Post Office stamp swap policy

[Martin Brown]

We have until 31st January 2023 to swap out our old stamps for new
barcoded ones. Royal Mail generously allow you to swap your old stamps
up to the value of £200 without barcodes for free by sending them to a
Royal Mail address with a printed PDF file downloadable from here:

https://www.royalmail.com/sending/barcoded-stamps

Royal Mail
Swap Out
EH12 9PB

In an era where we are urged never to send cash through the normal post
this is pretty much the equivalent of not only sending cash but also
writing on the outside of the envelope "CASH INSIDE! STEAL ME NOW!".

https://www.royalmail.com/sites/royalmail.com/files/2022-05/Stamp-Swap-Out-Form-under-200-pounds-v1_3.pdf

Who the hell thought this one up? How can they get away with it?

Their requirements for swapping of moderate numbers of existing stamps
totalling a hundred pounds or so is far too insecure.

No doubt they will send them back in fancy packaging that also makes it
very clear that the contents are worth stealing for good measure!

Is there any legal option to challenge this deadline and methodology?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[David McNeish]

On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 16:07:12 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
> We have until 31st January 2023 to swap out our old stamps for new
> barcoded ones. Royal Mail generously allow you to swap your old stamps
> up to the value of £200 without barcodes for free by sending them to a
> Royal Mail address with a printed PDF file downloadable from here:
>
> https://www.royalmail.com/sending/barcoded-stamps
>
> Royal Mail
> Swap Out
> EH12 9PB
>
> In an era where we are urged never to send cash through the normal post
> this is pretty much the equivalent of not only sending cash but also
> writing on the outside of the envelope "CASH INSIDE! STEAL ME NOW!".
>
> https://www.royalmail.com/sites/royalmail.com/files/2022-05/Stamp-Swap-Out-Form-under-200-pounds-v1_3.pdf
>
> Who the hell thought this one up? How can they get away with it?
>
> Their requirements for swapping of moderate numbers of existing stamps
> totalling a hundred pounds or so is far too insecure.

Why not just send them by a secure method then, rather than ordinary mail?

How many people have £100+ of stamps (and no plans to use them up over
the intervening eight months)?

[Andy Burns]

Martin Brown wrote:

> Their requirements for swapping of moderate numbers of existing stamps totalling
> a hundred pounds or so is far too insecure.

Nevertheless, they managed to return my 'upgraded' stamps in under a week, in a
plain envelope, I did take a photo of the form and stamps I was sending them,
just in case. I can see why they don't want people swelling the queues at
postoffice counters with heaps of curling old stamps ...

[Nasti Chestikov]

On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 16:07:12 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:

We did some volunteer work for the company that measures Royal Mail's delivery performance; you get a couple of books of stamps per month as recompense.

Amassed about £150 of "old" stamps and my wife, misguided creature that she is, cheerfully followed the process you have described to swap them out for "new" stamps.

"You must be mad" I told her, "there's no way you'll get any new stamps".

However, I had to eat humble pie - new stamps duly arrived (ironically, she had to sign for them).

But you're right, you might as well attach a neon sign to the envelope saying "free cash right here".

[Roland Perry]

In message <6dd86caa-cb27-4356...@googlegroups.com>, at
08:23:18 on Wed, 1 Jun 2022, David McNeish <davi...@gmail.com>
remarked:

>How many people have £100+ of stamps (and no plans to use them up over
>the intervening eight months)?

Quite a lot apparently. Not least because various websites advising
people how money-saving can be expertly done, encouraged hoarding of
stamps just before price rises. And a not insignificant number of people
hoarded more than they could possibly use in the foreseeable future (cf
Loo Rolls and pasta).
--
Roland Perry

[Robert]

You are relying on the security of the Royal Mail system.
Although the address tells everyone that there are stamps, under £200
worth, in it , it is no different from sending something Special
Delivery or Tracked which indicates the item will have some value.

[Roger Hayter]

It would be silly to pay much more for tracked post than the likely loss in
the ordinary post. My grandma used to send money in the post and it never got
lost or stolen, for instance. If people are really worried they could send
their stamps by tracked post, and if the returned stamps are lost then ask for
compensation.

--
Roger Hayter

[Peter Johnson]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 16:06:51 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>We have until 31st January 2023 to swap out our old stamps for new
>barcoded ones. Royal Mail generously allow you to swap your old stamps
>up to the value of £200 without barcodes for free by sending them to a
>Royal Mail address with a printed PDF file downloadable from here:
>
>https://www.royalmail.com/sending/barcoded-stamps
>
>Royal Mail
>Swap Out
>EH12 9PB
>
>In an era where we are urged never to send cash through the normal post
>this is pretty much the equivalent of not only sending cash but also
>writing on the outside of the envelope "CASH INSIDE! STEAL ME NOW!".
>
>https://www.royalmail.com/sites/royalmail.com/files/2022-05/Stamp-Swap-Out-Form-under-200-pounds-v1_3.pdf
>
>Who the hell thought this one up? How can they get away with it?
>

Given that the mail handling system is automated, and is capable of
reading hand-written addresses, the only time a person gets to look at
an envelope to read the address is at the delivery office, and for
something like this the final sort will probably be automated too.

[Davey]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 16:06:51 +0100

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

1. It says that they are giving plenty of notice of the change to
bar-coded stamps, but until this thread, I have not heard of it.

2. If they can still accept Christmas non-bar-coded stamps, (which is
where my stock is), why can they not accept 'everyday' ones?
--
Davey.

[David McNeish]

Well, you have now heard of it, and you've got almost eight months to do something about it.

I've seen mention of it in various other sources, it's hardly a secret.

> 2. If they can still accept Christmas non-bar-coded stamps, (which is
> where my stock is), why can they not accept 'everyday' ones?

>From their website:

"Originally you said Christmas stamps are being barcoded and non-barcoded Christmas stamps would be invalid as postage after 31 January 2023 – has this changed?

Following our announcement on 1 Feb 2022, and subsequent discussions with key stakeholders, including feedback from our customers, we have removed Christmas stamps from our Swap Out scheme. These stamps are mostly kept by customers to send their Christmas cards and we anticipate that the vast majority will have been used by the end of this year. We are still adding a barcode to Christmas stamps, but non-barcoded Christmas stamps will remain valid so can continue to be used after 31 January 2023 and therefore there is no requirement to swap them out."

[Roland Perry]

In message <jfphsv...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:19:43 on Wed, 1 Jun
2022, Robert <rob...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

It's necessary to think through the point at which things are stolen,
and by whom; plus the practical difficulty of laundering large numbers
of stamps. *Especially* the barcoded ones, because if "lost in the post"
is reported back by the public, they can be flagged as stolen.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <t79jck$b5h$1...@dont-email.me>, at 06:55:32 on Thu, 2 Jun 2022,
Davey <da...@example.invalid> remarked:

There has been some publicity, in particular at the launch of the swap
scheme.

>2. If they can still accept Christmas non-bar-coded stamps, (which is
>where my stock is), why can they not accept 'everyday' ones?

It's a matter of scale, it's the ordinary ones of which there are a much
greater quantity gathering dust.
--
Roland Perry

[Simon Parker]

On 02/06/2022 11:21, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <jfphsv...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:19:43 on Wed, 1 Jun
> 2022, Robert <rob...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>> You are relying on the security of the Royal Mail system.
>> Although the address tells everyone that there are stamps, under £200
>> worth, in it , it is no different from sending something Special
>> Delivery or Tracked which indicates the item will have some value.
>
> It's necessary to think through the point at which things are stolen,
> and by whom; plus the practical difficulty of laundering large numbers
> of stamps. *Especially* the barcoded ones, because if "lost in the post"
> is reported back by the public, they can be flagged as stolen.

