The Royal Mail ...... make of this what you will.

[Tintowner]

I carried out a little experiment a few weeks ago and feel that it has been long enough to come to the conclusion that the Royal Mail have altered their stance on re-using envelopes and unfranked stamps.

I sent off four A5 hard backed envelopes to myself ...I know.

Two of them had been used before and you could tell. They had unfranked stamps on them and a new label addressed to me....they looked well used.

The other two were brand new and had brand new stamps on them.....again, I addressed them both to me.

I posted all four in the same post box on the same day.

Only two of the four came back to me ....and you can guess which two haven't .

I rest my case

[wandererpaul]

When you send a re-used envelope, do you cancel the orange bar coding which is on them? ie black marker over the markings......Try that next time, it may have an effect.
_________________
Not Forgotten; Allwright, Greechan, Hagan, Kennedy, Littler, Purver, Robotham, Saunders, Shields

[sellsell39]

re-using envelopes is ok I understand, recycling and all that.

re-using unfranked stamps is a no-no.

If you re-use an envelope with an orange bar-code, the machinery will remember the bar-code and send the letter to the originally intended address, so the letter would be delayed as it would end up in the wrong mail centre.

My mate was a christmas casual.

Perhaps Wullie can clarify some of this.

[Tintowner]

All bar codings on the envelopes were covered, marked over etc.

[Wullie]

Tintowner wrote:

I carried out a little experiment a few weeks ago and feel that it has been long enough to come to the conclusion that the Royal Mail have altered their stance on re-using envelopes and unfranked stamps. I sent off four A5 hard backed envelopes to myself ...I know. Two of them had been used before and you could tell. They had unfranked stamps on them and a new label addressed to me....they looked well used. The other two were brand new and had brand new stamps on them.....again, I addressed them both to me. I posted all four in the same post box on the same day. Only two of the four came back to me ....and you can guess which two haven't . I rest my case

The other two will have been surcharged. This delays the delivery by quite some time. You will no doubt get two white cards soon saying you owe the cost of postage and a £1 fee for processing....

[tackler7]

How do they know the stamps have been used?

You could have put them on an envelope made a mess of the address and removed them to reuse without ever going near a post box.

[Wullie]

Intuition . The envelope was second hand. No stamps replaced with new ones. I've seen all the tricks. The things people do to save a few bob ... It's like well it's not the money , but the feeling of getting a freebie. If I paid for an item off eBay , paid for postage , and the item was surcharged because the seller thought he'd get away with it , I'd be fuming. I've been made to pay for postage so the seller should pay. Nowhere on a listing I've I ever seen this statement

"" Free postage if I can get away with using a second hand envelope, otherwise expect a postal surcharge above what you would normally pay .... and up to two weeks delay . Thank you for your custom""

[Tintowner]

I've had envelopes come with stamps that look like new...even the envelope....so the Royal Mail are now saying that if there is the slightest hint that the stamp looks dodgy...they will reject it.

What about when letters & parcels get battered during transit, will they get surcharged.

Anyway, regarding the surcharge, how can they make a charge when there is adequate postage on the envelope?

Btw....how long does it take to return a package with a surcharge....its been nearly a month!

[Wullie]

They employ people who sniff out the cheats , hence the £1 fee. When you've been doing this work for a few years your judgement is pretty much spot on.
How long does it take ? Up to a month to process. If you have posted empty envelopes to yourself and it's obvious that the contents are missing and it is reused, then in all probability they have been destroyed.

[Tynie Topics]

Tintowner wrote:

I've had envelopes come with stamps that look like new...even the envelope....so the Royal Mail are now saying that if there is the slightest hint that the stamp looks dodgy...they will reject it. What about when letters & parcels get battered during transit, will they get surcharged. Anyway, regarding the surcharge, how can they make a charge when there is adequate postage on the envelope? Btw....how long does it take to return a package with a surcharge....its been nearly a month!

Let's face it, they've lost the letters. Nothing more, nothing less.
_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/footballprogrammes/albums

[Tynie Topics]

oooops
_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/footballprogrammes/albums

[Wullie]

Bit of a silly argument, but why would they lose the two recycled letters but not the two new ones ? I have already stated the likely outcome of the two missing letters so why the stereotype lost in the post comment ?
I try to give a constructive case and the usual negativity appears . I was hoping all that stuff had stopped.

[Tynie Topics]

Wullie wrote:

Bit of a silly argument, but why would they lose the two recycled letters but not the two new ones ? I have already stated the likely outcome of the two missing letters so why the stereotype lost in the post comment ?

I can't see any other reason, unless you're suggesting they have intercepted the letters and refuse to deliver them or worse still, destroyed them, without informing the recipient.

If they think the postage is insufficient or being "re-used" then they should pop a wee grey card through the door within days (happened to me this week for items sent a few days previous and I paid online for delivery) charging for delivery, and if not paid return the item.

It's not upto Royal Mail to decide whether something is worth delivering or not, even if the envelope is empty. They either deliver with additional charge, or return (if return address is provided).

EDIT: No negativity, just stating a theory!
_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/footballprogrammes/albums

[Wullie]

I am not sure a recipient would be very happy if they were to travel potentially miles to a delivery office , wait in line for 15 minutes then folk out cash for a letter that is so obviously been reposted, by the looks of it, by mistake. I have witnessed the abuse some of the public dish out. So sometimes a judgement has to be made. I think in this case the letters have rightly been destroyed. And yes Royal Mail do have a right to destroy letters, normally if it's of an offensive nature ( but this would usually involve the police). I remember one night shift when a parcel of not very well wrapped poo came to be sorted. Are you suggesting it should have been delivered ?

