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
*"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." :-)
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.
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.
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 7:19:36 AM UTC+1, News wrote:
I managed to find out the exact date things changed. Stamp collectors to th
e 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 po
st schemes. It seems free forwarding of mail was removed from the rules in
the 6th December 2010 update, available here: <http://gbps.org.uk/informati
on/sources/po-schemes/inland-letter.php>. The explanatory note, which in ot
her updates gives a summary of the changes, is very vague in this update st
"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
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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org London SW
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.
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
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
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
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 J Dixon Nottingham UK
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
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?)
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.
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!
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 10:04:31 AM UTC+1, email@example.com
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
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
This link has been updated - see http://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/fil
es/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 someo
ne 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 thi
s situation the original address is crossed out and a written request (e.g.
forward to”) is made on the cover to forward the item to another ad
dress. This is normally attempted in order to try to get the item to the a
ddressee 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 fo
rwarded to another address then the item may be dealt with or disposed of a
t our discretion.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.