Royal Mail

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Would it really matter if post was 3 days a week provided it was then reliable? I’ve had three important letters to 2 separate banks simply disappear, not delivered after 3 months. France first class post is 3 days, so delivering 3 days a week would be compatible with that.

Don’t let’s stray into multiple couriers, I’ve seen 2 Amazon vans up our street at the same time. One delivery per day from one courier is enough for anyone.

[Harry Wilkes]

On 20 January 2024 at 16:56 Harry Wilkes Said:

Royal Mail could be allowed to scrap Saturday post deliveries, as part of an Ofcom review into how the postal service may need updating

Any suggestions for Ofcom ?

It gets worse!

On BBC Essex local radio this morning (24 Jan), they were discussing the possibility of a 3 day/week postal service.  Having said that, it’s probably better than some areas get at the moment.

The worlds going to rat sh*t!  It seems that everywhere you look, people want money for doing bugger all.  But then again, maybe it’s our fault for putting-up with it?  What we do about it though, I’m not sure.

[Martin of WickParticipant @martinofwick]

In case anyone hadn’t noticed, the Offxxxxx regulators only ever act in the interest of the organisations they regulate. That is so the revolving door between the higher echelons of the civil service and business can be kept well greased, with your money.

I say NO because, this is the thin end of the wedge. If they get away with this, in five years time, cost of posting a letter will double, we will have one delivery a week (or a collect only service in rural areas) and post boxes will become rarer than bank branches.

My advice to Offcom… remember who pays your wages and grow a backbone.

 

 

[Harry WilkesParticipant @harrywilkes58467]

I see Ofcom are banging saying mail deliveries could drop to 3 a week sounding like they have already made up their mind !

H

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/the-future-of-the-universal-postal-service

Ofcom is inviting comment … ^^^

MichaelG.

[Peter Cook 6Participant @petercook6]

I suspect Ofcom are currently between a rock and a hard place. Yes the Royal Mail has a legal obligation to deliver everywhere six days a week for a single price. But the Royal Mail board also have an obligation to the shareholders, employees and creditors to trade solvently. Continuing to run an insolvent company is illegal unless you are making the best possible attempt to resolve the issues.

What would Ofcom do if the shareholders  ( and one owns 25%), decided to pull the plug on the Royal Mail and declare it insolvent. On whom would the legal responsibility to deliver the post fall?

If the shareholders of  the Royal Mail have gone to Ofcom and said – either you change our legal obligations so that we can trade profitably, or we will go insolvent – what do Ofcom do? Behave as  the rail regulator does and take over the business? Suspect that would need legislation.

With the Post Office the question is different the shareholders are the government. But, thanks to privatisation, that is not the situation with Royal Mail.

 

[Peter Cook 6]

On Peter Cook 6 Said:

…

If the shareholders of  the Royal Mail have gone to Ofcom and said – either you change our legal obligations so that we can trade profitably, or we will go insolvent – what do Ofcom do? Behave as  the rail regulator does and take over the business? Suspect that would need legislation.
…

 

As will changing the legal obligation

MichaelG.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Simple question, inviting a potentially complex answer:

How is this arrangement supposed to work ?

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2023/royal-mail-fined-for-missing-delivery-targets

[ That’s just the latest of many. ]

Ofcom fines the poor hard-up Royal Mail in November 2023, and in 2024 is pleading its case. … The little Demon on my shoulder keeps whispering ‘Negotiated’ in my ear, so can someone please put my mind at rest ?

MichaelG.

[Martin of WickParticipant @martinofwick]

…will go insolvent – what do Ofcom do? Behave as  the rail regulator does and take over the business?

Yes, it is a poker game, regulator says fine and dandy Royal mail, you think again or go bust, and your bondholders and shareholders lose everything, no sweat to us. We (UKPlc) will decide what to do after that.

 

 

[Peter Cook 6Participant @petercook6]

As will changing the legal obligation

How do you impose a legal obligation on an insolvent or non-existent legal entity?

[Peter Cook 6]

On Peter Cook 6 Said:

As will changing the legal obligation

How do you impose a legal obligation on an insolvent or non-existent legal entity?

On Peter Cook 6 Said:

As will changing the legal obligation

How do you impose a legal obligation on an insolvent or non-existent legal entity?

Oh come-on, please Peter

The change to the legal obligation is what’s currently being proposed to save the incumbent operator from insolvency.

MichaelG.

[Martin of WickParticipant @martinofwick]

An insolvent company is still a legal entity. It is what is done with it that is the issue. Because a universal postal service is a significant component of the social fabric of the country, I would be very surprised if there wasn’t an ‘operator of last resort’ clause buried somewhere in the licence. Always the case for other regulated entities. This often comes as something of a surprise to shareholders who try it on too much.

