots must be wearing off.
>
>I wonder if there is cancellation we can't see, or do
>self-adhesive stamps resist soaking off?
>
>Chris

They're supposed to have two strips that come undone if you try to soak
them off.
--
bert

[drbob]

Arise zombie thread! It's pretty scandalous that royal mail seem to have gotten away with this fairly major reduction in level of service. I found this thread whilst looking for a clear about mail redirection/forwarding. I remembered doing this in the past but friends were saying it had never been allowed.

Citizen's advice certainly seem to think it's fine, the advice on their site is:

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/post/post/problems-with-post/stop-getting-someone-elses-post/

* cross out the address - but not the name
* write ‘no longer at this address, please forward’ and their new address on the front of the envelope
* put it in a post box

However this seems to be out of date, the current "Royal Mail United Kingdom Post Scheme 30 November 2015" states in section 15.7

15.7 Forwarding – unofficial redirections – We are not under any obligation to do anything with an item that someone requests to be forwarded to another
address other than the return to sender address on the cover. We consider
these unpaid for, forwarding requests to be a form of unofficial redirections request. Typically in this situation the original address is crossed out and a written request (e.g. “please forward to”) is made on the cover to forward the item to another address. This is normally attempted in order to try to get the item to the addressee who has moved to another address. In these situations the person moving should take out a Redirection service with us or provide pre-paid stationery. If we find an item that someone has requested be forwarded to another address then the item may be dealt with or disposed of at our discretion.

You can find it on the Royal mail website here: http://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/Royal-Mail-United-Kingdom-Post-Scheme-30-November-2015.pdf

Or in the London Gazette here: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2439144

I'm guessing that someone at Royal mail has tried very hard to purge the web of earlier versions of the Inland Letter Post scheme as multiple google searches for older version of the scheme brought up nothing until I thought to search directly on the London Gazette website. This turned up the 2008 scheme in which the "section 6" referred to earlier in this thread can still be read:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-58781-578972

6. FORWARDING A LETTER

6.1 A recipient of a Letter (except a Business Reply, Freepost, Special Delivery or Recorded Letter) may forward it from its original address to another address in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man by writing or printing the new address on the Cover or envelope of the Letter and re-posting the Letter. A Letter may only be forwarded in this way to the original Addressee.

6.2 Except in the circumstances set out in section 6.3 below, Royal Mail will not charge additional postage or fees for forwarding a Letter that has been re-posted in accordance with section 6.1 above.

Clearly until quite recently Royal Mail had a legal obligation to redirect mail to a forwarding address at no charge, though as the confusion on this thread shows they kept very quite about it. I expect the privatised royal mail hated providing this service and so lobbied hard for the change to the current rule. Personally I think free forwarding is a pretty essential part of a proper postal system (where you can reasonably expect a letter to be delivered to the addressee even if they've moved elsewhere) and they should not have been allowed to make this change.

[News]

In message <6f6ca842-a489-45f6...@googlegroups.com>,
drbob <gbd...@gmail.com> writes

>Clearly until quite recently Royal Mail had a legal obligation to
>redirect mail to a forwarding address at no charge, though as the
>confusion on this thread shows they kept very quite about it. I expect
>the privatised royal mail hated providing this service and so lobbied
>hard for the change to the current rule.

Nothing has changed as far as I am aware. RM were under no obligation
to redirect mail without charge for the 15 years I was local sub
postmaster.

> Personally I think free forwarding is a pretty essential part of a
>proper postal system (where you can reasonably expect a letter to be
>delivered to the addressee even if they've moved elsewhere) and they
>should not have been allowed to make this change.

Why free forwarding? When people don't pay for their mail to be
redirected why should they expect mail to follow them?

--
Graeme

[Brian Gaff]

Its very hit and miss nowadays. I got somebody elses radio times a couple of
weeks back, and since I could not read the address I left it sitting on my
table till a sighted person came around and she gave it to a postman, so we
have no idea where it went after that, Suffice to say that the posst code
and name were not mine, but the road was right and the number unreadable as
printed by some automated process lacking ink.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"drbob" <gbd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f6ca842-a489-45f6...@googlegroups.com...

