[HN Gopher] Why are so many people being hit with PS5 fines for ...
___________________________________________________________________
Why are so many people being hit with PS5 fines for 'counterfeit'
stamps?
Author : gnabgib
Score : 47 points
Date : 2024-03-28 21:55 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thisismoney.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thisismoney.co.uk)
| nextos wrote:
| _" It is unclear at what point these 'counterfeit' stamps have
| entered circulation, and their source -- or whether they are
| genuine and Royal Mail's scanning technology is at fault."_
|
| Given the precedents from the
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal, I
| think the second option is plausible.
|
| My experience in the UK is that dysfunctional organizations try
| to hide issues by bullying their own customers.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| It's a scandal engine that occasionally delivers mail. No
| accountability, no repercussions.
| bombcar wrote:
| Really putting the Royal in "Royal Mail" eh.
| lostlogin wrote:
| No, the mail service isn't protecting paedophiles as far as
| I know.
| Loughla wrote:
| Real question for any Brits here. What is the general
| consensus around the royals? I'd be pissed that my taxes
| were subsidizing their bullshit.
| andy81 wrote:
| > Pissed that my taxes were subsidizing their bullshit
|
| Accurate
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| Royal Mail and the Post Office are two separate
| organisations.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I am aware. It seems, regardless of institution, that no
| one at these levels of UK public good can take
| responsibility. It is as if the apathy has been
| institutionalized in a declining nation state. Where and
| how do find someone who cares and the authority to do
| something about it?
|
| If you told me yet another UK institution had systemic
| issues (NHS?), I would not be surprised, and that is very
| sad. It should not be this hard to do better. Right? Or am
| I just an ignorant Yankee?
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Royal mail has been a privately owned corporation for
| some years now.
| bombcar wrote:
| Or it could be a bug in the printing, there have been cases
| before where things were accidentally duplicated that shouldn't
| have been.
|
| https://www.mycurrencycollection.com/blog/1-2013-new-york-du...
| nikdoof wrote:
| In the past six months I've had four letters returned to me
| because they went through the sort/scanner upside down and used
| the sender address on the CN22 as the destination address. I'd
| put money on it being a failure of technology.
| renewiltord wrote:
| These guys can't get anything right. I'd assume by default that
| their software is broken.
| chrisjj wrote:
| The real breakage is further up the chain ...
| Ajay-p wrote:
| It is strange that a person would receive a fine for receiving a
| letter with a "counterfeit" stamp. That would make for a very
| nasty revenge operation - send your worst enemy letters with
| counterfeit stamps to cause them to incur a five pound fine.
| ct0 wrote:
| same goes for bad checks, the person cashing it pays a returned
| check fee!
| HackerLemon wrote:
| You don't have to pay it. It's only payable if you want to
| receive the letter.
| toast0 wrote:
| From the article, sounds like the recipient can pay the fine
| and get the mail, or not pay the fine and not get the mail.
| Maybe it'll get returned to sender, for insufficient postage?
| Maybe it'll be destroyed?
| chrisjj wrote:
| It is not a fine. It is a fee for optional delivery.
| kypro wrote:
| You pay the fine if want the post. You don't legally have to
| pay. Presumably it works like this because they can't always
| identify who sent the letter.
| chrisjj wrote:
| > Presumably it works like this because they can't always
| identify who sent the letter.
|
| Not to mention that this way the target is the party far more
| likely to pay, and far less likely to challenge a false
| counterfeit charge.
| jonatron wrote:
| It's impossible to say if this was detecting counterfeits, or
| incorrectly flagged counterfeits, without more information. I'd
| like to point to my recent experience trying to buy a mask from
| Amazon: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39844229
| delichon wrote:
| If this is really about a fine for counterfeiting a stamp, isn't
| PS5 astonishingly low? In the US that's a serious federal felony
| with up to five years in prison.
|
| https://puryearlaw.com/2015/12/27/federal-counterfeit-postag...
| chrisjj wrote:
| It is not. "Fine" is misreporting.
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| The term "fine" seems confusing here. If you look at the form
| sticker, it seems apparent that PS5 is just the on-delivery
| postage rate for an unpaid item. Different postal services
| handle this differently, but it's not unusual that a mailpiece
| that's lacking sufficient postage will be delivered to the
| recipient if _they_ pay the postage, and it 's also not unusual
| to make that a higher rate to account for the extra work
| involved in notifying the recipient and collecting it. Under
| some postal systems you can do this totally intentionally by
| marking a mailpiece COD.
|
| Maybe Royal Mail really does call this a fine, but it seems
| like it's just a typical higher "postage due" rate, thus the
| still rather nominal amount. Paying is optional for the
| recipient, they could just ignore the notification and it won't
| be delivered.
|
| The use of this approach for counterfeit seems sort of unwise
| considering the accusation involved in counterfeit postage, the
| USPS returns the piece to the sender in that case. But the
| items on the sticker make me think that Royal Mail has a
| general bent towards offering delivery no matter what. USPS
| would also return to sender if there's no postage at all,
| assuming the piece doesn't indicate the postage should be paid
| by the recipient. But you can see that the PS5 sticker here is
| the same one used in that case.
|
| Sometimes the situation is complicated by postal policy, for
| example UPU policy for international mail tends to strongly
| prefer attempting to deliver a mailpiece over returning it, so
| "postage due" stickers seem more common on international mail
| (particularly since the international rates can be confusing
| and it's easier to accidentally underpay).
| adamm255 wrote:
| The issue is, the recipient is paying the fine.
|
| I send you a letter with a fake stamp, you pay.
|
| The PS5 is an inconvenience, something you'd pay while tutting
| "what is the world coming to".
|
| The sender is none the wiser.
|
| 7.3bn letters delivered in 22-23 (https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__da
| ta/assets/pdf_file/0032/272795/...)
|
| If 0.01% of that are tagged as counterfeit, that's PS3,650,000
| in fines.
| adamm255 wrote:
| Royal Mail needs to be slapped with a massive Freedom of
| Information request. We need to see how many fines have been
| paid.
|
| We had one of these a year and a half ago, similar story. Seemed
| BS back then, so this could be a big problem.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| Royal Mail, as a private (well... public) company, is not
| subject to FOIA requests.
| lmm wrote:
| They're a creature of the state, you can't practically opt
| out of Royal Mail. If they're not subject to FOIA then they
| need to be.
| adamm255 wrote:
| Also the legislation splitting the Post Office from Royal
| Mail and privatising it happening in 2011/12 just looks
| even more shady in light of all the Post Office stuff.
| adamm255 wrote:
| Well... that's convenient. The more you know. Isn't
| privatisation great!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-28 23:00 UTC)