[Tynie Topics]

Wullie wrote:

I am not sure a recipient would be very happy if they were to travel potentially miles to a delivery office , wait in line for 15 minutes then folk out cash for a letter that is so obviously been reposted, by the looks of it, by mistake. I have witnessed the abuse some of the public dish out. So sometimes a judgement has to be made. I think in this case the letters have rightly been destroyed. And yes Royal Mail do have a right to destroy letters, normally if it's of an offensive nature ( but this would usually involve the police). I remember one night shift when a parcel of not very well wrapped poo came to be sorted. Are you suggesting it should have been delivered ?

Wullie, so are you saying that Royal Mail have the right to destroy (non-offensive) mail as they see fit without informing the recipient (or sender) – assuming one or both addresses are known?

That is quite a revelation! The Royal Mail are not there to judge whether a letter should be delivered or not, they either deliver it, charge extra for insufficient postage, or return it to sender. Yes there will be exceptions to the rule obviously such as “poo in the post” but otherwise those should be the three options. The fourth options is of course, they lose it/mangle it.

Don’t get me wrong I think the Royal Mail get a hard time for doing a good job, touch wood I very rarely have any items go missing either as a sender or a recipient, and whether the envelope has been re-used or not. A few lapses from time-to-time but nothing major. However in this case it would be interesting to get to the bottom of what went wrong.
_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/footballprogrammes/albums

[Tintowner]

Tynie Topics wrote:

Wullie wrote: I am not sure a recipient would be very happy if they were to travel potentially miles to a delivery office , wait in line for 15 minutes then folk out cash for a letter that is so obviously been reposted, by the looks of it, by mistake. I have witnessed the abuse some of the public dish out. So sometimes a judgement has to be made. I think in this case the letters have rightly been destroyed. And yes Royal Mail do have a right to destroy letters, normally if it's of an offensive nature ( but this would usually involve the police). I remember one night shift when a parcel of not very well wrapped poo came to be sorted. Are you suggesting it should have been delivered ? Wullie, so are you saying that Royal Mail have the right to destroy (non-offensive) mail as they see fit without informing the recipient (or sender) – assuming one or both addresses are known? That is quite a revelation! The Royal Mail are not there to judge whether a letter should be delivered or not, they either deliver it, charge extra for insufficient postage, or return it to sender. Yes there will be exceptions to the rule obviously such as “poo in the post” but otherwise those should be the three options. The fourth options is of course, they lose it/mangle it. Don’t get me wrong I think the Royal Mail get a hard time for doing a good job, touch wood I very rarely have any items go missing either as a sender or a recipient, and whether the envelope has been re-used or not. A few lapses from time-to-time but nothing major. However in this case it would be interesting to get to the bottom of what went wrong.

Spot On

So we now have a scenario where we have to contend with the unscrupulous buyers who get the item and want a refund and also the Royal mail who get to decide if they deem a package has been used before despite having correct postage on it....because the stamp(s) might look like they are being re-used.

Maybe the days of actually putting an envelope/package in the post box has gone and that we need to go to the counter every time to obtain some sort of certificate that states that the envelope/package is acceptable to go through the system !

[bisphamseasider]

Interesting thread which raises a number of issues some of which seem to get repeated every few months or so.

By coincidence I have received 2 large envelopes this morning both with unfranked large 1st class stamps on.

What should I do?

According to some on here to reuse them is a serious offence so do I just rip the envelopes up and put them in the recycling bag?

Not a chance.

I will carefully remove the stamps and affix them to a new envelope next time I have a large letter to send.

In the past I would probably have used the same envelope as it is clean and only needs a new label covering the address and bar code. But with thanks to the tip off about surchages and such like, I will use a new envelope where the unfranked stamp will be undetectable.

[Wullie]

I guess there are people like that. The same people who go into public toilets for "free" toilet rolls. The same people who reuse Christmas wrapping paper. If it's their way of life and makes them happy then who I'm I to complain ? ps. if you're desperate for pennies pm me and I'll forward you some stamps.

[roughyedz]

Wullie wrote:

They employ people who sniff out the cheats , hence the £1 fee. When you've been doing this work for a few years your judgement is pretty much spot on. How long does it take ? Up to a month to process. If you have posted empty envelopes to yourself and it's obvious that the contents are missing and it is reused, then in all probability they have been destroyed.

Ha ha ha They employ people to look AT EVERY SINGLE ENVELOPE THAT IS POSTED IN THE UK EVERY SINGLE DAY ............. .......... iv'e worked in a sorting office myself , whats not done by a machine is done by hand and the quicker the better , no time to stare at every single envelope... If that was the case it would take two months to deliver every single letter posted in the UK . . . ( lol ah sometimes i know it does ) when time is of the essence as it is in a sorting office no time to look at the stamps on the envelope , just the post code . . . and its off to the next box/bag

[Tintowner]

Wullie wrote:

I guess there are people like that. The same people who go into public toilets for "free" toilet rolls. The same people who reuse Christmas wrapping paper. If it's their way of life and makes them happy then who I'm I to complain ? ps. if you're desperate for pennies pm me and I'll forward you some stamps.

Unfranked ?