15.7 Forwarding - unofficial redirections - We are not under any obligation

[Martin Brown]

What about the situation so common in rural villages where there is a
Home/Glebe Farm, <tree> Cottage, <flower> Cottage in every hamlet and
postcodes that are not very different. I frequently get mail addressed
to one of the nearby Dopplegangers of my premises address.

I stick them back in with "NOT my village" scrawled across them and the
recipients village name in much larger letters.

Almost anything addressed to any "Brown" in my village comes to me -
which was a bit of a problem when another Brown moved into the village.
If you have moved house then it probably makes sense to use the paid for
mail intercept and redirection service rather than rely on the goodwill
of the new residents to manually forward stuff. If you do the latter at
least leave them with a good supply of printed sticky labels.

Regards,
Martin Brown

[gbd...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 7:20:04 AM UTC+1, News wrote:
> In message <6f6ca842-a489-45f6...@googlegroups.com>,
> drbob <gbd...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >Clearly until quite recently Royal Mail had a legal obligation to
> >redirect mail to a forwarding address at no charge, though as the
> >confusion on this thread shows they kept very quite about it. I expect
> >the privatised royal mail hated providing this service and so lobbied
> >hard for the change to the current rule.
>
> Nothing has changed as far as I am aware. RM were under no obligation
> to redirect mail without charge for the 15 years I was local sub
> postmaster.
>

That's what I mean about Royal Mail keeping quiet about this aspect of the service. You were a sub-postmaser and unaware! Free forwarding was part of the rules as recently as 2008 (2010 according to earlier posts in this thread though I can't find the exact date things changed) Take a look at the 2008 version of the Inland Letter Post Scheme from the London Gazette I linked in my previous post. That sets out the rules under which Royal Mail operates the postal service. It used to clearly state in section 6 that letters could be forwarded for no extra charge.

I'm not talking about automatic redirection of all mail which I think has always been chargeable, rather someone manually crossing out the wrong/outdated address and adding the correct one before dropping the letter back in the mail.

>
> Why free forwarding? When people don't pay for their mail to be
> redirected why should they expect mail to follow them?
>

Because a fixed term mail redirection only covers the situation when someone has moved home. Most people will pay for automatic redirection anyways in that case as the number of letters arriving for the previous occupier of the old address is usually quite high in the first months after a move and they can't reasonably rely on the new occupier to forward them all.

However what about the card or letter from an elderly relative trying to get back in touch that arrives a year later? What about mail sent to someone who is traveling addressed to their hotel or boarding house that arrives after they have moved on?

It's also easy nowadays to forget to update one or more service providers with a new address when you've switched most communication to e-mail/online - except the really important communications they still send via the post (e.g legal documents/court summons, fines, final bills) This makes it more likely today that an important letter will get sent to an old address months after a paid for blanket redirection has ended.

Essentially it was a very useful aspect of the service that helped ensure people actually received their mail, I can only think RM got rid of it because they didn't want the expense of policing what was probably a tiny number of people abusing the rules.

[gbd...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 11:25:46 AM UTC+1, gbd...@gmail.com wrote:

> Essentially it was a very useful aspect of the service that helped ensure people actually received their mail, I can only think RM got rid of it because they didn't want the expense of policing what was probably a tiny number of people abusing the rules.

Thinking about it a bit more I believe the real reason is probably the opportunity to exploit people's fears of missing an important letter for profit.

In the past you only really needed the 3 or 6 month blanket redirect from an old address, as long as the new occupants are reasonable people you could expect them to forward the odd bit of misaddressed mail that arrived after that, especially if it looked important.

Now that the new rules say forwarding must be paid for or Royal Mail can just bin "unofficaly redirected" mail they've probably got many more people coughing up for the maximum two years of redirection with 12-18months of that pure profit in most cases.

[tim...]

"News" <Gra...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:bL8afFJ9...@nospam.demon.co.uk...

The charge isn't for the work of redelivering , it's for the work of
intercepting it and writing the new address on the front

if someone else does that, why shouldn't they deliver it for the original
postage?

tim


>
> --
> Graeme

[tim...]

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nnpo4q$1dv2$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

I used to live at Flat 11, No. 8 XXX street

I got all the post for no 11 XXX street because No. 11 had been changed to
ABC house and no longer had a number on the front door

the fact that it had a different postcode made no difference

tim

[tim...]

