Council tax post blunder: nearly 900 residents asked to pay £1.50 after bills sent without postage

Jacqueline Selcoe, who has been charged a fee by Royal Mail to retrieve her own Council Tax Bill

Jacqueline Selcoe, who has been charged a fee by Royal Mail to retrieve her own Council Tax Bill

First published in News
Last updated
by

ALMOST 900 residents were asked to pay £1.50 for the privilege of receiving their council tax demands after the bills were sent out without any postage.

Bournemouth council has apologised to residents who had a card put through the door to say there was a package awaiting them at their local sorting office.

Residents who went to collect the packages had to queue to pay for the missing postage plus a £1 surcharge.

The problem affected 862 residents, mostly in the Winton area. They will have the £1.50 deducted from their council tax bill.

Jacqueline Selcoe, of Green Road in Winton, went online to pay £1.50 so the parcel could be re- delivered.

“It was in my husband’s name so I had no idea what the post was going to be,” she said.

“It was re-delivered the next day. I was disgusted, to be honest.

I was ranting about it for ages.”

She added: “I can laugh at it now but I thought ‘How ridiculous’ because they must have had to pay somebody to deliver the apology letters plus all the paper and printing it’s cost them to issue them again.”

Green Road resident Robert McKenzie said: “I had a card through the door saying would I pay £1.50 for a package that hadn’t had enough postage paid on it.

“I wondered what that could be.

I went to the post office, paid my £1.50 and then the next afternoon an envelope came through the door from the council saying they had put insufficient postage on our council tax bill and that we were to phone them and the £1.50 would be deduced from the council tax bill.

“I tried phoning them but they were busy.”

Hyun Gil said she had received a card but had not been able to go to the sorting office. “The next day, I got a letter saying I shouldn’t worry and should wait for the council tax letter,” she said.

Another Winton resident, who did not want to be named, said: “I got a card through the door. I thought it was a parcel so I shouted to the postman and he said ‘I don’t know what it is but it’s happened to every house in the street.’”

Another said: “I thought I’d won a competition. I had to go all the way to the sorting office in West Howe to get a council tax bill.”

‘A number of tax bills were not franked’

A statement from Bournemouth Borough Council chief executive Tony Williams said “a number of council tax bills were not franked” when processed by a company employed by the outsourcing firm Mouchel.

“We completely understand that this is an extremely frustrating situation for residents. We apologise unreservedly to those who have been asked to pay a fee and for the inconvenience caused.  This should not have happened and we are extremely sorry,” he said.

Letters of apology had been hand-delivered and the remaining bills would be delivered for free.

“Bournemouth council will be making arrangements to reimburse any council tax payer who has had to pay to retrieve their bill by crediting their council tax account,” he added.

Residents can ring a helpline on 01202 451597, from 8.30am-5.15pm, or email revenue&benefits@bournemouth.gov.uk

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:14am Sat 29 Mar 14

BIGTONE says...

Nice1......an outsourcing company outsourcing the work.
Now it don't get any better than that.......

The blind leading the blind is apt here.
Nice1......an outsourcing company outsourcing the work. Now it don't get any better than that....... The blind leading the blind is apt here. BIGTONE
  • Score: 27

7:18am Sat 29 Mar 14

Lord Spring says...

Frankly speaking it take some licking.
Frankly speaking it take some licking. Lord Spring
  • Score: 25

7:48am Sat 29 Mar 14

djd says...

I hope they stamp out this practice.
I hope they stamp out this practice. djd
  • Score: 15

7:58am Sat 29 Mar 14

s-pb2 says...

Interesting that Williams was quick to point the finger at Mouchel. Obviously things are far from rosy between Mouchel and Town Hall and its the people of Bournemouth who are and will continue to suffer from this disastrous and costly partnership.