You seem to be suggesting that Royal Mail are keeping a record of the
specific serial numbers of barcoded stamps issued to a specific customer
as part of the swap out scheme.

Can you provide a cite to where such data collection and processing
would be permitted within Royal Mail's privacy policy?

Can you further confirm whether you definitely know this to be the case
or are merely speculating that it is theoretically possible?

Finally, given your background, do you have a view on how the ICO might
consider this data gathering exercise as it would allow data processing
and analysis beyond a point at which many people might be confrtable.

Regards

S.P.

[Michael Chare]

On 01/06/2022 16:06, Martin Brown wrote:

> We have until 31st January 2023 to swap out our old stamps for new
> barcoded ones. Royal Mail generously allow you to swap your old stamps
> up to the value of £200 without barcodes for free by sending them to a
> Royal Mail address with a printed PDF file downloadable from here:
>

I took my envelope to the Post Office so that I could have proof of
posting, but there was such a long queue that I just put then envelope
in the letter box. The replacement stamps came in a few days.

Some time ago I must have known about a price increase so I ordered some
stamps online. I was sent many more stamps than I had ordered. A week
or two later they asked for the stamps back!

[Roland Perry]

In message <jfrm8h...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:46:24 on Thu, 2 Jun
2022, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:

>On 02/06/2022 11:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <jfphsv...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:19:43 on Wed, 1
>>Jun 2022, Robert <rob...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>
>>> You are relying on the security of the Royal Mail system.
>>> Although the address tells everyone that there are stamps, under
>>>£200 worth, in it , it is no different from sending something
>>>Special Delivery or Tracked which indicates the item will have some value.
>> It's necessary to think through the point at which things are
>>stolen, and by whom; plus the practical difficulty of laundering
>>large numbers of stamps. *Especially* the barcoded ones, because if
>>"lost in the post" is reported back by the public, they can be
>>flagged as stolen.
>
>You seem to be suggesting that Royal Mail are keeping a record of the
>specific serial numbers of barcoded stamps issued to a specific
>customer as part of the swap out scheme.

Why wouldn't they?

>Can you provide a cite to where such data collection and processing
>would be permitted within Royal Mail's privacy policy?
>
>Can you further confirm whether you definitely know this to be the case
>or are merely speculating that it is theoretically possible?
>
>Finally, given your background, do you have a view on how the ICO might
>consider this data gathering exercise as it would allow data processing
>and analysis beyond a point at which many people might be confrtable.

I will leave such questions to those who have a pressing need to know,
but it does seem unlikely to me that RM would go to all the trouble of
manufacturing and distributing barcoded stamps, and then have a privacy
policy which forbids tracking them.

(Nor do I expect RM to have failed to get ICO approval for whatever they
are doing; and in any event "preventing fraud" usually trumps most
privacy law).
--
Roland Perry

[Martin Brown]

Compared to the inconvenience that they intend to inflict on the public
I don't think they have done anything like enough to publicise it.

>> 2. If they can still accept Christmas non-bar-coded stamps, (which
>> is where my stock is), why can they not accept 'everyday' ones?
>
>> From their website:
>
> "Originally you said Christmas stamps are being barcoded and
> non-barcoded Christmas stamps would be invalid as postage after 31
> January 2023 – has this changed?
>
> Following our announcement on 1 Feb 2022, and subsequent discussions
> with key stakeholders, including feedback from our customers, we have
> removed Christmas stamps from our Swap Out scheme. These stamps are
> mostly kept by customers to send their Christmas cards and we
> anticipate that the vast majority will have been used by the end of
> this year. We are still adding a barcode to Christmas stamps, but
> non-barcoded Christmas stamps will remain valid so can continue to be
> used after 31 January 2023 and therefore there is no requirement to
> swap them out."

They have successfully persuaded this customer that e-cards are the way
forwards now and they can whistle for any of my business in future.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Max Demian]

Surely the opportunity to "watch and share exclusive Shaun the Sheep
videos" is enough compensation?

--
Max Demian

[Martin Brown]

On 03/06/2022 10:10, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <jfrm8h...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:46:24 on Thu, 2 Jun
> 2022, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On 02/06/2022 11:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <jfphsv...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:19:43 on Wed, 1
>>> Jun  2022, Robert <rob...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>
>>>> You are relying on the security of the Royal Mail system.
>>>> Although the address tells everyone that there are stamps, under
>>>> £200  worth, in it , it is no different from sending something
>>>> Special  Delivery or Tracked which indicates the item will have some
>>>> value.

>>>  It's necessary to think through the point at which things are
>>> stolen,  and by whom; plus the practical difficulty of laundering
>>> large numbers  of stamps. *Especially* the barcoded ones, because if
>>> "lost in the post"  is reported back by the public, they can be
>>> flagged as stolen.

It is the untraceable ones being returned that are most at risk on their
way back to the now well advertised "*STEAL ME - CASH INSIDE ENVELOPE*"
address that the Royal Mail are using.

>> You seem to be suggesting that Royal Mail are keeping a record of the
>> specific serial numbers of barcoded stamps issued to a specific
>> customer as part of the swap out scheme.
>
> Why wouldn't they?

It complicates the printing process to have every stamp uniquely tagged
and by serialising them in any predictable way you weaken your cypher.

Many cryptographic attacks rely on tricking the opponent into sending
substantially the same message with minor changes or one with
predictable content in it. Weather reports were a favourite in WWII.

>> Can you provide a cite to where such data collection and processing
>> would be permitted within Royal Mail's privacy policy?
>>
>> Can you further confirm whether you definitely know this to be the
>> case or are merely speculating that it is theoretically possible?
>>
>> Finally, given your background, do you have a view on how the ICO
>> might consider this data gathering exercise as it would allow data
>> processing and analysis beyond a point at which many people might be
>> confrtable.
>
> I will leave such questions to those who have a pressing need to know,
> but it does seem unlikely to me that RM would go to all the trouble of
> manufacturing and distributing barcoded stamps, and then have a privacy
> policy which forbids tracking them.
>
> (Nor do I expect RM to have failed to get ICO approval for whatever they
> are doing; and in any event "preventing fraud" usually trumps most
> privacy law).

Call me cynical if you like but I doubt if their new smart anti-fraud
tracking measures on mass produced stamps will last very long once there
are enough of them out in the wild for academic cryptographers (and
criminals) to analyse them in detail.

They have already caved in on Xmas stamps. The whole swap policy measure
is the action of some clueless jobsworth. Doing something for the hell
of it. They could just as easily set a deadline of 2 or 3 years by which
time most stamps in the hands of their customers will have been used up.

Why create unnecessary work?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

It isn't plenty of notice given that the entire postal eco-system has
changed beyond recognition since lockdown and Brexit. I no longer have
any use for my stamps which cover large letter postage to the EU.

> 2. If they can still accept Christmas non-bar-coded stamps, (which is
> where my stock is), why can they not accept 'everyday' ones?

I have absolutely no idea why not. I presume they think barcoding such
special stamps would devalue them to collectors (which it would).

It would make a lot more sense to stop selling the non-barcoded ones and
allow the remaining old phosphor only stamps to be used up. If they have
to handle Xmas stamps as a special case then they cannot simplify their
equipment so the entire thing is a jobsworth doing something for the
sake of it. I expect they do have some bother with high quality
forgeries these days. Stamps are not exactly hard to forge any more.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[GB]

Is there a limit on the number of times people can apply? If worried
about the risk of loss in the post, why not simply split the return into
a number of small parcels?



If returning a larger bundle, over £200, RM suggest using Royal Mail
Special Delivery Guaranteed, and say they will compensate for the cost
of that service - See below.