<gbd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae886427-7b11-494b...@googlegroups.com...

> On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 11:25:46 AM UTC+1, gbd...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Essentially it was a very useful aspect of the service that helped ensure
>> people actually received their mail, I can only think RM got rid of it
>> because they didn't want the expense of policing what was probably a tiny
>> number of people abusing the rules.
>
> Thinking about it a bit more I believe the real reason is probably the
> opportunity to exploit people's fears of missing an important letter for
> profit.
>
> In the past you only really needed the 3 or 6 month blanket redirect from
> an old address, as long as the new occupants are reasonable people you
> could expect them to forward the odd bit of misaddressed mail that arrived
> after that, especially if it looked important.

Not IME you can't.

And the more "professional" the new occupiers the less likely they are to do
it

tim

[NY]

"tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nnq2dc$2nt$1...@dont-email.me...

>> What about the situation so common in rural villages where there is a
>> Home/Glebe Farm, <tree> Cottage, <flower> Cottage in every hamlet and
>> postcodes that are not very different. I frequently get mail addressed to
>> one of the nearby Dopplegangers of my premises address.
>>
>> I stick them back in with "NOT my village" scrawled across them and the
>> recipients village name in much larger letters.

Do the Royal Mail undertake to re-deliver mail that *they* have
mis-delivered in the first place?

I have received several letters over the years for someone in a completely
different town with a completely different postcode (and a different
surname). How can mail for "5 XXX Avenue" in one town, with one postcode
(which is the correct postcode for that address) get mis-delivered to "5 XXX
Avenue" in a different town/postcode?


What are the rules about a letter which is addressed to my house (by number)
but to a neighbour (by surname)? Is the postman required to deliver all
letters as addressed, or can he use his discretion and say "ah, I know that
Mrs D Smith lives at number 3, not number 5"? I had a letter addressed to
out house but for a neighbour whose surname I didn't know, so I asked the
postman the following day "Is there a Mrs D Smith near here" and he told me,
so I popped the letter through their box. But I wondered whether our
normally very conscientious postman might have been obliged to delivery the
letter to the wrong address even though he knew it was wrong.

[Bob Eager]

On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 03:25:43 -0700, gbdrbob wrote:

> I can only think RM got rid of it because they didn't want the expense
> of policing what was probably a tiny number of people abusing the rules.

No, they recognised new income streams:
- excess charges
- new customers for the redirection service

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

[Davey]

On 2 Aug 2016 13:20:55 GMT

Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 03:25:43 -0700, gbdrbob wrote:
>
> > I can only think RM got rid of it because they didn't want the
> > expense of policing what was probably a tiny number of people
> > abusing the rules.
>
> No, they recognised new income streams:
> - excess charges
> - new customers for the redirection service
>

The 'Merkins have a more liberal approach:
https://about.usps.com/notices/not616/not616_003.htm

and
https://www.usps.com/manage/forward.htm

--
Davey.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <nnq28r$2a3$1...@dont-email.me>,

tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The charge isn't for the work of redelivering , it's for the work of
> intercepting it and writing the new address on the front

> if someone else does that, why shouldn't they deliver it for the
> original postage?

Why should they? They're no longer state owned, have a monopoly or are
some form of charity. So there's no reason to expect them to do any more
than they were paid for. Which was delivering an item to the address on it.

--
*Pentium wise, pen and paper foolish *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <e0bl1n...@mid.individual.net>,

Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 03:25:43 -0700, gbdrbob wrote:

> > I can only think RM got rid of it because they didn't want the expense
> > of policing what was probably a tiny number of people abusing the
> > rules.

> No, they recognised new income streams: - excess charges - new customers
> for the redirection service

And why not? Profit is the god in the UK.

--
*"I am " is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. *

[Johnny B Good]

On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 14:39:31 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

This particular quote, used in your sig file, seems to be irritatingly
incomplete.

*"I am " is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. *

What's missing is the next line which ought to read:

" whilst "I do" has often turned out to be the *longest sentence* in the
English Language." :-)

--
Johnny B Good

[Martin Brown]

On 02/08/2016 13:44, NY wrote:
> "tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nnq2dc$2nt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> What about the situation so common in rural villages where there is a
>>> Home/Glebe Farm, <tree> Cottage, <flower> Cottage in every hamlet and
>>> postcodes that are not very different. I frequently get mail
>>> addressed to one of the nearby Dopplegangers of my premises address.
>>>
>>> I stick them back in with "NOT my village" scrawled across them and
>>> the recipients village name in much larger letters.
>
> Do the Royal Mail undertake to re-deliver mail that *they* have
> mis-delivered in the first place?

Who knows? Unless it was fantastically important then how would you know
that a misdirected mail had gone missing.

> I have received several letters over the years for someone in a
> completely different town with a completely different postcode (and a
> different surname). How can mail for "5 XXX Avenue" in one town, with
> one postcode (which is the correct postcode for that address) get
> mis-delivered to "5 XXX Avenue" in a different town/postcode?

Postcodes are a poor design with huge numbers of machine reader errors -
better now but when introduced it was really dire. It is even worse in
the countryside where indivdual houses sometimes have irregular
postcodes due to the serpentine nature of the original medieval field
ownership structure. Plenty of people stop opposite the village church
looking for the farm shop (about a mile away) because a single house
opposite which used to own the fields behind has the right post code.

The combination of in car GPS navigation with dodgy postcodes can be
hugely entertaining for onlookers.

> What are the rules about a letter which is addressed to my house (by
> number) but to a neighbour (by surname)? Is the postman required to
> deliver all letters as addressed, or can he use his discretion and say
> "ah, I know that Mrs D Smith lives at number 3, not number 5"? I had a
> letter addressed to out house but for a neighbour whose surname I didn't
> know, so I asked the postman the following day "Is there a Mrs D Smith
> near here" and he told me, so I popped the letter through their box. But
> I wondered whether our normally very conscientious postman might have
> been obliged to delivery the letter to the wrong address even though he
> knew it was wrong.

I think it depends on how well the postman knows you.

Regards,
Martin Brown

[Lobster]

On 01 Aug 2016, drbob <gbd...@gmail.com> grunted:

> Clearly until quite recently Royal Mail had a legal obligation to
> redirect mail to a forwarding address at no charge, though as the
> confusion on this thread shows they kept very quite about it. I expect
> the privatised royal mail hated providing this service and so lobbied
> hard for the change to the current rule. Personally I think free
> forwarding is a pretty essential part of a proper postal system (where
> you can reasonably expect a letter to be delivered to the addressee
> even if they've moved elsewhere) and they should not have been allowed
> to make this change.

FWIW my son received a re-addressed letter here this morning, forwarded by
his university flatmate - no problem.

I've frequently forwarded mail delivered at home, to my kids at uni this
way over the past few years; never heard of it not working

--
David

[John Rumm]

On 02/08/2016 10:11, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 07:13, News wrote:
>> In message <6f6ca842-a489-45f6...@googlegroups.com>,
>> drbob <gbd...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>>> Clearly until quite recently Royal Mail had a legal obligation to
>>> redirect mail to a forwarding address at no charge, though as the
>>> confusion on this thread shows they kept very quite about it. I expect
>>> the privatised royal mail hated providing this service and so lobbied
>>> hard for the change to the current rule.
>>
>> Nothing has changed as far as I am aware. RM were under no obligation
>> to redirect mail without charge for the 15 years I was local sub
>> postmaster.
>>
>>> Personally I think free forwarding is a pretty essential part of a
>>> proper postal system (where you can reasonably expect a letter to be
>>> delivered to the addressee even if they've moved elsewhere) and they
>>> should not have been allowed to make this change.
>>
>> Why free forwarding? When people don't pay for their mail to be
>> redirected why should they expect mail to follow them?
>
> What about the situation so common in rural villages where there is a
> Home/Glebe Farm, <tree> Cottage, <flower> Cottage in every hamlet and
> postcodes that are not very different. I frequently get mail addressed
> to one of the nearby Dopplegangers of my premises address.

The difference there is that it was delivered to you in error - an error
by royal mail, so its not unreasonable to expect them to correct the
error at their expense. A rather difference situation to mail that was
delivered to the correct address, but the occupant failed to put in
place redirection when they moved.


