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.
And why not? Profit is the god in the UK.
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." :-)
Who knows? Unless it was fantastically important then how would you know that a misdirected mail had gone missing.
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.
I think it depends on how well the postman knows you.
Regards, Martin Brown
On 01 Aug 2016, drbob grunted:
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
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.
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.
In message , tim... writes
Because the original postage was used to deliver it the first time.
In message , NY writes
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.
In message , snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com writes
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.
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
Interesting (snipped) quotations. Thank you.
In article , NY writes
In my experience yes.
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
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.
Make that "occupants" There is a charge for each one so a family of four say has to pay four times to ensure coverage.
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.
In message , Roger Mills writes
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.
I managed to find out the exact date things changed. Stamp collectors to th e rescue! The website of the Great Britain Philatelic Society has an archive of all the old versions and amendments to the UK po st schemes. It seems free forwarding of mail was removed from the rules in the 6th December 2010 update, available here: . The explanatory note, which in ot her updates gives a summary of the changes, is very vague in this update st ating unhelpfully:
"This Scheme, which comes into force on 6th December 2010, provides notific ation 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 repres ented 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 bee n a good enough item for an article or two if they had.
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.
rote:
ly 6 months or so ago, I found after much looking pre-2012 of the Inland Po stal Scheme on it and that contained section 6 about forwarding as mentione d 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 'dele ted'. Eventually I also found this google group, and the pre 2010 copy agai n which someone had posted on another site, and this showed me that I was n ot mad, I had seen it before! Daughter will need to reimburse me for forwar ding if she has things delivered here during the University term and wants them forwarding!
arely Bing did not find that when I searched for 'United Kingdom Postal Sch eme'. It found a consultation document in the first several references.
igher up the list so I did not look further down.
previous scheme and 'forwarding' gave only the consultation version of the UKPS.
This link has been updated - see
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
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.