"When
you send your swap out form for a swap out exceeding £200 using a Royal
Mail delivery service, we
will compensate you for the cost of that service by returning additional
barcoded stamps equal to the
value of your postage cost. Royal Mail Special Delivery Guaranteed is
the most appropriate service to
use for swaps out exceeding £200 (the Royal Mail Special Delivery
Guaranteed service gives you the
option to purchase up to £2,500 in compensation cover, whereas other
Royal Mail services will not
offer any compensation for swap outs exceeding £200)."

[Roland Perry]

In message <t7clnh$110h$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:53:53 on Fri, 3 Jun
2022, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:

>> 1. It says that they are giving plenty of notice of the change to
>> bar-coded stamps, but until this thread, I have not heard of it.
>
>It isn't plenty of notice given that the entire postal eco-system has
>changed beyond recognition since lockdown and Brexit. I no longer have
>any use for my stamps which cover large letter postage to the EU.

So swap them for an equivalent value in stamps you can use. My
experience of doing exactly this is they round it up to the next inland
2nd-class stamp.

>> 2. If they can still accept Christmas non-bar-coded stamps, (which is
>> where my stock is), why can they not accept 'everyday' ones?
>
>I have absolutely no idea why not.

Because the hoarded non-xmas ones are a vastly greater pool .

>I presume they think barcoding such special stamps would devalue them
>to collectors (which it would).

That's a completely different matter. It has no relevance to historical
commemorate stamps (most of which will never be stuck onto envelopes).

>It would make a lot more sense to stop selling the non-barcoded ones

They have!

> and allow the remaining old phosphor only stamps to be used up.

"Remaining" you say. What if criminals keep counterfeiting news ones for
the next 20yrs?

>If they have to handle Xmas stamps as a special case then they cannot
>simplify their equipment so the entire thing is a jobsworth doing
>something for the sake of it. I expect they do have some bother with
>high quality forgeries these days. Stamps are not exactly hard to forge
>any more.

--

Roland Perry

[Clive Arthur]

On 03/06/2022 13:50, Roland Perry wrote:

<snipped>

> That's a completely different matter. It has no relevance to historical
> commemorate stamps (most of which will never be stuck onto envelopes).

I buy unused stamps which are mostly old commemorative ones. It saves a
little money, but can be quite fun to select combinations of pictures to
suit the addressee. (eg I tend to save all the royal stuff for letters
and Xmas cards to RoI.) Some of them even have half pences in their value.

I think dealers get stamps collected by people who simply do it for fun
but are only worth their face value - there are an awful lot of
commemorative stamps printed. My theory is that the collectors die, or
get bored, and the collection is sold. The dealer's kids then sort and
bag them.

Looks like I'll have to stop doing that.

--
Cheers
Clive

[Roland Perry]

In message <t7d2n0$8s8$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:35:27 on Fri, 3 Jun 2022,
Clive Arthur <cl...@nowaytoday.co.uk> remarked:

Why? Commemorative stamps are valid indefinitely I thought.

So you and the fraction of a percentage of the general population who do
the same thing, can carry on.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <t7clh1$u5p$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:50:24 on Fri, 3 Jun

2022, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:

>On 03/06/2022 10:10, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <jfrm8h...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:46:24 on Thu, 2
>>Jun 2022, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On 02/06/2022 11:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <jfphsv...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:19:43 on Wed,
>>>>1 Jun  2022, Robert <rob...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> You are relying on the security of the Royal Mail system.
>>>>> Although the address tells everyone that there are stamps, under
>>>>>£200  worth, in it , it is no different from sending something
>>>>>Special  Delivery or Tracked which indicates the item will have some value.
>
>>>>  It's necessary to think through the point at which things are
>>>>stolen,  and by whom; plus the practical difficulty of laundering
>>>>large numbers  of stamps. *Especially* the barcoded ones, because if
>>>>"lost in the post"  is reported back by the public, they can be
>>>>flagged as stolen.
>
>It is the untraceable ones being returned that are most at risk on
>their way back to the now well advertised "*STEAL ME - CASH INSIDE
>ENVELOPE*" address that the Royal Mail are using.

But who is going to steal those, and (given that only Royal Mail staff
are likely to handle them) how will they launder them?

>>> You seem to be suggesting that Royal Mail are keeping a record of
>>>the specific serial numbers of barcoded stamps issued to a specific
>>>customer as part of the swap out scheme.

>> Why wouldn't they?
>
>It complicates the printing process to have every stamp uniquely tagged
>and by serialising them in any predictable way you weaken your cypher.
>
>Many cryptographic attacks rely on tricking the opponent into sending
>substantially the same message with minor changes or one with
>predictable content in it. Weather reports were a favourite in WWII.

Stealing genuine stamps is an entirely different threat vector to people
counterfeiting barcoded ones. And if the sorting equipment is comparing
actually-issued barcodes with those on letters (and also spotting
multiple-use) how would one with a counterfeit stamp get delivered?

>>> Can you provide a cite to where such data collection and processing
>>>would be permitted within Royal Mail's privacy policy?
>>>
>>> Can you further confirm whether you definitely know this to be the
>>>case or are merely speculating that it is theoretically possible?
>>>
>>> Finally, given your background, do you have a view on how the ICO
>>>might consider this data gathering exercise as it would allow data
>>>processing and analysis beyond a point at which many people might be
>>>confrtable.
>> I will leave such questions to those who have a pressing need to
>>know, but it does seem unlikely to me that RM would go to all the
>>trouble of manufacturing and distributing barcoded stamps, and then
>>have a privacy policy which forbids tracking them.
>> (Nor do I expect RM to have failed to get ICO approval for whatever
>>they are doing; and in any event "preventing fraud" usually trumps
>>most privacy law).
>
>Call me cynical if you like but I doubt if their new smart anti-fraud
>tracking measures on mass produced stamps will last very long once
>there are enough of them out in the wild for academic cryptographers
>(and criminals) to analyse them in detail.

What mechanism will cause it to fail? Criminals inkjet-printing "valid"
but un-issued stamps, or something else.

>They have already caved in on Xmas stamps.

No they didn't. Those are just a subset of the relatively small number
of commemorative stamps which are outside this scheme.

>The whole swap policy measure is the action of some clueless jobsworth.
>Doing something for the hell of it. They could just as easily set a
>deadline of 2 or 3 years by which time most stamps in the hands of
>their customers will have been used up.

Issuing what in the mean time?

>Why create unnecessary work?

To reduce what they perceive to be a sufficient amount of fraudulent
re-use of stamps, and as a bonus take hoarded earlier-issues out of
circulation.
--
Roland Perry

[Peter Johnson]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 06:55:32 +0100, Davey <da...@example.invalid>
wrote:

>
>2. If they can still accept Christmas non-bar-coded stamps, (which is
>where my stock is), why can they not accept 'everyday' ones?

Because it is the 'everydsay' ones that are being forged in sufficient
numbers to affect RM revenue. Forgers don't forge Christmas stamps or
the commemorative or special issues.

[Clive Arthur]

My suspicion is that it's a stay of execution rather than a pardon.

--
Cheers
Clive

[Simon Parker]

In "Version 2" (or maybe "Version 3" (or 4 etc.)) RM have touted the
idea that it might be possible to link one's own videos to the stamp
rather than using RM's canned ones.

I can't see why anyone would want to do that (just include a QR code on
the letter itself). Or, the one time of the year when people might want
to do that is at Christmas where the family could record a Christmas
message video and attach it to the stamp using the RM App, but Christmas
stamps don't have the barcode to enable this and it opens RM to a whole
heap of problems they would be best avoiding, (e.g. who is liable if the
video is illegal, unlawful or even just "inappropriate").

