Royal Mail rant incoming...

I see that RM are no longer accepting batteries of any kind and no electronics

so you can no longer post your mobile phone or your camera etc etc via RM :(
 
ShiWarrior said:
I see that RM are no longer accepting batteries of any kind and no electronics

so you can no longer post your mobile phone or your camera etc etc via RM :(
Click to expand...
Got a source? There restricted item list still says it's fine.

Lithium ion / polymer batteries - contained in / connected to equipment / devices >>
(for example rechargeable batteries/cells found in portable electronics such as laptops, mobile phones, iPads, camcorders, cordless power tools etc.)

International & UK destinations - Allowed in the mail, with restrictions and packaging guidelines below:

  • Damaged or recalled batteries or cells are not allowed.
  • Each package must contain no more than four cells or two batteries installed in or connected to equipment/devices.
  • The maximum net quantity of cells or batteries is 5kg per package.
  • Watt-hour rating must not exceed 20Wh per cell or 100Wh per battery.
  • Each cell and battery must be of a type proven to meet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, section 38.3.
  • Batteries are subject to these tests irrespective of whether the cells of which they are composed have been so tested.
  • Cells and batteries must be manufactured under a quality management programme as specified in the ICAO Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air.
  • Any person preparing or offering cells or batteries with or in equipment for transport must receive adequate instruction on the requirements commensurate with their responsibilities.
  • Cells and batteries must be protected against short circuit.
  • The equipment containing cells or batteries must be packed in strong rigid packaging and must be secured against movement within the outer packaging and packed to prevent accidental activation.
  • The sender's name and return address must be clearly visible on the outer packaging.
Click to expand...
 
ShiWarrior said:
Ive just tried to sell a powerbank on ebay and using RM for delivery, said its no longer accepting electronics/ batteries


Prohibited Items List

https://personal.help.royalmail.com...tricted-items---advice-for-personal-customers


Batteries including those sent with/without or connected to an electronic device


Electronic devices sent with or containing batteries (including mobile phones, digital cameras, etc) see Batteries
Click to expand...
I guess they class powerbanks as bare batteries rather than a battery contained in a device like a mobile which is treated differently.

Mobiles are still fine as per my quote.
 
ShiWarrior said:
Ive just tried to sell a powerbank on ebay and using RM for delivery, said its no longer accepting electronics/ batteries


Prohibited Items List

https://personal.help.royalmail.com...tricted-items---advice-for-personal-customers


Batteries including those sent with/without or connected to an electronic device


Electronic devices sent with or containing batteries (including mobile phones, digital cameras, etc) see Batteries
Click to expand...

You know you can expand the category down where it states the rules for each type?

Powerbanks are explicitly included under "Batteries not connected to, not installed or not posted with the equipment / device it is intended to power" meaning they are not allowed, but nothing has changed in the other categories, e.g. laptops, mobile phones etc. are all still allowed
 
On the subject of Royal Mail rants, does this qualify?
Like most people, we sent out quite a few Christmas cards in the past couple of days, today 7 or 8 were returned to us.
They were all properly addressed, all with the correct postage, and should have gone to various addresses in U.K. and all over Europe, USA and Canada, BUT they all had very small, (5cm x 2.5cm) return address labels on the reverse side of the envelopes, placed as near as possible to the bottom of the envelope.
The only thing that I could think was that the mail goes through a machine that reads the addresses, and somehow the machine read the return addresses, and not the addresses that were correctly written on the front.
My wife crossed all the return addresses out on the little labels and re-mailed the cards, but the kicker was when I called Royal Mail to ask if the cards would now be delivered properly, I was told that as they’d already all been franked, the addressees might be asked to pay a surcharge!
 
That's really bad if royal mail's machines can't tell the front from the back and no human in the loop spotted the error!

Round here royal mail has been absolutely rubbish for the past couple of months. Taking 1-2 weeks for 1st class mail to get delivered, and there only seem to be postmen out and about a couple of times a week. Parcels are getting delivered on time via van, but mail seems to have been completely forgotten about. According to rumour they've been struggling with a) staff sickness and absence due to covid and b) general loss of staff as lots of them have quit (possibly getting jobs at a new amazon warehouse in the area...).
 
Royal Mail have done revisions in offices, taking walks out and spreading the extra work onto other walks. So say an office has 60 walks they take 4 out leaving 56, split them 4 up and spread the workload. Work loads in a lot of offices are at breaking point or past breaking point. So say a walk previously had 1000 delivery points, it may now have 12-1300 delivery points which means extra mail, parcels, packets and pizza menus which cannot be done in the time allowed. Add on top of the sickness, moral levels that are on the floor and agency staff that don't know where they going and there's your answer. That's what having to pay share holders dividends and bonuses does I guess.

They use sickness as an excuse which I suppose is partly the reason.
 