--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

[Rod Speed]

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote
> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote

>> gbdrbob wrote

>>> I can only think RM got rid of it because they didn't
>>> want the expense of policing what was probably a
>>> tiny number of people abusing the rules.

>> No, they recognised new income streams: - excess
>> charges - new customers for the redirection service

> And why not? Profit is the god in the UK.

Like hell it is with all of the govt schools, cops, most
roads, judicial system, the NHS, the BBC etc etc etc.

It isnt even for newspapers anymore, they are basically
a rat hole to pour rich people's money down now.

[News]

In message <nnpo4q$1dv2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes

>On 02/08/2016 07:13, News wrote:
>>
>> Why free forwarding? When people don't pay for their mail to be
>> redirected why should they expect mail to follow them?
>
>What about the situation so common in rural villages where there is a
>Home/Glebe Farm, <tree> Cottage, <flower> Cottage in every hamlet and
>postcodes that are not very different. I frequently get mail addressed
>to one of the nearby Dopplegangers of my premises address.

That is completely different. You are talking about mail finding the
correct recipient even though badly or incorrectly addressed. I was
talking about people expecting their mail to follow them without charge
after a change of premises.
--
Graeme

[News]

In message <xLadnevoEsMdCD3K...@brightview.co.uk>, NY
<m...@privacy.net> writes

>But I wondered whether our normally very conscientious postman might
>have been obliged to delivery the letter to the wrong address even
>though he knew it was wrong.

That is the nub. Yes, posties are obliged to deliver to the address,
not the name, even when they know the combination is incorrect. All
down to the attitude of the postie after that. IME here, in a rural
location where almost everyone knows everyone else, all sorts went on
that was not in accordance with rules made up and administered 500 miles
away.

--
Graeme

[News]

In message <nnq28r$2a3$1...@dont-email.me>, tim...
<tims_n...@yahoo.com> writes

>
>The charge isn't for the work of redelivering , it's for the work of
>intercepting it and writing the new address on the front
>
>if someone else does that, why shouldn't they deliver it for the
>original postage?

Because the original postage was used to deliver it the first time.
--
Graeme

[News]

In message <80aa4809-3f64-4658...@googlegroups.com>,
gbd...@gmail.com writes

>You were a sub-postmaser and unaware!

The story of my life :-)

You would be amazed (or perhaps not) at how much is not actually written
down, particularly regarding interaction between Royal Mail and Post
Office. Worse, if written down, contradictory information. A few years
ago, PO and RM both published 'guide to posting' booklets. The PO
booklet said 'printed paper' going abroad must have a customs
declaration. The RM booklet said the customs dec was advisory but not
essential. You can imagine the problems that caused at the counter.

Getting back to redirections, we were not allowed to accept redirected
mail at the counter without new postage being affixed, so I just told
people to stick it in the box outside, knowing that RM would almost
certainly (re)deliver it.

--
Graeme

[tim...]

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:o5KdnSTiBdlycD3K...@brightview.co.uk...

Though it's not always a user failure

Having moved a round Europe a lot in the past 10 years I used my sister's
address for all of my official UK mail to be delivered to.

When my sister eventually decided to move house I asked her to put my name
on the list of individuals whose post would be re-directed (for which there
would have been an additional charge per name).

They refused to do this because I was not on the electoral register at that
address, and could not attend in person to sign the form

tim

[bert]

In article <o5KdnSTiBdlycD3K...@brightview.co.uk>, John
Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> writes

Make that "occupants" There is a charge for each one so a family of four
say has to pay four times to ensure coverage.
--
bert

[bert]

In article <xLadnevoEsMdCD3K...@brightview.co.uk>, NY
<m...@privacy.net> writes

>"tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:nnq2dc$2nt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> What about the situation so common in rural villages where there is
>>>a Home/Glebe Farm, <tree> Cottage, <flower> Cottage in every hamlet
>>>and postcodes that are not very different. I frequently get mail
>>>addressed to one of the nearby Dopplegangers of my premises address.
>>>
>>> I stick them back in with "NOT my village" scrawled across them and
>>>the recipients village name in much larger letters.
>
>Do the Royal Mail undertake to re-deliver mail that *they* have
>mis-delivered in the first place?
>

In my experience yes.