But they have considered it, and may add this functionality later.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

On 03/06/2022 10:10, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <jfrm8h...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:46:24 on Thu, 2 Jun
> 2022, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On 02/06/2022 11:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <jfphsv...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:19:43 on Wed, 1
>>> Jun  2022, Robert <rob...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>
>>>> You are relying on the security of the Royal Mail system.
>>>> Although the address tells everyone that there are stamps, under
>>>> £200  worth, in it , it is no different from sending something
>>>> Special  Delivery or Tracked which indicates the item will have some
>>>> value.
>>>  It's necessary to think through the point at which things are
>>> stolen,  and by whom; plus the practical difficulty of laundering
>>> large numbers  of stamps. *Especially* the barcoded ones, because if
>>> "lost in the post"  is reported back by the public, they can be
>>> flagged as stolen.
>>
>> You seem to be suggesting that Royal Mail are keeping a record of the
>> specific serial numbers of barcoded stamps issued to a specific
>> customer as part of the swap out scheme.
>
> Why wouldn't they?

A number of reasons. In no particular order:

- the actual part of the system that will handle the "track and trace"
part of the new barcode isn't implemented yet and is a "Version 2
feature" so the ability to record the data may not actually yet exist.

- it would require collection and processing of data far in excess of
that required and some / many / most (*delete as applicable) would
consider it an invasion of privacy.

I have no issue in Royal Mail knowing that the stamp I just used to post
a letter to <recipient> came from book of stamps serial number <12345>
which was printed on <date1> and distributed to post office <ID> and
purchased on date <date2>. There's none of my personally identifiable
information there.

However, if Royal Mail are keeping records of the nature you suggest,
there are significant privacy concerns raised.

They would, for example know that stamp ID <ID> was issued to customer
<customer number> as part of the swap out scheme. <Customer number> can
then be used to obtain the customer's name and adddress.

Once the "Track and Trace" element is added, Royal Mail will know that
stamp <ID> was used to send a letter which was posted in post box <ID2>
on date <date> and the recipient's name and address <recipient>

They could build a database of people writing to each other and create
associations in the data which the ordinary customer might not have
consented to merely by swapping out some old stamps for some with barcodes.

>> Can you provide a cite to where such data collection and processing
>> would be permitted within Royal Mail's privacy policy?
>>
>> Can you further confirm whether you definitely know this to be the
>> case or are merely speculating that it is theoretically possible?
>>
>> Finally, given your background, do you have a view on how the ICO
>> might consider this data gathering exercise as it would allow data
>> processing and analysis beyond a point at which many people might be
>> confrtable.
>
> I will leave such questions to those who have a pressing need to know,
> but it does seem unlikely to me that RM would go to all the trouble of
> manufacturing and distributing barcoded stamps, and then have a privacy
> policy which forbids tracking them.

I have a "desire to know" rather than a "pressing need". And I don't
object to the tracking, per se. However, Royal Mail building a database
behind the scenes of people that write to each other does seem a little
Orwellian. (As stated above, anonymised tracking of data makes good
business sense, but knowing that Customer <ID1> writes regularly to
Customer <ID2> does strike me as a step too far.)

I've e-mailed Royal Mail's data protection officer to ask them to
clarify what data is collected with the new stamps, how it is currently
processed and how they plan to process it in the future once the new
system is fully up and running as designed.

> (Nor do I expect RM to have failed to get ICO approval for whatever they
> are doing; and in any event "preventing fraud" usually trumps most
> privacy law).

A good friend works in the ICO. (It isn't too far from where I live.)
I shall ask them informally if they know or can find out if RM did
undertake such an exercise and then make a FOI request for details
should they be able to confirm it happened.

"Preventing fraud" would only require recording the details of stamps
issued in the swap out scheme until they had been successfully
delivered. If at that stage, the recipient's data is anonymised, (the
same as it would be if purchasing from a Post Office counter and paying
by cash), then I don't have an issue.

Similarly, I don't have an issue with Royal Mail collecting data to
analyse to improve the efficiency of the business.

I draw the line at building a database behind the scenes containing
details of people that know each other.

I accept that YMMV and indeed that others may draw the lines elsewhere.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

On 03/06/2022 10:50, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 03/06/2022 10:10, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <jfrm8h...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:46:24 on Thu, 2
>> Jun 2022, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On 02/06/2022 11:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <jfphsv...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:19:43 on Wed, 1
>>>> Jun  2022, Robert <rob...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> You are relying on the security of the Royal Mail system.
>>>>> Although the address tells everyone that there are stamps, under
>>>>> £200  worth, in it , it is no different from sending something
>>>>> Special  Delivery or Tracked which indicates the item will have
>>>>> some value.
>
>>>>  It's necessary to think through the point at which things are
>>>> stolen,  and by whom; plus the practical difficulty of laundering
>>>> large numbers  of stamps. *Especially* the barcoded ones, because if
>>>> "lost in the post"  is reported back by the public, they can be
>>>> flagged as stolen.
>
> It is the untraceable ones being returned that are most at risk on their
> way back to the now well advertised "*STEAL ME - CASH INSIDE ENVELOPE*"
> address that the Royal Mail are using.

I believe most interception of post takes place on the way from RM to
the recipient, rather than on the way from sender to RM.

Breaking into post boxes, RM vans and sorting offices to purloin stamps
being returned as part of the swap out scheme seems to score quite
highly on the risk versus reward ratio scale, in my book.

>>> You seem to be suggesting that Royal Mail are keeping a record of the
>>> specific serial numbers of barcoded stamps issued to a specific
>>> customer as part of the swap out scheme.
>>
>> Why wouldn't they?
>
> It complicates the printing process to have every stamp uniquely tagged
> and by serialising them in any predictable way you weaken your cypher.

I have a book of barcoded stamps here. I just scanned them with a QR
Code scanner.

The resultant data seems to show JGB<newline>S<serialnumber of
book><serialnumber of stamp>

This is from a sample of one book containing seven stamps (which is what
I have remaning from a book of 8.)

The stamp serial numbers do not appear to be sequential, but the serial
number of the book appears to be in decimal whilst the stamp serial
number appears to be hexadecimal. If I remember to do so, I'll capture
the data later and have a more detailed look later.

> Many cryptographic attacks rely on tricking the opponent into sending
> substantially the same message with minor changes or one with
> predictable content in it. Weather reports were a favourite in WWII.

I think the single biggest issue the barcoded stamps create for stamp
counterfeiters is the need to change the barcode on each stamp which
adds significantly to their overheads. It also makes the counterfeit
stamps identifiable which will aid in tracking them back to their source.

>>> Can you provide a cite to where such data collection and processing
>>> would be permitted within Royal Mail's privacy policy?
>>>
>>> Can you further confirm whether you definitely know this to be the
>>> case or are merely speculating that it is theoretically possible?
>>>
>>> Finally, given your background, do you have a view on how the ICO
>>> might consider this data gathering exercise as it would allow data
>>> processing and analysis beyond a point at which many people might be
>>> confrtable.
>>
>> I will leave such questions to those who have a pressing need to know,
>> but it does seem unlikely to me that RM would go to all the trouble of
>> manufacturing and distributing barcoded stamps, and then have a
>> privacy policy which forbids tracking them.
>>
>> (Nor do I expect RM to have failed to get ICO approval for whatever
>> they are doing; and in any event "preventing fraud" usually trumps
>> most privacy law).
>
> Call me cynical if you like but I doubt if their new smart anti-fraud
> tracking measures on mass produced stamps will last very long once there
> are enough of them out in the wild for academic cryptographers (and
> criminals) to analyse them in detail.
>
> They have already caved in on Xmas stamps. The whole swap policy measure
> is the action of some clueless jobsworth. Doing something for the hell
> of it. They could just as easily set a deadline of 2 or 3 years by which
> time most stamps in the hands of their customers will have been used up.
>
> Why create unnecessary work?