Jean-F said:
On the subject of Royal Mail rants, does this qualify?
Like most people, we sent out quite a few Christmas cards in the past couple of days, today 7 or 8 were returned to us.
They were all properly addressed, all with the correct postage, and should have gone to various addresses in U.K. and all over Europe, USA and Canada, BUT they all had very small, (5cm x 2.5cm) return address labels on the reverse side of the envelopes, placed as near as possible to the bottom of the envelope.
The only thing that I could think was that the mail goes through a machine that reads the addresses, and somehow the machine read the return addresses, and not the addresses that were correctly written on the front.
My wife crossed all the return addresses out on the little labels and re-mailed the cards, but the kicker was when I called Royal Mail to ask if the cards would now be delivered properly, I was told that as they’d already all been franked, the addressees might be asked to pay a surcharge!
Click to expand...
To be the devils advocate here Jean-F, I would say 5x2.5cm is quite large. I can see how the confusion arose. Put it down to experience and thank you for providing the lesson for us to learn from.
 
GreatAuk said:
That's really bad if royal mail's machines can't tell the front from the back and no human in the loop spotted the error!
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly, I thought that surely the guy delivering the mail back to our house would have put two and two together and noticed the front of the envelope, clearly written as Joe Schmo, 1575 DeKalb Street, Des Moines, IA 50047, then the minuscule return address label on the back.
Maybe I expect too much from a postman in 2021?
p.s. Joe Schmo is an invention, it’s how we labelled any American when I drove a taxi, e.g. “I picked up Joe Schmo at Harrods”, ditto the address, DeKalb is a county in Georgia, 1575 is the street number of an American ex and I plucked the zip code out of thin air.
 
dLockers said:
To be the devils advocate here Jean-F, I would say 5x2.5cm is quite large. I can see how the confusion arose. Put it down to experience and thank you for providing the lesson for us to learn from.
Click to expand...

Really?
Less than 2 inches x less than 1 inch on the rear and at the bottom of a 5.5 inch square envelope?
With the front fully covered by a written address and correct postage.
I didn’t think so, but your opinion is valid and always welcome.
 
Jean-F said:
Really?
Less than 2 inches x less than 1 inch on the rear and at the bottom of a 5.5 inch square envelope?
With the front fully covered by a written address and correct postage.
I didn’t think so, but your opinion is valid and always welcome.
Click to expand...
You can't bamboozle me with your cavemen measuring system Jean-F. I totally take your point. Perhaps the digital font was prioritised over written text?

Also, thank you for putting a return to sender note at all. I have so many cards for previous occupants I'd love to foreward on or at least notify them that the intended recipient is no longer here (or have fun with this and state they're in prison or emigrated maybe).
 
@Jean-F , if the side of the letter with the return label has two horizontal red fluorescent codemarks present then the return address was used by the machines to sort. The letter probably wasn't ever touched by another human until the postman got it in their walk and maybe in a bundle for your address. Perhaps the machine favoured the typed font over the handwritten address.
 
dLockers said:
You can't bamboozle me with your cavemen measuring system Jean-F. I totally take your point. Perhaps the digital font was prioritised over written text?

Also, thank you for putting a return to sender note at all. I have so many cards for previous occupants I'd love to foreward on or at least notify them that the intended recipient is no longer here (or have fun with this and state they're in prison or emigrated maybe).
Click to expand...

Cavemen measuring system?
You have me all wrong my esteemed friend, I thought “dLockers is no slouch, I’ll give him both metric and imperial, he’ll visualise the envelope size in a nanosecond.”
;)
You may well be right with your digital font and written text theory though, as @Mysterae has pointed out.
 
Jean-F said:
On the subject of Royal Mail rants, does this qualify?
Like most people, we sent out quite a few Christmas cards in the past couple of days, today 7 or 8 were returned to us.
They were all properly addressed, all with the correct postage, and should have gone to various addresses in U.K. and all over Europe, USA and Canada, BUT they all had very small, (5cm x 2.5cm) return address labels on the reverse side of the envelopes, placed as near as possible to the bottom of the envelope.
The only thing that I could think was that the mail goes through a machine that reads the addresses, and somehow the machine read the return addresses, and not the addresses that were correctly written on the front.
My wife crossed all the return addresses out on the little labels and re-mailed the cards, but the kicker was when I called Royal Mail to ask if the cards would now be delivered properly, I was told that as they’d already all been franked, the addressees might be asked to pay a surcharge!
Click to expand...

Did you have a customs declaration on the international ones?
 
Jean-F said:
I like a friendly joke, but try and think of a more apt one eh?
Click to expand...

It was a genuine question as i work in a post office. Did you put stamps on them or did the post office print a lablel? Were your international cards less than 5mm thick and less than 30g? If not youve probably not put enough stamps on, especially the USA and canada ones as they are more than cards for europe.

Also the return address, you say it was 5cm x 2.5cm? So almost half the size of the letter? 5x5 inch square is 13cm approx. I wouldnt call that a small label?

Before you put them back in the post box id have taken them to a post office to get them checked for correct postage. Mistakes do happen and things do get returned to sender but having so many returned suggests a problem and that big returns label could be it but without seeing it its impossible to tell.
 
Last edited:
2 RSMD parcels collected Saturday. Still not delivered today. It's just really not good enough anymore. Won't be surprised if they are lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom