Return to sender charge

allconnected

I wonder if anyone knows of any changes in Royal Mail's handling of "return to sender" post?

I've just had a second parcel returned to me, as sender, this year for underpaid postage where the sorting office has insisted on me paying the underpayment charge (£1.54 in each case) before returning to me as the sender.

Last time my husband collected it for me and didn't question it, I assumed it was a mistake.

This time, the conversation went along the lines of:-

Me - Why are you asking me to pay this?
Him - Because you didn't pay enough postage.
Me- So if I pay this charge, you'll deliver it then?
Him - No
Me -why not?
Him - because you didn't pay enough postage
Me - but if I pay this charge I will have paid enough postage plus the admin fee, so surely you can deliver it then.....
Him- no
Me -why not
Him - because it's been returned to sender
Me - So why are you charging me extra now to deliver it?
Him - because you didn't pay enough postage..........

At which point I took his name, paid the fee and left. So I've paid full postage plus an admin fee of £1 to get my original parcel back (half of the stamp for which the "unpaid postage" charge has arisen is still stuck to the envelope, the other half having presumably been ripped off in the sorting process.)

So, have Royal Mail started charging senders to return undelivered post to them? If so it's a good scam - charge to deliver, charge not to deliver. However, I can't find anything on their website about such a charge and it looks like an over-zealous RM employee seeing the revenue protection sticker and thinking it applies to the sender even if the post isn't delivered.

Does anyone have any experience of this?

Allconnected

molerat

RM are only charging you the correct postage for the parcel to transit through the system. It has been returned to you presumably because the recipient refused it or failed to collect it from the sorting office, not by RM due to lack of postage. What do you mean by "half the stamp" ?

theonlywayisup

Are you paying the correct postage in the first place?

custardy

allconnected wrote: »

I wonder if anyone knows of any changes in Royal Mail's handling of "return to sender" post?

I've just had a second parcel returned to me, as sender, this year for underpaid postage where the sorting office has insisted on me paying the underpayment charge (£1.54 in each case) before returning to me as the sender.

Last time my husband collected it for me and didn't question it, I assumed it was a mistake.

This time, the conversation went along the lines of:-

Me - Why are you asking me to pay this?
Him - Because you didn't pay enough postage.
Me- So if I pay this charge, you'll deliver it then?
Him - No
Me -why not?
Him - because you didn't pay enough postage
Me - but if I pay this charge I will have paid enough postage plus the admin fee, so surely you can deliver it then.....
Him- no
Me -why not
Him - because it's been returned to sender
Me - So why are you charging me extra now to deliver it?
Him - because you didn't pay enough postage..........

At which point I took his name, paid the fee and left. So I've paid full postage plus an admin fee of £1 to get my original parcel back (half of the stamp for which the "unpaid postage" charge has arisen is still stuck to the envelope, the other half having presumably been ripped off in the sorting process.)

So, have Royal Mail started charging senders to return undelivered post to them? If so it's a good scam - charge to deliver, charge not to deliver. However, I can't find anything on their website about such a charge and it looks like an over-zealous RM employee seeing the revenue protection sticker and thinking it applies to the sender even if the post isn't delivered.

Does anyone have any experience of this?

Allconnected

Its not undelivered post though,is it?
Its an item you underpaid on. So who is paying for the costs involved for that underpaid item.
If they deliver the item as you think they should.
They have dealt with the charging holding and returning at the delivery office.
Then they carry the item back and repeat the charging process on return.
So who is paying for that?

mrcol1000

custardy wrote: »

Its not undelivered post though,is it?
Its an item you underpaid on. So who is paying for the costs involved for that underpaid item.
If they deliver the item as you think they should.
They have dealt with the charging holding and returning at the delivery office.
Then they carry the item back and repeat the charging process on return.
So who is paying for that?

I think you have missed the point other people were making. The person who this item was addressed to would have been asked to pay the charge for the item. If they refused or did not go to the sorting office to sort it out, then this would have been returned to you. However you need to pay the rest of the postage and an admin charge so the item is returned to you. If you refuse to pay the charge they then will dispose of the item. They are not charging you to have the item returned to you, they are simply asking for the extra amount which you failed to pay in the first place plus an admin fee.

custardy

mrcol1000 wrote: »

I think you have missed the point other people were making. The person who this item was addressed to would have been asked to pay the charge for the item. If they refused or did not go to the sorting office to sort it out, then this would have been returned to you. However you need to pay the rest of the postage and an admin charge so the item is returned to you. If you refuse to pay the charge they then will dispose of the item. They are not charging you to have the item returned to you, they are simply asking for the extra amount which you failed to pay in the first place plus an admin fee.

I havent failed to pay anything.
You are simply restating what my post says.

allconnected

Its not undelivered post though,is it?

I'm confused.

I posted a parcel to address X.

It hasn't got there- it's back with me, the sender. I've checked and they didn't leave a card with the recipient telling them it was underpaid, so not surprisingly they didn't go and pick it up. How is that delivered?

They have been paid the delivery surcharge now - full postage, plus a £1 admin fee.

And the half stamp is what it sounds like - half a postage stamp. The rest, with a little bit of the envelope, is ripped off.

Custardy, I'm surprised by your response. What I was charged was the supplement which Royal Mail request on understamped post which, if paid, results in the parcel being delivered.

Here's what the Royal Mail site says:-

When will I receive my item?
Don’t worry, we will deliver your item as soon as your fee has been paid

I wasn't charged a "return to sender" fee, because so far as I can find out there isn't one. I'm not arguing the parcel has been through the postage system twice, just like every other piece of undelivered post - I'm just pointing out that unlike misaddressed or "no address found" post, Royal Mail provide a service, at a small supplement, to enable underpaid post to be delivered, and in this case they have taken that supplement without any intention of delivering the item.


Again, all the website says is

What if I don’t pay the fee?
We will return the item to the sender after 18 calendar days or 21 calendar days for any items with a Customs charge.

No mention of charging the sender - just we will return the item to the sender.



Allconnected.

custardy

allconnected wrote: »

I'm confused.

I posted a parcel to address X.

It hasn't got there- it's back with me, the sender. I've checked and they didn't leave a card with the recipient telling them it was underpaid, so not surprisingly they didn't go and pick it up. How is that delivered?

They have been paid the delivery surcharge now - full postage, plus a £1 admin fee.

And the half stamp is what it sounds like - half a postage stamp. The rest, with a little bit of the envelope, is ripped off.

Custardy, I'm surprised by your response. What I was charged was the supplement which Royal Mail request on understamped post which, if paid, results in the parcel being delivered.

Here's what the Royal Mail site says:-

When will I receive my item?
Don’t worry, we will deliver your item as soon as your fee has been paid

I wasn't charged a "return to sender" fee, because so far as I can find out there isn't one. I'm not arguing the parcel has been through the postage system twice, just like every other piece of undelivered post - I'm just pointing out that unlike misaddressed or "no address found" post, Royal Mail provide a service, at a small supplement, to enable underpaid post to be delivered, and in this case they have taken that supplement without any intention of delivering the item.


Again, all the website says is

What if I don’t pay the fee?
We will return the item to the sender after 18 calendar days or 21 calendar days for any items with a Customs charge.

No mention of charging the sender - just we will return the item to the sender.



Allconnected.

All of this effort and research. Did you research the postage cost given (by your own admission) this has happened twice now.
(I'll be honest and say Im not currents on the RTS fee set up these days.)
However,why do you feel you shouldn't pay?

custardy

thriftymanc wrote: »

The OP did state the stamp got partially ripped off the envelope while it was in the postal system. Why should a sender be penalised for that? Surely it would be clear that an accident has occurred and the parcel should be delivered to the intended recipient? Before anyone says the system couldn't automatically process it because of the stamp being ripped off, or whatever was supposed to happen - they must have dealt with it manually in order to return it to sender so shouldn't they have spotted the error at that stage and arranged for it to make its way where it was supposed to go?

How would you deem an item had a damaged stamp in the system, vs those that have been reused to avoid paying postage?

George_Michael

custardy wrote: »

How would you deem an item had a damaged stamp in the system, vs those that have been reused to avoid paying postage?

As it was a parcel and not a letter, I would assume that it would have been handed over at a Post office and not just dropped in a post box.
If this was the case, surely the counter assistant would have checked to make sure that the correct value of stamps were attached and would have noticed if half a stamp was missing.


This is providing that it was a parcel as in the opening post the OP refers to both a letter and a parcel.

custardy

George_Michael wrote: »

As it was a parcel and not a letter, I would assume that it would have been handed over at a Post office and not just dropped in a post box.
If this was the case, surely the counter assistant would have checked to make sure that the correct value of stamps were attached and would have noticed if half a stamp was missing.


This is providing that it was a parcel as in the opening post the OP refers to both a letter and a parcel.

Was it George? A £1.54 charge would mean 54p postage.
Which is a 2nd class letter.

Letter 0-100g 54p

2 charges for underpayment at exactly the same value both times.
If its a shortfall,2 ripped stamps?
I dont see any parcel bracket that is 54p apart. So is the OP loading on loads of stamps?