Christmas stamps were always going to be excluded, but they have caved
on other picture stamps (which were originally going to be included).

Royal Mail have "big plans" for the new stamps. Anti-counterfeiting is
but one part of these plans, (e.g. "track and trace" of all mailed
items, not just "Special Delivery" etc. items).

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

Re-use of unfranked stamps is something the new stamps will eliminate
quite easily as the system will recognise that the stamp has already
been through the system and can therefore raise a flag regarding that
item of mail.

What RM will do then they haven't said, but they could treat the item as
"No postage paid" (which is a different category to "insufficient
postage paid" [1]) which is a nice little earner for them as they get
the postage from the recipient and a £2.50 surcharge (assuming it is a
letter / large letter).

Regards

S.P.

[1] The surcharge for "insufficient postage" is £1.50 for a letter /
large letter. For medium parcels, it is £3.50 for both "no postage" and
"insufficient postage".

[Roland Perry]

In message <jg1245...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:39:32 on Sat, 4 Jun

2022, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> Why create unnecessary work?

>> To reduce what they perceive to be a sufficient amount of fraudulent
>>re-use of stamps, and as a bonus take hoarded earlier-issues out of
>>circulation.
>
>Re-use of unfranked stamps is something the new stamps will eliminate
>quite easily as the system will recognise that the stamp has already
>been through the system and can therefore raise a flag regarding that
>item of mail.
>
>What RM will do then they haven't said, but they could treat the item
>as "No postage paid" (which is a different category to "insufficient
>postage paid" [1]) which is a nice little earner for them as they get
>the postage from the recipient and a £2.50 surcharge (assuming it is a
>letter / large letter).

Whether the £2.50 charge covers their costs of handling an item
identified as unstamped (and ultimately returning to sender I suppose)
is another question. And I'd expect them to follow up prolific senders
of such unclaimed items, plus of course the would-be recipients might
complain to the sender.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <jg10b8...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:09:11 on Sat, 4 Jun

2022, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> Finally, given your background, do you have a view on how the ICO
>>>might consider this data gathering exercise as it would allow data
>>>processing and analysis beyond a point at which many people might be
>>>confrtable.

>> I will leave such questions to those who have a pressing need to
>>know, but it does seem unlikely to me that RM would go to all the
>>trouble of manufacturing and distributing barcoded stamps, and then
>>have a privacy policy which forbids tracking them.
>
>I have a "desire to know" rather than a "pressing need". And I don't
>object to the tracking, per se. However, Royal Mail building a
>database behind the scenes of people that write to each other does seem
>a little Orwellian. (As stated above, anonymised tracking of data
>makes good business sense, but knowing that Customer <ID1> writes
>regularly to Customer <ID2> does strike me as a step too far.)
>
>I've e-mailed Royal Mail's data protection officer to ask them to
>clarify what data is collected with the new stamps, how it is currently
>processed and how they plan to process it in the future once the new
>system is fully up and running as designed.

Do tell us what they say. Perhaps they have an FAQ already.

>> (Nor do I expect RM to have failed to get ICO approval for whatever
>>they are doing; and in any event "preventing fraud" usually trumps
>>most privacy law).
>
>A good friend works in the ICO. (It isn't too far from where I live.)
>I shall ask them informally if they know or can find out if RM did
>undertake such an exercise and then make a FOI request for details
>should they be able to confirm it happened.

You could FOI it now, the worst that can happen is them saying "we have
nothing here". But I'd be astonished if you were the first privacy
activist (I use the term loosely) who has though of this.

>"Preventing fraud" would only require recording the details of stamps
>issued in the swap out scheme until they had been successfully
>delivered. If at that stage, the recipient's data is anonymised, (the
>same as it would be if purchasing from a Post Office counter and paying
>by cash), then I don't have an issue.
>
>Similarly, I don't have an issue with Royal Mail collecting data to
>analyse to improve the efficiency of the business.

>I draw the line at building a database behind the scenes containing
>details of people that know each other.

The exact degree of lawfulness is best assessed by people who have spent
a lifetime at the ICO, or as corporate compliance officers. All the
contacts I have had with such people indicates that they wouldn't dare
try to get away with scheme which hadn't been signed off properly
(probably with advice from m'learned friends).
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <t7dafn$61r$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:48:05 on Fri, 3 Jun 2022,

There will be a long, and thinning, tail. Whether they shut the door one
day, or the people in this line of business peter out, is something we
could perhaps re-visit in five years time.
--
Roland Perry

[Simon Parker]

On 05/06/2022 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <jg10b8...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:09:11 on Sat, 4 Jun
> 2022, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> Finally, given your background, do you have a view on how the ICO
>>>> might consider this data gathering exercise as it would allow data
>>>> processing and analysis beyond a point at which many people might be
>>>> confrtable.
>
>>>  I will leave such questions to those who have a pressing need to
>>> know,  but it does seem unlikely to me that RM would go to all the
>>> trouble of  manufacturing and distributing barcoded stamps, and then
>>> have a privacy  policy which forbids tracking them.
>>
>> I have a "desire to know" rather than a "pressing need".  And I don't
>> object to the tracking, per se.  However, Royal Mail building a
>> database behind the scenes of people that write to each other does
>> seem a little Orwellian.  (As stated above, anonymised tracking of
>> data makes good business sense, but knowing that Customer <ID1> writes
>> regularly to Customer <ID2> does strike me as a step too far.)
>>
>> I've e-mailed Royal Mail's data protection officer to ask them to
>> clarify what data is collected with the new stamps, how it is
>> currently processed and how they plan to process it in the future once
>> the new system is fully up and running as designed.
>
> Do tell us what they say. Perhaps they have an FAQ already.

I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of an answer, certainly not a
meaningful one.

And have you seen a Royal Mail FAQ? They seem to have been written
either by a 10 year-old or by somebody that was attempting to give the
impression of having answered the question without actually having
provided any meaningful information.

For example, concerning linking a viddeo to a new barcoded stamp [1],
one FAQ is:

"How long will the recipient be able to view a video?"

To which, Royal Mail's answer is:

"The video will remain visible for your recipient for a period of time,
even if the video is replaced as an available option on our App. As long
as you post your item promptly this will allow plenty of time for it to
get to your recipient.

In short: For how long will the video be viewable? For (an unspecified
and therefore meaningless) "period of time".

Of course the answer is "a period of time". But it is a month, a
quarter, a year or something else?

As I say, they've answered the question without actually providing any
meaningful information whatsoever.

>>> (Nor do I expect RM to have failed to get ICO approval for whatever
>>> they  are doing; and in any event "preventing fraud" usually trumps
>>> most  privacy law).
>>
>> A good friend works in the ICO.  (It isn't too far from where I live.)
>> I shall ask them informally if they know or can find out if RM did
>> undertake such an exercise and then make a FOI request for details
>> should they be able to confirm it happened.
>
> You could FOI it now, the worst that can happen is them saying "we have
> nothing here". But I'd be astonished if you were the first privacy
> activist (I use the term loosely) who has though of this.

I could, but I won't. I'm seeing my friend on Thursday so I'll try and
remember to ask them then and take it from there.

