Another day, another story about mail recipients being "fined" for
receiving mail which may or may not bear counterfeit stamps. ><https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/22/counterfeit-barcode-stamps-furore-carries-echoes-of-horizon-scandal>
Is there some sort of precedent, going back maybe prior the 1838
Postage Act, giving Royal Mail the right to charge recipients for
delivery?
I haven't been able to check my mail at home for about a month so I
can't tell you if it has happened to me but presumably, if a postie
turned up on my doorstep and said that I had to pay a fiver to receive
a letter, I could just refuse the letter and the charge. Or could I?
But the newspaper report above mentions letters being delivered along
with a notice of charge. Is the charge enforceable on a recipient? And
if so, does it mean in the long run having to turn up at a
magistrate's court to dispute it?[1]
Nick
[1]Well, you're obviously not going to reply to the summons by post,
are you? That would be beyond irony.
Another day, another story about mail recipients being "fined" for
receiving mail which may or may not bear counterfeit stamps. <https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/22/counterfeit-barcode-stamps-furore-carries-echoes-of-horizon-scandal>
Is there some sort of precedent, going back maybe prior the 1838
Postage Act, giving Royal Mail the right to charge recipients for
delivery?
I haven't been able to check my mail at home for about a month so I
can't tell you if it has happened to me but presumably, if a postie
turned up on my doorstep and said that I had to pay a fiver to receive
a letter, I could just refuse the letter and the charge. Or could I?
But the newspaper report above mentions letters being delivered along
with a notice of charge. Is the charge enforceable on a recipient? And
if so, does it mean in the long run having to turn up at a
magistrate's court to dispute it?[1]
Nick
[1]Well, you're obviously not going to reply to the summons by post,
are you? That would be beyond irony.
Another day, another story about mail recipients being "fined" for
receiving mail which may or may not bear counterfeit stamps. <https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/22/counterfeit-barcode-stamps-furore-carries-echoes-of-horizon-scandal>
Is there some sort of precedent, going back maybe prior the 1838
Postage Act, giving Royal Mail the right to charge recipients for
delivery?
Another day, another story about mail recipients being "fined" for
receiving mail which may or may not bear counterfeit stamps. ><https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/22/counterfeit-barcode-stamp >s-furore-carries-echoes-of-horizon-scandal>
Is there some sort of precedent, going back maybe prior the 1838
Postage Act, giving Royal Mail the right to charge recipients for
delivery?
I haven't been able to check my mail at home for about a month so I
can't tell you if it has happened to me but presumably, if a postie
turned up on my doorstep and said that I had to pay a fiver to receive
a letter,
I could just refuse the letter and the charge. Or could I?
But the newspaper report above mentions letters being delivered along
with a notice of charge.
Is the charge enforceable on a recipient? And if so, does it mean in
the long run having to turn up at a magistrate's court to dispute it?[1]
Nick
[1]Well, you're obviously not going to reply to the summons by post,
are you? That would be beyond irony.
another story about mail recipients being "fined" for
receiving mail which may or may not bear counterfeit stamps.
Is there any practical difference (for the recipient) between the
sender not using a valid stamp and using a fake stamp?
Nick Odell wrote:
another story about mail recipients being "fined" for
receiving mail which may or may not bear counterfeit stamps.
Obvious [partial] solution, RM should provide an app that can tell the
sender if a stamp is genuine and unused ...
Nick Odell wrote:
another story about mail recipients being "fined" for
receiving mail which may or may not bear counterfeit stamps.
Obvious [partial] solution, RM should provide an app that can tell the
sender if a stamp is genuine and unused ...
In message <l8ng8lFp5naU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:06:45 on Mon, 22
Apr 2024, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
Is there any practical difference (for the recipient) between the
sender not using a valid stamp and using a fake stamp?
No, because there are other reasons than being fake that stamp can be invalid.
On 22/04/2024 19:05, Andy Burns wrote:
Obvious [partial] solution, RM should provide an app that can tell the sender if a stamp is genuine and unused ...
They are their own worst enemy.
Most of my high volume mail comes franked with "<Cheapo> Post" some
nasty cut price bulk service where Royal Mail are only the carrier for
the last few miles. This even includes election material from the county council.
Look carefully at your bank statements etc. Almost none of the big users actually pay Royal Mail directly - they have some cut price backroom deal.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
Is there any practical difference (for the recipient) between the
sender not using a valid stamp and using a fake stamp?
No, because there are other reasons than being fake that stamp can be invalid.
On 22/04/2024 19:06, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
Is there any practical difference (for the recipient) between the
sender not using a valid stamp and using a fake stamp?
No, because there are other reasons than being fake that stamp can be
invalid.
I read somewhere a suggestion that affixing an additional 1p stamp would
mean that, were the main stamp declared fake, you'd only get charged for insufficient postage rather than no postage, and this is supposedly
cheaper.
Don't know if it's true. FWIW, I always use old commemoratives - no barcodes, no fakes.
Look carefully at your bank statements etc. Almost none of the big users actually pay Royal Mail directly - they have some cut price backroom deal.....