Im one who will often defend the council but its partnership with Mouchel has been an utter disaster, far worse than any surf reef or imax. From my contacts on the front line they say that Mouchel's service is poor and incredibly costly to the remaining in-house council departments. Having heard about the practices of mouchel I would not be the least bit surprised that they left off the postage on purpose in order to increase profits!
Interesting that Williams was quick to point the finger at Mouchel. Obviously things are far from rosy between Mouchel and Town Hall and its the people of Bournemouth who are and will continue to suffer from this disastrous and costly partnership. Im one who will often defend the council but its partnership with Mouchel has been an utter disaster, far worse than any surf reef or imax. From my contacts on the front line they say that Mouchel's service is poor and incredibly costly to the remaining in-house council departments. Having heard about the practices of mouchel I would not be the least bit surprised that they left off the postage on purpose in order to increase profits! s-pb2
  • Score: 8

8:18am Sat 29 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

Moucel are saving the Bournemouth tax payer millions.Overall they are performing well.
Anything to reduce the Public Secter is a good thing for the tax payers of the UK,Otherwise it will become a Millstone around ones neck.
Moucel are saving the Bournemouth tax payer millions.Overall they are performing well. Anything to reduce the Public Secter is a good thing for the tax payers of the UK,Otherwise it will become a Millstone around ones neck. cromwell9
  • Score: -39

8:27am Sat 29 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

Are they also going to reimburse the cost of getting to the sorting office, or the cost of the phone call?
......
And cromwell9, your continual incorrect spelling of 'sector' is beginning to really irritate. I don't believe it's in your spellchecker as 'secter'. If it is, then someone who can't spell has put it there.
Are they also going to reimburse the cost of getting to the sorting office, or the cost of the phone call? ...... And cromwell9, your continual incorrect spelling of 'sector' is beginning to really irritate. I don't believe it's in your spellchecker as 'secter'. If it is, then someone who can't spell has put it there. Carolyn43
  • Score: 16

8:56am Sat 29 Mar 14

JackJohnson says...

It was probably a simple administrative error.

Unless you're expecting an item without postage just don't collect it. It'll be returned to sender or destroyed.
It was probably a simple administrative error. Unless you're expecting an item without postage just don't collect it. It'll be returned to sender or destroyed. JackJohnson
  • Score: 19

9:16am Sat 29 Mar 14

loftusrod says...

Great comment from Mrs Selcoe....'I was ranting about it for ages'.
Oh well, life goes on.
Great comment from Mrs Selcoe....'I was ranting about it for ages'. Oh well, life goes on. loftusrod
  • Score: 15

9:23am Sat 29 Mar 14

sea poole says...

Ranting on for ages probably made her day -saved her husband from being the source of her ranting!
Ranting on for ages probably made her day -saved her husband from being the source of her ranting! sea poole
  • Score: 11

9:29am Sat 29 Mar 14

Cliff Falls says...

I would have thought that the Post Office would have spotted the glitch, delivered the 900, notified the Town Hall, requested compensation. We don't live in a perfect world - that is why laugh at the unexpected.
I would have thought that the Post Office would have spotted the glitch, delivered the 900, notified the Town Hall, requested compensation. We don't live in a perfect world - that is why laugh at the unexpected. Cliff Falls
  • Score: 16

9:31am Sat 29 Mar 14

Gingertree says...

Ranting for ages about £1.50 my god woman get a life Surely you understand errors occur even in your rosie perfect world
Ranting for ages about £1.50 my god woman get a life Surely you understand errors occur even in your rosie perfect world Gingertree
  • Score: 19

9:34am Sat 29 Mar 14

arti273 says...

In the time it took to speak to the Echo, pose for a photo & tell 25 friends about it - Jacqueline Selcoe could have earnt £15 by filling in online surveys or switching her utilities provider. Instead the public-spirited citizen chose to tell the local community about this "disgusting" situation and save us from ever having to go through the immense trauma ourselves. I salute you.
In the time it took to speak to the Echo, pose for a photo & tell 25 friends about it - Jacqueline Selcoe could have earnt £15 by filling in online surveys or switching her utilities provider. Instead the public-spirited citizen chose to tell the local community about this "disgusting" situation and save us from ever having to go through the immense trauma ourselves. I salute you. arti273
  • Score: 14

9:34am Sat 29 Mar 14

Gingertree says...

cromwell9 wrote:
Moucel are saving the Bournemouth tax payer millions.Overall they are performing well.
Anything to reduce the Public Secter is a good thing for the tax payers of the UK,Otherwise it will become a Millstone around ones neck.
Sector sound it out.... S e c t o r
[quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: Moucel are saving the Bournemouth tax payer millions.Overall they are performing well. Anything to reduce the Public Secter is a good thing for the tax payers of the UK,Otherwise it will become a Millstone around ones neck.[/p][/quote]Sector sound it out.... S e c t o r Gingertree
  • Score: 8

10:00am Sat 29 Mar 14

Controversial But True says...