>> "Preventing fraud" would only require recording the details of stamps
>> issued in the swap out scheme until they had been successfully
>> delivered.  If at that stage, the recipient's data is anonymised, (the
>> same as it would be if purchasing from a Post Office counter and
>> paying by cash), then I don't have an issue.
>>
>> Similarly, I don't have an issue with Royal Mail collecting data to
>> analyse to improve the efficiency of the business.
>
>> I draw the line at building a database behind the scenes containing
>> details of people that know each other.
>
> The exact degree of lawfulness is best assessed by people who have spent
> a lifetime at the ICO, or as corporate compliance officers. All the
> contacts I have had with such people indicates that they wouldn't dare
> try to get away with scheme which hadn't been signed off properly
> (probably with advice from m'learned friends).

You seem to be suggesting that large organisations would never push the
boundaries with data harvesting and processing activities and would
certainly never exceed what is legally permitted and, what's more, that
it is unthinkable to suggest they might do so.

My experience is the polar opposite of this.

Regards

S.P.

[1] From https://www.royalmail.com/sending/barcode-stamps/videos

[Simon Parker]

The cost of a first class stamp is 95p. It would be hoped that if they
can collect, sort and deliver a letter for 95p, then they can undertake
this process twice (once to attempt delivery to the recipient, once to
return to the sender) for £2.50.

What I don't know is if the sender gets charged prior to the item being
returned to them or if this is done without charge, in which case Royal
Mail are out of pocket for two deliveries. (i.e. do they get a card
saying, "we have some mail for you but you need to pay the postage
before we can deliver it" whereupon the charge is paid and they then
receive their item returned to them, or do Royal Mail return the item to
the sender without charge, or do they simply bin it?)

Tangentially, there was a mini village scandal here during lockdown
because the local authority sent a day's worth of neighbour
notifications regarding planning permission applications (Ed: thread
convergence) but neglected to frank them first. Intended recipients got
a card informing them they had mail with no postage paid and upon
payment of the £2.50 surcharge plus "large letter" postage they were
handed the neighbour's planning application.

Lots of very unhappy voters (and some pretty "interesting" conspiracy
theories too). The Council resent all the notifications, remembering to
frank them this time, and paid the postage and surchange, upon
presentation of a receipt, to those that had already collected the items
before the Council had realised what was going on and taken corrective
action.

Regards

S.P.

[Martin Brown]

On 03/06/2022 13:45, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t7clh1$u5p$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:50:24 on Fri, 3 Jun
> 2022, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:

>> Call me cynical if you like but I doubt if their new smart anti-fraud
>> tracking measures on mass produced stamps will last very long once
>> there are enough of them out in the wild for academic cryptographers
>> (and criminals) to analyse them in detail.
>
> What mechanism will cause it to fail? Criminals inkjet-printing "valid"
> but un-issued stamps, or something else.

Criminals printing "valid" and recently issued bar coded stamps so
depriving whoever actually bought them of their use.

The Royal Mail won't lose out but their customers will.

>> They have already caved in on Xmas stamps.
>
> No they didn't. Those are just a subset of the relatively small number
> of commemorative stamps which are outside this scheme.

Yes they did. Read the URL there was a huge outcry when it included all
historic commemorative and Xmas stamps. More explanation here:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2022/03/royal-mail-u-turn-means-old-christmas-stamps-can-still-be-used-a/

I could understand it if they were going to abandon the old phosphor
based 1st 2nd class sorting mechanisms completely. This hybrid approach
makes no sense at all. It maximises the complexity to no good end.

Old issue first class stamps worked in the days when they all had prices
marked on provided that the second class postage was less than the value
of the stamp. The sort phosphors were still for first class delivery.

Conversely putting the right value postage onto a parcel using some
multiple of second class stamps would not get what you had paid for.

The granny oversize children's birthday card tax was imposed by making
sure that large letter second class postage was higher than ordinary
letter first class postage. That way they could gouge their customers.

>> The whole swap policy measure is the action of some clueless
>> jobsworth. Doing something for the hell of it. They could just as
>> easily set a deadline of 2 or 3 years by which time most stamps in the
>> hands of their customers will have been used up.
>
> Issuing what in the mean time?

Issue the new barcoded ones from now on and allow the older stamps to be
slowly used up. Why demand that they *must* be sent in for replacement?

Jobsworths-R-Us.

A final cull of any residual ones in 2-3 years time would work OK.

>> Why create unnecessary work?
>
> To reduce what they perceive to be a sufficient amount of fraudulent
> re-use of stamps, and as a bonus take hoarded earlier-issues out of
> circulation.

It is their fault for making their stamps so simple and easy to forge
and not having adequate franking machines to mark real ones as used.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Norman Wells]

On 05/06/2022 22:39, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 03/06/2022 13:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t7clh1$u5p$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:50:24 on Fri, 3 Jun
>> 2022, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>> Call me cynical if you like but I doubt if their new smart anti-fraud
>>> tracking measures on mass produced stamps will last very long once
>>> there are enough of them out in the wild for academic cryptographers
>>> (and criminals) to analyse them in detail.
>>
>> What mechanism will cause it to fail? Criminals inkjet-printing
>> "valid" but un-issued stamps, or something else.
>
> Criminals printing "valid" and recently issued bar coded stamps so
> depriving whoever actually bought them of their use.

Except that virtually no-one uses stick-on stamps in any quantities
these days, the exception being at Christmas, so there is little
incentive for fraud on any significant scale anyway.

[Allan]

On 01/06/2022 16:06, Martin Brown wrote:
> We have until 31st January 2023 to swap out our old stamps for new
> barcoded ones. Royal Mail generously allow you to swap your old stamps
> up to the value of £200 without barcodes for free by sending them to a
> Royal Mail address with a printed PDF file downloadable from here:
>
> https://www.royalmail.com/sending/barcoded-stamps
>
> Royal Mail
> Swap Out
> EH12 9PB
>
> In an era where we are urged never to send cash through the normal post
> this is pretty much the equivalent of not only sending cash but also
> writing on the outside of the envelope "CASH INSIDE! STEAL ME NOW!".
>
> https://www.royalmail.com/sites/royalmail.com/files/2022-05/Stamp-Swap-Out-Form-under-200-pounds-v1_3.pdf
>
>
> Who the hell thought this one up? How can they get away with it?
>
> Their requirements for swapping of moderate numbers of existing stamps
> totalling a hundred pounds or so is far too insecure.
>
> No doubt they will send them back in fancy packaging that also makes it
> very clear that the contents are worth stealing for good measure!
>
> Is there any legal option to challenge this deadline and methodology?
>

I had the same reservations about security, but split my stamps into
three lots and all 3 have gone and have all come back fine and
accurately and quickly. I agree that the system is open to abuse, and
they could have planned it better, but hey-ho....

[Roland Perry]

In message <jg3p1q...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:23:05 on Sun, 5 Jun

2022, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> "Preventing fraud" would only require recording the details of
>>>stamps issued in the swap out scheme until they had been
>>>successfully delivered.  If at that stage, the recipient's data is
>>>anonymised, (the same as it would be if purchasing from a Post
>>>Office counter and paying by cash), then I don't have an issue.
>>>
>>> Similarly, I don't have an issue with Royal Mail collecting data to
>>>analyse to improve the efficiency of the business.
>>
>>> I draw the line at building a database behind the scenes containing
>>>details of people that know each other.

>> The exact degree of lawfulness is best assessed by people who have
>>spent a lifetime at the ICO, or as corporate compliance officers. All
>>the contacts I have had with such people indicates that they wouldn't
>>dare try to get away with scheme which hadn't been signed off
>>properly (probably with advice from m'learned friends).
>
>You seem to be suggesting that large organisations would never push the
>boundaries with data harvesting and processing activities and would
>certainly never exceed what is legally permitted and, what's more, that
>it is unthinkable to suggest they might do so.
>
>My experience is the polar opposite of this.

There are numerous case studies (delivered for example on DPA training
courses for aspiring compliance officers) where organisations have had
major embarrassments when caught with their trousers down (as it were).

To some extent it depends on the reputational perception of the
organisations in question, however the tiresome "because of data
protection" that the public hears so often, is usually a result of a
genuine abundance of caution by the organisations. Even though some
members of the public perceive it to be simply an excuse for laziness.

Or as one of my marketing ex-colleagues put it "anyone claiming There's
No Such Thing as Bad Publicity, should ask Gerald Ratner how things
turned out for him".

Straw Poll (simply the most recent at the time of writing):

<https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-
blogs/2022/05/ico-fines-facial-recognition-database-company-clearview-
ai-inc/>

23 May 2022

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has fined Clearview AI Inc
£7,552,800 for using images of people in the UK, and elsewhere, that
were collected from the web and social media to create a global online
database that could be used for facial recognition.

The ICO has also issued an enforcement notice, ordering the company to
stop obtaining and using the personal data of UK residents that is
publicly available on the internet, and to delete the data of UK
residents from its systems.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <jg3nqo...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:02:16 on Sun, 5 Jun

The comparison we need to look at is between a letter that's sorted
mainly in bulk, automatically, and one that's manually extracted from
the system where someone manually has to issue the "postage underpaid"
postcard (and deliver it), manually enter the item into a special system
at the sorting office, and them either manually take the payment from
the recipient when they turn up at the sorting office and go off and
find that one item in their special naughty step storage system - or
manually return the item to sender once they've manually noted that the
collection window has expired.

>What I don't know is if the sender gets charged prior to the item being
>returned to them or if this is done without charge, in which case Royal
>Mail are out of pocket for two deliveries. (i.e. do they get a card
>saying, "we have some mail for you but you need to pay the postage
>before we can deliver it" whereupon the charge is paid and they then
>receive their item returned to them, or do Royal Mail return the item
>to the sender without charge, or do they simply bin it?)

First of all they have to determine who the sender is, and I would
expect it to be shipped (with other undeliverable items) to a special
office they have, iirc in NI, and opened up. Whether or not they then
consolidate items and return them in batches, or do them one at a time,
I don't know. If the item had been bulk-mailed by a contract holder I
suppose it's possible they could raise a charge against that contract.
It's more complicated nowadays because of so much stuff being posted via
third party handlers like <fx: rummages in waste bin> Whistl and The
Delivery group.

>Tangentially, there was a mini village scandal here during lockdown
>because the local authority sent a day's worth of neighbour
>notifications regarding planning permission applications (Ed: thread
>convergence) but neglected to frank them first. Intended recipients
>got a card informing them they had mail with no postage paid and upon
>payment of the £2.50 surcharge plus "large letter" postage they were
>handed the neighbour's planning application.
>
>Lots of very unhappy voters (and some pretty "interesting" conspiracy
>theories too). The Council resent all the notifications, remembering
>to frank them this time, and paid the postage and surchange, upon
>presentation of a receipt, to those that had already collected the
>items before the Council had realised what was going on and taken
>corrective action.

With the "local" sorting office potentially being miles away, I'm
surprised some residents didn't ask for the travelling expenses to be
reimbursed. (Yes, I know, travel was difficult in lockdown).
--
Roland Perry

[Adam Funk]

Do you mean re-use of stamps that were accidentally not cancelled on
the way through the system? How big a problem is that?

[Roland Perry]

In message <pbp8nix...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 09:59:05 on Thu, 9
Jun 2022, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:

>>>The whole swap policy measure is the action of some clueless jobsworth.
>>>Doing something for the hell of it. They could just as easily set a
>>>deadline of 2 or 3 years by which time most stamps in the hands of
>>>their customers will have been used up.
>>
>> Issuing what in the mean time?
>>
>>>Why create unnecessary work?
>>
>> To reduce what they perceive to be a sufficient amount of fraudulent
>> re-use of stamps, and as a bonus take hoarded earlier-issues out of
>> circulation.
>
>Do you mean re-use of stamps that were accidentally not cancelled on
>the way through the system? How big a problem is that?

As one of the elements of the scheme, big enough it would appear.
Perhaps you could FOI their business case, if it concerns you a lot.
--
Roland Perry

[Adam Funk]

I'm not concerned, just a little surprised.

[Simon Parker]

Respectfully, I disagree. Royal Mail work at scale. The cost of
processing an individual item is lost in the system. Their system is
based on the average cost of delivering an item and ensuring their
charges are greater than this so that they remain profitable.

Part of the problem Royal Mail have is that competing services, (e.g.
The Delivery Group) don't have to honour the Universal Service
Obligation so they can cherry-pick the most profitable areas and leave
Royal Mail with the less profitable and downright unprofitable bits of
the service.

>> What I don't know is if the sender gets charged prior to the item
>> being returned to them or if this is done without charge, in which
>> case Royal Mail are out of pocket for two deliveries.  (i.e. do they
>> get a card saying, "we have some mail for you but you need to pay the
>> postage before we can deliver it" whereupon the charge is paid and
>> they then receive their item returned to them, or do Royal Mail return
>> the item to the sender without charge, or do they simply bin it?)
>
> First of all they have to determine who the sender is, and I would
> expect it to be shipped (with other undeliverable items) to a special
> office they have, iirc in NI, and opened up. Whether or not they then
> consolidate items and return them in batches, or do them one at a time,
> I don't know. If the item had been bulk-mailed by a contract holder I
> suppose it's possible they could raise a charge against that contract.
> It's more complicated nowadays because of so much stuff being posted via
> third party handlers like <fx: rummages in waste bin> Whistl and The
> Delivery group.

I believe is treated as "dead mail". If it is clearly a periodical or
similar printed mail, it is disposed of. Packages and first class post
are opened to ascertain if the sender can be determined. No idea what
happens with second class post.

>> Tangentially, there was a mini village scandal here during lockdown
>> because the local authority sent a day's worth of neighbour
>> notifications regarding planning permission applications (Ed: thread
>> convergence) but neglected to frank them first.  Intended recipients
>> got a card informing them they had mail with no postage paid and upon
>> payment of the £2.50 surcharge plus "large letter" postage they were
>> handed the neighbour's planning application.
>>
>> Lots of very unhappy voters (and some pretty "interesting" conspiracy
>> theories too).  The Council resent all the notifications, remembering
>> to frank them this time, and paid the postage and surchange, upon
>> presentation of a receipt, to those that had already collected the
>> items before the Council had realised what was going on and taken
>> corrective action.
>
> With the "local" sorting office potentially being miles away, I'm
> surprised some residents didn't ask for the travelling expenses to be
> reimbursed. (Yes, I know, travel was difficult in lockdown).

Local sorting office is a 5 minute drive from us, about twice that time
wise walking as one can cut through the park and go the wrong one down
one way streets.

And that was part of the problem - because it was so handy, most people
had collected the post and paid the fees before the Council realised
what had happened.

Regards

S.P.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jhos7r...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:42:34 on Sat, 25

They have, however, decided not to "lose in the system" the cost of
these manually processed undelivered items, and impose these irritating
small-change penalties on the would-be recipient.

...

>> With the "local" sorting office potentially being miles away, I'm
>>surprised some residents didn't ask for the travelling expenses to be
>>reimbursed. (Yes, I know, travel was difficult in lockdown).
>
>Local sorting office is a 5 minute drive from us, about twice that time
>wise walking as one can cut through the park and go the wrong one down
>one way streets.
>
>And that was part of the problem - because it was so handy, most people
>had collected the post and paid the fees before the Council realised
>what had happened.

What is roughly the size of your Council area, and that of the delivery
office? You talked about a "Village", not many of them have sorting
offices, and the typical size of a District Council (who are the ones
handling planning applications) is 15-20 miles across.
--
Roland Perry

[Simon Parker]

That is a business decision they have made to keep the overall cost of
the service down for the majority of users that add correct postage to
their items whilst penalising the relatively small number of users who
do not do this.