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

I thought that somewhere, buried way back in the mists of time, there was a legal obligation to deliver mail.

Already Royal Mail has made a nonsense of the law of contract, since the First Class post was trumpeted as next day delivery, and buying the stamp means that money has changed hands, constituting a legally binding contract.

Or was there a non publicised change of the law when the Two Tear Post was brought in?

Howard

[Michael Gilligan]

On Michael Gilligan Said

The change to the legal obligation is what’s currently being proposed to save the incumbent operator from insolvency.

 

Which was exactly my original point. Ofcom is between a rock and a very hard place. The shareholders threaten to put the business into administration if Ofcom doesn’t change the regulatory regime.

Let me rephrase slightly the question. Instead of “How do you impose a legal obligation on an insolvent or non-existent legal entity?”

Let me ask – how do you impose a sanction on an insolvent or non-existent legal entity if it fails to meet its legal obligations? You can of course prosecute the Directors. However, I’m not a lawyer, but I would expect the lawyers acting for the Directors to argue that their responsibilities under the Insolvency Acts ( not to trade while insolvent) outweigh their responsibilities under the Designated universal service provider conditions imposed by OFCOM via the The Postal Services Act 2011.

Martin, I don’t think Royal mail is like other regulated entities. You don’t need a licence to set up as postal delivery business. Royal mail IS designated as the Universal Service Provider, and subject to regulations imposed by Ofcom. But I can’t see in any of the  documentation the idea of an operator of last resort.

Making things more complicated, if the business is put into administration, the primary legal responsibility of the administrators is to the companies creditors – not it’s customers.

Glad I’m not Ofcom!!

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

I evidently took your earlier comment too literally, Peter

… I was simply trying to point out that regardless of  the motives, it will require the Parliamentary approval of both Houses to change the obligation.

The document that Ofcom has published acknowledges that in no uncertain terms.

MichaelG.

.

Ref. __

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/275823/The-future-of-the-universal-postal-service.pdf

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Assuming that my screenshot actually displays … here are the very words:

.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Footnote 185, on page 63, is worth reading, to get a sense of Ofcom’s position.

MichaelG.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Good Morning fellow Ofcom-watchers

Those who get as far as looking at Annexe 7 [separately published] might also find this interesting:

https://sankeymatic.com/

It’s the ‘engine’ for that lovely arm-waving analysis at Figure A7.5

< sigh >

MichaelG.

[Russell EberhardtParticipant @russelleberhardt48058]

With the introduction of the penny post (about £1 in today’s money) the postal delivery time could be as little as one or two days within a city or to nearby towns.  However it took several days beyond that. If your letter weighed between 1/2 and 1 oz the price was doubled and over that 2d for each additional ounce.  So I don’t think the service today is poor value for money but it would be nice if it could be improved further.

Russell

[Anthony KendallParticipant @anthonykendall53479]

It was the Post Office not Royal Mail involved with the postmaster injustice – it seems to get confused.
I use Royal Mail first class whenever I can and am pleased with the service I get.
The public response seems to centre on letter writing and therefore not many care about Saturday deliveries.

I mostly have small packages and large letters and receive my stuff on Saturday if I order early Friday.
If Saturday deliveries disappear I will have no real alternative than to order from Amazon in the latter half of the week and I have a real problem with Amazon taking over the world.
It seems like I might lose Saturday small package deliveries because the media and the unthinking public are not bothered about people writing letters like Samuel Pepys did.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

As background reading .. This document, published in March 2019, is still readily accessible on .gov.uk and appears therefore to be ‘current’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d2f1740e5274a14eabeb855/RM_Response_to_DCMS_SSP_Consultation_.PDF

It is a mere 17 pages long, and paints a very different picture to that currently being presented by Ofcom.

One has to wonder therefore, which of the two [potentially both] is full of BS

.

I’m not clever enough, or sufficiently well-informed, to make a judgement …  but I do recognise the aroma.

MichaelG.

[Graham MeekParticipant @grahammeek88282]

With a reduced number of deliveries there can no longer be a 1st class service. It will have to be one flat rate that will be delivered one day, if you are lucky. Of course that new flat rate will be the old 1st class rate plus a bit extra.

Regards

Gray

 

[Anthony Kendall]

On Anthony Kendall Said:

It was the Post Office not Royal Mail involved with the postmaster injustice – it seems to get confused.

Indeed, but in spite of the PO and Royal Mail having their own independent boards and being separate companies, they were only separated in this way long after Horizon came on the scene. What’s more, afaik, both entities are owned by Royal Mail Holdings PLC.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

I’ve just checked on Companies House, Bill

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04074919

Yes, the name is there, on the list of ‘previous’

For the moment, the best words I can utter are “What a tangled web we weave ….”

MichaelG.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Some interesting reading here:

https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/community/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=112421

MichaelG.

 

[Author]

Posts