Oh God! Major disaster!!!!!!

People using foodbanks, aircraft disasters, murders and..........

........this!!

Maybe the Echo should pay an extra £1.50 an hour to their reporters to get real stories!

And finally.......Why aren't Mrs Selcoe's arms crossed?
Oh God! Major disaster!!!!!! People using foodbanks, aircraft disasters, murders and.......... ........this!! Maybe the Echo should pay an extra £1.50 an hour to their reporters to get real stories! And finally.......Why aren't Mrs Selcoe's arms crossed? Controversial But True
  • Score: 15

10:23am Sat 29 Mar 14

Cliff Falls says...

The postman must have had writers cramp filling out 900 cards. I'm surprised that the initial training scheme did not include incidents wich require discretion. I wonder if he got a new pen or a castigation for creating extra work for his colleagues at the collection office who had to deal with the extra queue.
The postman must have had writers cramp filling out 900 cards. I'm surprised that the initial training scheme did not include incidents wich require discretion. I wonder if he got a new pen or a castigation for creating extra work for his colleagues at the collection office who had to deal with the extra queue. Cliff Falls
  • Score: 3

10:52am Sat 29 Mar 14

ragj195 says...

Imagine getting these people having to pay the £1.50 an hour before collecting someone from the airport. There would be a riot!
Imagine getting these people having to pay the £1.50 an hour before collecting someone from the airport. There would be a riot! ragj195
  • Score: 2

10:56am Sat 29 Mar 14

John T says...

Cliff Falls wrote:
I would have thought that the Post Office would have spotted the glitch, delivered the 900, notified the Town Hall, requested compensation. We don't live in a perfect world - that is why laugh at the unexpected.
The Post Office, more correctly Royal Mail, like Mouchel, are in business to make money for its shareholders. They got more compensation, and quicker, from charging the recipients of these letters £1.50, than they would ever have eventually got from Bournemouth Council.
As I am sure our in house expert, cromwell9, will tell you now that the Royal Mail is in the Private Secter (sic), it is there to make money efficiently, not to provide a service.
[quote][p][bold]Cliff Falls[/bold] wrote: I would have thought that the Post Office would have spotted the glitch, delivered the 900, notified the Town Hall, requested compensation. We don't live in a perfect world - that is why laugh at the unexpected.[/p][/quote]The Post Office, more correctly Royal Mail, like Mouchel, are in business to make money for its shareholders. They got more compensation, and quicker, from charging the recipients of these letters £1.50, than they would ever have eventually got from Bournemouth Council. As I am sure our in house expert, cromwell9, will tell you now that the Royal Mail is in the Private Secter (sic), it is there to make money efficiently, not to provide a service. John T
  • Score: 12

11:34am Sat 29 Mar 14

bmthgirl64 says...

I was very disappointed with the Echo on this story... Blunder? What happened to your usual car crash journalism here? This should have been described as a 'Tragedy' or 'Disaster' and Yes! Why aren't the lady's arms folded in the photo? Her misery hasn't been portrayed in your usual fashion has it. I will have to go back to reading the Daily Star if this keeps up
I was very disappointed with the Echo on this story... Blunder? What happened to your usual car crash journalism here? This should have been described as a 'Tragedy' or 'Disaster' and Yes! Why aren't the lady's arms folded in the photo? Her misery hasn't been portrayed in your usual fashion has it. I will have to go back to reading the Daily Star if this keeps up bmthgirl64
  • Score: 5

11:38am Sat 29 Mar 14

ShuttleX says...

cromwell9 wrote:
Moucel are saving the Bournemouth tax payer millions.Overall they are performing well.
Anything to reduce the Public Secter is a good thing for the tax payers of the UK,Otherwise it will become a Millstone around ones neck.
Are you for real? That's the best joke I've heard so far this year. You are obviously a Councillor, as they are the only ones left in town who believe Mouchel are actually good for the tax payers of Bournemouth. Even the new company being created is an attempt to stop Mouchel from folding. It will be backed, and paid for, by us, yet the top bosses of Mouchel still get their bonuses. Sod the fact the workforce is in total disarray. The practice of seconding BBC staff to Mouchel is to make sure some of the work actually gets done.
[quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: Moucel are saving the Bournemouth tax payer millions.Overall they are performing well. Anything to reduce the Public Secter is a good thing for the tax payers of the UK,Otherwise it will become a Millstone around ones neck.[/p][/quote]Are you for real? That's the best joke I've heard so far this year. You are obviously a Councillor, as they are the only ones left in town who believe Mouchel are actually good for the tax payers of Bournemouth. Even the new company being created is an attempt to stop Mouchel from folding. It will be backed, and paid for, by us, yet the top bosses of Mouchel still get their bonuses. Sod the fact the workforce is in total disarray. The practice of seconding BBC staff to Mouchel is to make sure some of the work actually gets done. ShuttleX
  • Score: 4

11:44am Sat 29 Mar 14

Cliff Falls says...