Another day, another story about mail recipients being "fined" for
receiving mail which may or may not bear counterfeit stamps. <https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/22/counterfeit-barcode-stamps-furore-carries-echoes-of-horizon-scandal>
Is there some sort of precedent, going back maybe prior the 1838
Postage Act, giving Royal Mail the right to charge recipients for
delivery?
I haven't been able to check my mail at home for about a month so I
can't tell you if it has happened to me but presumably, if a postie
turned up on my doorstep and said that I had to pay a fiver to receive
a letter, I could just refuse the letter and the charge. Or could I?
But the newspaper report above mentions letters being delivered along
with a notice of charge. Is the charge enforceable on a recipient? And
if so, does it mean in the long run having to turn up at a
magistrate's court to dispute it?[1]
Nick
[1]Well, you're obviously not going to reply to the summons by post,
are you? That would be beyond irony.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:04:14 +0100
Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Another day, another story about mail recipients being "fined" for
receiving mail which may or may not bear counterfeit stamps.
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/22/counterfeit-barcode-stamps-furore-carries-echoes-of-horizon-scandal>
Is there some sort of precedent, going back maybe prior the 1838
Postage Act, giving Royal Mail the right to charge recipients for
delivery?
I haven't been able to check my mail at home for about a month so I
can't tell you if it has happened to me but presumably, if a postie
turned up on my doorstep and said that I had to pay a fiver to receive
a letter, I could just refuse the letter and the charge. Or could I?
But the newspaper report above mentions letters being delivered along
with a notice of charge. Is the charge enforceable on a recipient? And
if so, does it mean in the long run having to turn up at a
magistrate's court to dispute it?[1]
Nick
[1]Well, you're obviously not going to reply to the summons by post,
are you? That would be beyond irony.
I received one of these 'fake# stamped letters on a Christmas card over
a year ago, ie sent for Christmas 2022. I took it to the local Post
Office, in its ridiculously short window of being open, and all they
could say was that 'the computer says it's a fake'. It was sent by a septuagenarian widow in rural Staffordshire, so I really doubt that she
was forging stamps in her kitchen.
On 22/04/2024 23:44, Davey wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:04:14 +0100
Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Another day, another story about mail recipients being "fined" for
receiving mail which may or may not bear counterfeit stamps.
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/22/counterfeit-barcode-stamps-furore-carries-echoes-of-horizon-scandal>
Is there some sort of precedent, going back maybe prior the 1838
Postage Act, giving Royal Mail the right to charge recipients for
delivery?
I haven't been able to check my mail at home for about a month so I
can't tell you if it has happened to me but presumably, if a postie
turned up on my doorstep and said that I had to pay a fiver to
receive a letter, I could just refuse the letter and the charge.
Or could I?
But the newspaper report above mentions letters being delivered
along with a notice of charge. Is the charge enforceable on a
recipient? And if so, does it mean in the long run having to turn
up at a magistrate's court to dispute it?[1]
Nick
[1]Well, you're obviously not going to reply to the summons by
post, are you? That would be beyond irony.
I received one of these 'fake# stamped letters on a Christmas card
over a year ago, ie sent for Christmas 2022. I took it to the local
Post Office, in its ridiculously short window of being open, and
all they could say was that 'the computer says it's a fake'. It was
sent by a septuagenarian widow in rural Staffordshire, so I really
doubt that she was forging stamps in her kitchen.
A nice little sideline to supplement her pension :-)
On 22/04/2024 19:34, Martin Brown wrote:
....
Look carefully at your bank statements etc. Almost none of the big users....
actually pay Royal Mail directly - they have some cut price backroom deal.
A lower price for big organisations is nothing new. The Electricity
Board I used to work for got a lower price, but in return, it had to
supply Royal Mail with ready sorted post.
On 2024-04-22, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 22/04/2024 19:34, Martin Brown wrote:
....
Look carefully at your bank statements etc. Almost none of the big users >> actually pay Royal Mail directly - they have some cut price backroom deal.....
A lower price for big organisations is nothing new. The Electricity
Board I used to work for got a lower price, but in return, it had to
supply Royal Mail with ready sorted post.
Yeah it isn't any kind of "backroom deal", it's a standard product,
the details of which are publically available. It used to be called "Mailsort" / "Walksort" but now appears to be called just "Business
Mail".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mailsort
https://www.royalmail.com/business/mail/business-mail
Nick Odell wrote:
another story about mail recipients being "fined" for
receiving mail which may or may not bear counterfeit stamps.
Obvious [partial] solution, RM should provide an app that can tell the
sender if a stamp is genuine and unused ...
But who can bring themself to refuse to receive a letter?
But who can bring themself to refuse to receive a letter?
Paraphrasing W H Auden by any chance?
"And none will hear the postman's knock
Without a quickening of the heart,
For who can bear to feel himself forgotten?"
But who can bring themself to refuse to receive a letter?
Paraphrasing W H Auden by any chance?
"And none will hear the postman's knock
Without a quickening of the heart,
For who can bear to feel himself forgotten?"
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 45:09:09 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,233 |
| Posted today: | 1 |