>I have received several letters over the years for someone in a
>completely different town with a completely different postcode (and a
>different surname). How can mail for "5 XXX Avenue" in one town, with
>one postcode (which is the correct postcode for that address) get
>mis-delivered to "5 XXX Avenue" in a different town/postcode?
>
>

I had that experience too. First attempt to redirect came back to me
looked it up on royal mail web site and wrote in larger letters

>What are the rules about a letter which is addressed to my house (by
>number) but to a neighbour (by surname)? Is the postman required to
>deliver all letters as addressed, or can he use his discretion and say
>"ah, I know that Mrs D Smith lives at number 3, not number 5"? I had a
>letter addressed to out house but for a neighbour whose surname I
>didn't know, so I asked the postman the following day "Is there a Mrs D
>Smith near here" and he told me, so I popped the letter through their
>box. But I wondered whether our normally very conscientious postman
>might have been obliged to delivery the letter to the wrong address
>even though he knew it was wrong.

Letters are delivered to an address not an addressee.
I think the justification for RM starting to charge for redirection is
because many letters now are not posted to Royal Mail but to private
companies so why should RM carry the cost of redirecting them?
Unofficial comment from my local post office was that as long as the
addressee is not changed they will get redelivered.
--
bert

[Roger Mills]

On 08/08/2016 20:25, bert wrote:

> Letters are delivered to an address not an addressee.
> I think the justification for RM starting to charge for redirection is
> because many letters now are not posted to Royal Mail but to private
> companies so why should RM carry the cost of redirecting them?
> Unofficial comment from my local post office was that as long as the
> addressee is not changed they will get redelivered.

I had a situation a couple of years ago, where my son had arranged for
something (small parcel) to be delivered to our house while he was
staying with us. But, because we'd had about 5 flakes of snow, Royal
Mail suspended deliveries - and it didn't get delivered until after my
son had returned home.

When I took it to my local post office and asked for it to be
redirected, they refused - and I had to pay postage on it. However, the
cost was ultimately refunded when I registered an official complaint.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

[News]

In message <e0sfbl...@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
<watt....@gmail.com> writes

>
>When I took it to my local post office and asked for it to be
>redirected, they refused - and I had to pay postage on it. However, the
>cost was ultimately refunded when I registered an official complaint.

That is because the refund would ultimately come from Royal Mail, not
Post Office. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism in place to allow
your local PO to claim the refund from RM, so, had your local postmaster
accepted the parcel and added the postage, he, personally, would have
paid for it, with zero chance of reimbursement.
--
Graeme

[gbd...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 7:19:36 AM UTC+1, News wrote:
>
> Getting back to redirections, we were not allowed to accept redirected
> mail at the counter without new postage being affixed, so I just told
> people to stick it in the box outside, knowing that RM would almost
> certainly (re)deliver it.
>

I managed to find out the exact date things changed. Stamp collectors to the rescue! The website of the Great Britain Philatelic Society <http://gbps.org.uk/> has an archive of all the old versions and amendments to the UK post schemes. It seems free forwarding of mail was removed from the rules in the 6th December 2010 update, available here: <http://gbps.org.uk/information/sources/po-schemes/inland-letter.php>. The explanatory note, which in other updates gives a summary of the changes, is very vague in this update stating unhelpfully:

"This Scheme, which comes into force on 6th December 2010, provides notification of changes to several services."

You have read halfway through the update to find the single line:

"Section 6: Section 6 shall be deleted in its entirety."

Of course you had to know what section 6 was to understand that this represented the withdrawal of mail forwarding. No mention of the word forwarding anywhere in the text of the update. Draw your own conclusions.

I don't remember the press noticing at the time, I'm sure it would have been a good enough item for an article or two if they had.

[News]

In message <6a0f5703-f4f0-45b9...@googlegroups.com>,
gbd...@gmail.com writes

>On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 7:19:36 AM UTC+1, News wrote:
>>
>> Getting back to redirections, we were not allowed to accept redirected
>> mail at the counter without new postage being affixed, so I just told
>> people to stick it in the box outside, knowing that RM would almost
>> certainly (re)deliver it.
>

>"This Scheme, which comes into force on 6th December 2010, provides
>notification of changes to several services."