John T wrote:
Cliff Falls wrote:
I would have thought that the Post Office would have spotted the glitch, delivered the 900, notified the Town Hall, requested compensation. We don't live in a perfect world - that is why laugh at the unexpected.
The Post Office, more correctly Royal Mail, like Mouchel, are in business to make money for its shareholders. They got more compensation, and quicker, from charging the recipients of these letters £1.50, than they would ever have eventually got from Bournemouth Council.
As I am sure our in house expert, cromwell9, will tell you now that the Royal Mail is in the Private Secter (sic), it is there to make money efficiently, not to provide a service.
I do not think that carrying 1,000 cards around with your load just to fill out 862 of them for the gain of £1,293.00 to delay delivery to others, create artificial work for your partners, block the sorting office car park that has only four spaces, to produce a queue wrath with little else to look at other than the notice warning against an assault on counter staff constitutes efficient money-making. I don't think that the nieghbours of Mrs. Selcoe will rush to give a Christmas box at the end of the year to the post man
[quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cliff Falls[/bold] wrote: I would have thought that the Post Office would have spotted the glitch, delivered the 900, notified the Town Hall, requested compensation. We don't live in a perfect world - that is why laugh at the unexpected.[/p][/quote]The Post Office, more correctly Royal Mail, like Mouchel, are in business to make money for its shareholders. They got more compensation, and quicker, from charging the recipients of these letters £1.50, than they would ever have eventually got from Bournemouth Council. As I am sure our in house expert, cromwell9, will tell you now that the Royal Mail is in the Private Secter (sic), it is there to make money efficiently, not to provide a service.[/p][/quote]I do not think that carrying 1,000 cards around with your load just to fill out 862 of them for the gain of £1,293.00 to delay delivery to others, create artificial work for your partners, block the sorting office car park that has only four spaces, to produce a queue wrath with little else to look at other than the notice warning against an assault on counter staff constitutes efficient money-making. I don't think that the nieghbours of Mrs. Selcoe will rush to give a Christmas box at the end of the year to the post man Cliff Falls
  • Score: -3

11:53am Sat 29 Mar 14

BmthNewshound says...

cromwell9 wrote:
Moucel are saving the Bournemouth tax payer millions.Overall they are performing well.
Anything to reduce the Public Secter is a good thing for the tax payers of the UK,Otherwise it will become a Millstone around ones neck.
Agree that the public sector needs to be reduced in size. The big difference is that the public sector should work for taxpayers whereas Mouchel is only interested in maximising profits for its shareholders. You have obviously been taken in by Beesley's claims that he is saving £millions whilst increasing spending on certain social care services.
[quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: Moucel are saving the Bournemouth tax payer millions.Overall they are performing well. Anything to reduce the Public Secter is a good thing for the tax payers of the UK,Otherwise it will become a Millstone around ones neck.[/p][/quote]Agree that the public sector needs to be reduced in size. The big difference is that the public sector should work for taxpayers whereas Mouchel is only interested in maximising profits for its shareholders. You have obviously been taken in by Beesley's claims that he is saving £millions whilst increasing spending on certain social care services. BmthNewshound
  • Score: 7

12:35pm Sat 29 Mar 14

breamoreboy says...

Gingertree wrote:
Ranting for ages about £1.50 my god woman get a life Surely you understand errors occur even in your rosie perfect world
If the lady is anything like me she'd be ranting about the incompetence, not the amount in hard cash.
[quote][p][bold]Gingertree[/bold] wrote: Ranting for ages about £1.50 my god woman get a life Surely you understand errors occur even in your rosie perfect world[/p][/quote]If the lady is anything like me she'd be ranting about the incompetence, not the amount in hard cash. breamoreboy
  • Score: 4

12:37pm Sat 29 Mar 14

breamoreboy says...