An alternative would but to spread the cost to everyone by increasing
the cost of stamps, which is a very blunt tool. It would also likely
lead to an increase in items with insufficient postage as there is no
direct penalty on the sender or recipient with the costs being picked up
by everyone else.

What would you prefer that they do?

>>>  With the "local" sorting office potentially being miles away, I'm
>>> surprised some residents didn't ask for the travelling expenses to be
>>> reimbursed. (Yes, I know, travel was difficult in lockdown).
>>
>> Local sorting office is a 5 minute drive from us, about twice that
>> time wise walking as one can cut through the park and go the wrong one
>> down one way streets.
>>
>> And that was part of the problem - because it was so handy, most
>> people had collected the post and paid the fees before the Council
>> realised what had happened.
>
> What is roughly the size of your Council area, and that of the delivery
> office? You talked about a "Village", not many of them have sorting
> offices, and the typical size of a District Council (who are the ones
> handling planning applications) is 15-20 miles across.

The Council area is roughly 40 square miles (c. 100 km2) with a
population of over 200,000.

Our village population is over 15,000. (I never said it was a small
village - although the village centre itself is reasonably small.)

My e-mail address is valid. I'm happy to provide more information to
you personally, but not in public and certainly not to be archived
potentially for the rest of time.

Regards

S.P.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ji56i5...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:52:20 on Thu, 30

OK, so they aren't operating "at scale" and willing to take the rough
with the smooth. That's all I was trying to convey.

>>> Local sorting office is a 5 minute drive from us, about twice that
>>>time wise walking as one can cut through the park and go the wrong
>>>one down one way streets.
>>>
>>> And that was part of the problem - because it was so handy, most
>>>people had collected the post and paid the fees before the Council
>>>realised what had happened.

>> What is roughly the size of your Council area, and that of the
>>delivery office? You talked about a "Village", not many of them have
>>sorting offices, and the typical size of a District Council (who are
>>the ones handling planning applications) is 15-20 miles across.
>
>The Council area is roughly 40 square miles (c. 100 km2) with a
>population of over 200,000.
>
>Our village population is over 15,000. (I never said it was a small
>village - although the village centre itself is reasonably small.)

You are lucky to have a sorting office in your village, normally they'd
be in the nearest (fsvo) larger town.

Although I used to moan about having a Stevenage Postcode when living in
South Cambs, one benefit was I only had to drive four miles to Royston,
not eight miles (on much more congested roads) to Cambridge to pick such
letters up.

On the other hand, *parcels* had to be rescued from Stevenage itself, 18
miles away (not Cambridge 8 miles), swings and roundabouts.

--
Roland Perry

[Simon Parker]

On 01/07/2022 06:58, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ji56i5...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:52:20 on Thu, 30
> Jun 2022, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On 27/06/2022 08:09, Roland Perry wrote:

[...]

>>>  They have, however, decided not to "lose in the system" the cost of
>>> these manually processed undelivered items, and impose these
>>> irritating  small-change penalties on the would-be recipient.
>>
>> That is a business decision they have made to keep the overall cost of
>> the service down for the majority of users that add correct postage to
>> their items whilst penalising the relatively small number of users who
>> do not do this.
>
> OK, so they aren't operating "at scale" and willing to take the rough
> with the smooth. That's all I was trying to convey.

It is designed to penalize miscreants who do not apply sufficient postage.

What would you have them do instead?

I don't want the charge for my postage increasing to cover the increase
in costs caused be people that can't, won't or don't learn the rules and
can't, won't or don't follow them.

>>>  What is roughly the size of your Council area, and that of the
>>> delivery  office? You talked about a "Village", not many of them have
>>> sorting  offices, and the typical size of a District Council (who are
>>> the ones  handling planning applications) is 15-20 miles across.
>>
>> The Council area is roughly 40 square miles (c. 100 km2) with a
>> population of over 200,000.
>>
>> Our village population is over 15,000.  (I never said it was a small
>> village - although the village centre itself is reasonably small.)
>
> You are lucky to have a sorting office in your village, normally they'd
> be in the nearest (fsvo) larger town.

Royal Mail class it as a "Delivery Office" rather than a "Sorting
Office" and who am I to argue? Whatever the name, it isn't actually in
the village. There are lots of villages custered around and in close
proximity to the local market town. The Delivery Office is in tne
market town. Owing to where I live in the village, I am within walking
distance of the market town.

> Although I used to moan about having a Stevenage Postcode when living in
> South Cambs, one benefit was I only had to drive four miles to Royston,
> not eight miles (on much more congested roads) to Cambridge to pick such
> letters up.
>
> On the other hand, *parcels* had to be rescued from Stevenage itself, 18
> miles away (not Cambridge 8 miles), swings and roundabouts.

Royal Mail giveth and they taketh away. :-)

Regards

S.P.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jimhns...@mid.individual.net>, at 23:47:23 on Wed, 6 Jul

2022, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:
>On 01/07/2022 06:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ji56i5...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:52:20 on Thu, 30
>>Jun 2022, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On 27/06/2022 08:09, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>  They have, however, decided not to "lose in the system" the cost
>>>>of these manually processed undelivered items, and impose these
>>>>irritating  small-change penalties on the would-be recipient.
>>>
>>> That is a business decision they have made to keep the overall cost
>>>of the service down for the majority of users that add correct
>>>postage to their items whilst penalising the relatively small number
>>>of users who do not do this.

>> OK, so they aren't operating "at scale" and willing to take the
>>rough with the smooth. That's all I was trying to convey.
>
>It is designed to penalize miscreants who do not apply sufficient postage.
>
>What would you have them do instead?
>
>I don't want the charge for my postage increasing to cover the increase
>in costs caused be people that can't, won't or don't learn the rules
>and can't, won't or don't follow them.

I'm once again grateful for you walking back the earlier assertion that
they operate "at scale" thus ignoring the possibility of penalty
micro-payments.
--
Roland Perry

[Andy Burns]

Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> Does anyone know how to deal with stamps marked "1st Large"

I sent a part-used book of old "1st Large" stamps in amongst all my other stamps
and got back 3 individual new "1st Large" stamps.

Looking at the photo I took of what I was sending them, it also included 5 1st
class stamps (in gold colour, if that helps date them) which had obviously been
through the washing machine, those were also replaced without complaint.

[Roland Perry]

In message <3n9jehpif0ogpoa95...@4ax.com>, at 23:46:47 on
Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> remarked:

>So they do want those exchanged. Thank you.

The rule seems to be "If it has a Queen's head, and isn't a
commemorative/Xmas stamp, you can swap it".
--
Roland Perry

[Max Demian]

How did you work out their value for the "Value of stamps enclosed" box
as they only tell you the value for standard 1st and 2nd stamps?

--
Max Demian

[Andy Burns]

Anthony R. Gold wrote:

>> How did you work out their value for the "Value of stamps enclosed" box
>> as they only tell you the value for standard 1st and 2nd stamps?
>

> I plan to assume "UK Standard Large Letter up to and including 100g" = £1.45

Yes that's the value I used.

> But I don't know why they even ask for the value and not just the count if
> their mission is just to swap like for bar coded like.

The stamps I sent off included some 1p, 19p and 20p, I thought they might total
those and supply a smaller number of "make up value" stamps, but no, I got back
exact replacements for each individual stamp I sent.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jlc1uu...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:05:33 on Mon, 8 Aug
2022, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> remarked:

I got back entirely "green 2nd Class stamps", rounded up to exceed the
face value of the ones I sent in.
--
Roland Perry