That is interesting. I was still working as local postmaster then, and
we were not told about any such changes. Having said that, we would not
be told by Royal mail anyway. RM would tell POL who would tell
postmasters. Sometimes.

--
Graeme

[carolyn....@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 10:04:31 AM UTC+1, giles....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 9:57:41 PM UTC+1, giles....@gmail.com wrote:
> > Yes Royal Mail's website is no help at all. Last time I searched it, only 6 months or so ago, I found after much looking pre-2012 of the Inland Postal Scheme on it and that contained section 6 about forwarding as mentioned earlirer in this thread. I searched their website again to see, if Royal Mail Tracked 24 was included and this time section 6 is just shown as 'deleted'. Eventually I also found this google group, and the pre 2010 copy again which someone had posted on another site, and this showed me that I was not mad, I had seen it before! Daughter will need to reimburse me for forwarding if she has things delivered here during the University term and wants them forwarding!
>
> I've now found it's in clause 15.7 at http://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/the-royal-mail-united-kingdom-post-scheme-10-august-2015.pdf Bizzarely Bing did not find that when I searched for 'United Kingdom Postal Scheme'. It found a consultation document in the first several references.
>
> So I looked for 'scheme' on their website, this returned the old scheme higher up the list so I did not look further down.
>
> When I looked for 'charge for forwarding' their website returned only the previous scheme and 'forwarding' gave only the consultation version of the UKPS.

This link has been updated - see http://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/Royal_Mail_UK_Post_Scheme_January_2017.pdf - Still clause 15.7: It says:
We are not under any obligation to do anything with an item that someone requests to be forwarded to another address other than the return to sender address on the cover. We consider these unpaid for, forwarding requests to be a form of unofficial redirections request. Typically in this situation the original address is crossed out and a written request (e.g. “please
forward to”) is made on the cover to forward the item to another address. This is normally attempted in order to try to get the item to the addressee who has moved to another address. In these situations the person moving should take out a Redirection service with us or provide pre-paid stationery. If we find an item that someone has requested be forwarded to another address then the item may be dealt with or disposed of at our discretion.

[Brian Gaff]

This has to be one of the longest running threads, but why is it on this
newsgroup?
Don't talk to me about Royal Mail they just lost a whole weeks worth of
talking newspapers articles for the blind subsidised first class post. I
reckon a bunch of boy scouts could run the service more efficiently.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
<carolyn....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:615eef1f-64ff-4ba9...@googlegroups.com...

[Davey]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 03:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
carolyn....@gmail.com wrote:

> If we find an item that someone has requested be forwarded
> to another address then the item may be dealt with or disposed of at
> our discretion.

That's nice of them. No mention of a need to attempt to let either
the sender or the intended recipient know that this item is out there,
and still deliverable. This means that anything falling into this hole
could legally end up in the home of somebody from RM, even though the
sender sent it to the last known address for the intended recipient.

--
Davey.

[NY]

<carolyn....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:615eef1f-64ff-4ba9...@googlegroups.com...

I would hope that the Royal Mail would at least deliver the item, even if
they wanted the recipient to pay, rather than disposing of it or returning
it to the sender.

The Royal Mail really need to publicise this change in policy *much* better.
When I was growing up there was the standard assumption that
wrongly-delivered mail could be readdressed and put into the post box to be
forwarded. If that policy has been changed, there needs to be a big
publicity campaign, and I've not seen one.

I presume that correctly-addressed but wrongly-delivered mail *is* forwarded
free of charge: we received a letter addressed to a valid street name,
village and post town, and post code. But it had been delivered to us, in a
road of the same name, even though we were in another part of the country:
it was as if the sorting office had fixated on the road name and ignored all
the more important routing info like postcode.

[Peter Johnson]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:53:48 +0100, Tim Streater
<timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:


>Anyone know for how long the paid-for forwarding has been in operation?
>Did you always have to pay, or was it once a free service? I would have
>assumed that, once it became paid-for, RM would have then stated their
>policy about manual forwarding.

I first used it in the 1980s and it was chargeable then, and I think
that it has always been a chargeable service.

[Brian Gaff]

Its one of those catch al nothing to do with us guv type clauses, probably
illegal if its challenged in court.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!

"Davey" <da...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:oql76m$fe7$2...@dont-email.me...