The person who never makes a mistake never does anything.
The person who never makes a mistake never does anything. breamoreboy
  • Score: 11

1:27pm Sat 29 Mar 14

spooki says...

You would think (hope?) someone would notice 900 letters leaving an office without franking. Someone must have put them in the envelopes and in to post, someone else should have dealt with them in the Post Office sorting office and someone with half a brain cell would have thought "oh, someone things up here".
And posted them anyway, apparently.
You would think (hope?) someone would notice 900 letters leaving an office without franking. Someone must have put them in the envelopes and in to post, someone else should have dealt with them in the Post Office sorting office and someone with half a brain cell would have thought "oh, someone things up here". And posted them anyway, apparently. spooki
  • Score: 2

2:00pm Sat 29 Mar 14

JackJohnson says...

spooki wrote:
You would think (hope?) someone would notice 900 letters leaving an office without franking. Someone must have put them in the envelopes and in to post, someone else should have dealt with them in the Post Office sorting office and someone with half a brain cell would have thought "oh, someone things up here".
And posted them anyway, apparently.
A bag of unfranked mail put in the wrong place is then sealed and collected by the postman and taken to the sorting office. Or maybe a franking machine ran out of labels and didn't stop.

Obviously someone's been more than a little careless and may well be looking for a new job.

I would have expected someone at the sorting office to notice there has been a large error, withdraw as many unfranked items from the machinery as possible, and get someone to contact the sender to correct the error. That is good customer service. To just put them through and attempt to penalise all the intended recipients is NOT good customer service - it is either giving Royal Mail / Post Office staff extra unnecessary work, or it is profiteering.
[quote][p][bold]spooki[/bold] wrote: You would think (hope?) someone would notice 900 letters leaving an office without franking. Someone must have put them in the envelopes and in to post, someone else should have dealt with them in the Post Office sorting office and someone with half a brain cell would have thought "oh, someone things up here". And posted them anyway, apparently.[/p][/quote]A bag of unfranked mail put in the wrong place is then sealed and collected by the postman and taken to the sorting office. Or maybe a franking machine ran out of labels and didn't stop. Obviously someone's been more than a little careless and may well be looking for a new job. I would have expected someone at the sorting office to notice there has been a large error, withdraw as many unfranked items from the machinery as possible, and get someone to contact the sender to correct the error. That is good customer service. To just put them through and attempt to penalise all the intended recipients is NOT good customer service - it is either giving Royal Mail / Post Office staff extra unnecessary work, or it is profiteering. JackJohnson
  • Score: 9

2:21pm Sat 29 Mar 14

JackJohnson says...

JackJohnson wrote:
spooki wrote:
You would think (hope?) someone would notice 900 letters leaving an office without franking. Someone must have put them in the envelopes and in to post, someone else should have dealt with them in the Post Office sorting office and someone with half a brain cell would have thought "oh, someone things up here".
And posted them anyway, apparently.
A bag of unfranked mail put in the wrong place is then sealed and collected by the postman and taken to the sorting office. Or maybe a franking machine ran out of labels and didn't stop.

Obviously someone's been more than a little careless and may well be looking for a new job.

I would have expected someone at the sorting office to notice there has been a large error, withdraw as many unfranked items from the machinery as possible, and get someone to contact the sender to correct the error. That is good customer service. To just put them through and attempt to penalise all the intended recipients is NOT good customer service - it is either giving Royal Mail / Post Office staff extra unnecessary work, or it is profiteering.
On second thoughts, if the error was due to a franking machine occasionally pulling through 2 envelopes instead of 1 it's possible the error could go unnoticed. Even so, checks on the counters / £ franking done should have given the operator a clue that something was not right. Also, checks on the output from the franking machine should have flagged up unfranked envelopes and told the operator that more checking should be done. Even so 900 of 400000 (population in 2011) is only 0.225%. Not a significant error (unless you're on the receiving end of it) so probably easy to miss if the sampled %age is not high enough and depending on the cause of the problem.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spooki[/bold] wrote: You would think (hope?) someone would notice 900 letters leaving an office without franking. Someone must have put them in the envelopes and in to post, someone else should have dealt with them in the Post Office sorting office and someone with half a brain cell would have thought "oh, someone things up here". And posted them anyway, apparently.[/p][/quote]A bag of unfranked mail put in the wrong place is then sealed and collected by the postman and taken to the sorting office. Or maybe a franking machine ran out of labels and didn't stop. Obviously someone's been more than a little careless and may well be looking for a new job. I would have expected someone at the sorting office to notice there has been a large error, withdraw as many unfranked items from the machinery as possible, and get someone to contact the sender to correct the error. That is good customer service. To just put them through and attempt to penalise all the intended recipients is NOT good customer service - it is either giving Royal Mail / Post Office staff extra unnecessary work, or it is profiteering.[/p][/quote]On second thoughts, if the error was due to a franking machine occasionally pulling through 2 envelopes instead of 1 it's possible the error could go unnoticed. Even so, checks on the counters / £ franking done should have given the operator a clue that something was not right. Also, checks on the output from the franking machine should have flagged up unfranked envelopes and told the operator that more checking should be done. Even so 900 of 400000 (population in 2011) is only 0.225%. Not a significant error (unless you're on the receiving end of it) so probably easy to miss if the sampled %age is not high enough and depending on the cause of the problem. JackJohnson
  • Score: -1

2:47pm Sat 29 Mar 14

ShuttleX says...

JackJohnson wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
spooki wrote:
You would think (hope?) someone would notice 900 letters leaving an office without franking. Someone must have put them in the envelopes and in to post, someone else should have dealt with them in the Post Office sorting office and someone with half a brain cell would have thought "oh, someone things up here".
And posted them anyway, apparently.
A bag of unfranked mail put in the wrong place is then sealed and collected by the postman and taken to the sorting office. Or maybe a franking machine ran out of labels and didn't stop.

Obviously someone's been more than a little careless and may well be looking for a new job.

I would have expected someone at the sorting office to notice there has been a large error, withdraw as many unfranked items from the machinery as possible, and get someone to contact the sender to correct the error. That is good customer service. To just put them through and attempt to penalise all the intended recipients is NOT good customer service - it is either giving Royal Mail / Post Office staff extra unnecessary work, or it is profiteering.
On second thoughts, if the error was due to a franking machine occasionally pulling through 2 envelopes instead of 1 it's possible the error could go unnoticed. Even so, checks on the counters / £ franking done should have given the operator a clue that something was not right. Also, checks on the output from the franking machine should have flagged up unfranked envelopes and told the operator that more checking should be done. Even so 900 of 400000 (population in 2011) is only 0.225%. Not a significant error (unless you're on the receiving end of it) so probably easy to miss if the sampled %age is not high enough and depending on the cause of the problem.
Bournemouth has never had a population of 400,000. In 2011 the total was 183,500.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spooki[/bold] wrote: You would think (hope?) someone would notice 900 letters leaving an office without franking. Someone must have put them in the envelopes and in to post, someone else should have dealt with them in the Post Office sorting office and someone with half a brain cell would have thought "oh, someone things up here". And posted them anyway, apparently.[/p][/quote]A bag of unfranked mail put in the wrong place is then sealed and collected by the postman and taken to the sorting office. Or maybe a franking machine ran out of labels and didn't stop. Obviously someone's been more than a little careless and may well be looking for a new job. I would have expected someone at the sorting office to notice there has been a large error, withdraw as many unfranked items from the machinery as possible, and get someone to contact the sender to correct the error. That is good customer service. To just put them through and attempt to penalise all the intended recipients is NOT good customer service - it is either giving Royal Mail / Post Office staff extra unnecessary work, or it is profiteering.[/p][/quote]On second thoughts, if the error was due to a franking machine occasionally pulling through 2 envelopes instead of 1 it's possible the error could go unnoticed. Even so, checks on the counters / £ franking done should have given the operator a clue that something was not right. Also, checks on the output from the franking machine should have flagged up unfranked envelopes and told the operator that more checking should be done. Even so 900 of 400000 (population in 2011) is only 0.225%. Not a significant error (unless you're on the receiving end of it) so probably easy to miss if the sampled %age is not high enough and depending on the cause of the problem.[/p][/quote]Bournemouth has never had a population of 400,000. In 2011 the total was 183,500. ShuttleX
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Sat 29 Mar 14

JackJohnson says...

ShuttleX wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
spooki wrote:
You would think (hope?) someone would notice 900 letters leaving an office without franking. Someone must have put them in the envelopes and in to post, someone else should have dealt with them in the Post Office sorting office and someone with half a brain cell would have thought "oh, someone things up here".
And posted them anyway, apparently.
A bag of unfranked mail put in the wrong place is then sealed and collected by the postman and taken to the sorting office. Or maybe a franking machine ran out of labels and didn't stop.

Obviously someone's been more than a little careless and may well be looking for a new job.

I would have expected someone at the sorting office to notice there has been a large error, withdraw as many unfranked items from the machinery as possible, and get someone to contact the sender to correct the error. That is good customer service. To just put them through and attempt to penalise all the intended recipients is NOT good customer service - it is either giving Royal Mail / Post Office staff extra unnecessary work, or it is profiteering.
On second thoughts, if the error was due to a franking machine occasionally pulling through 2 envelopes instead of 1 it's possible the error could go unnoticed. Even so, checks on the counters / £ franking done should have given the operator a clue that something was not right. Also, checks on the output from the franking machine should have flagged up unfranked envelopes and told the operator that more checking should be done. Even so 900 of 400000 (population in 2011) is only 0.225%. Not a significant error (unless you're on the receiving end of it) so probably easy to miss if the sampled %age is not high enough and depending on the cause of the problem.
Bournemouth has never had a population of 400,000. In 2011 the total was 183,500.
My mistake - even so that only doubles (approx) the error. Any error below 1% could be missed if the sample for checking was even 10%.
[quote][p][bold]ShuttleX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spooki[/bold] wrote: You would think (hope?) someone would notice 900 letters leaving an office without franking. Someone must have put them in the envelopes and in to post, someone else should have dealt with them in the Post Office sorting office and someone with half a brain cell would have thought "oh, someone things up here". And posted them anyway, apparently.[/p][/quote]A bag of unfranked mail put in the wrong place is then sealed and collected by the postman and taken to the sorting office. Or maybe a franking machine ran out of labels and didn't stop. Obviously someone's been more than a little careless and may well be looking for a new job. I would have expected someone at the sorting office to notice there has been a large error, withdraw as many unfranked items from the machinery as possible, and get someone to contact the sender to correct the error. That is good customer service. To just put them through and attempt to penalise all the intended recipients is NOT good customer service - it is either giving Royal Mail / Post Office staff extra unnecessary work, or it is profiteering.[/p][/quote]On second thoughts, if the error was due to a franking machine occasionally pulling through 2 envelopes instead of 1 it's possible the error could go unnoticed. Even so, checks on the counters / £ franking done should have given the operator a clue that something was not right. Also, checks on the output from the franking machine should have flagged up unfranked envelopes and told the operator that more checking should be done. Even so 900 of 400000 (population in 2011) is only 0.225%. Not a significant error (unless you're on the receiving end of it) so probably easy to miss if the sampled %age is not high enough and depending on the cause of the problem.[/p][/quote]Bournemouth has never had a population of 400,000. In 2011 the total was 183,500.[/p][/quote]My mistake - even so that only doubles (approx) the error. Any error below 1% could be missed if the sample for checking was even 10%. JackJohnson
  • Score: 1

4:20pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Mindvor says...

Mountain out of molehill aside...what made me chuckle was this bit..

"Another said: “I thought I’d won a competition..."

Sounds like sort of person that falls for the 419 scams that still do the rounds occasionally.
Congrats...you have won! Now if you could just give us your bank details along with a small retainer we'd be happy to transfer across your win!
Mountain out of molehill aside...what made me chuckle was this bit.. "Another said: “I thought I’d won a competition..." Sounds like sort of person that falls for the 419 scams that still do the rounds occasionally. Congrats...you have won! Now if you could just give us your bank details along with a small retainer we'd be happy to transfer across your win! Mindvor
  • Score: 7

5:18pm Sat 29 Mar 14

JackJohnson says...

Mindvor wrote:
Mountain out of molehill aside...what made me chuckle was this bit..

"Another said: “I thought I’d won a competition..."

Sounds like sort of person that falls for the 419 scams that still do the rounds occasionally.
Congrats...you have won! Now if you could just give us your bank details along with a small retainer we'd be happy to transfer across your win!
You mean I haven't won a prize, even though I gave them my bank account details and ALL my credit card numbers? You can't believe anything people say any more.

Just been promised £6000 for that accident I had 3 years ago. Must have been a bad one - I don't remember a thing about it. Seriously - number was +447707599060 if anyone wants to blacklist it.

Oh - if anyone wants, I can give you the details a /great/ work from home job. A company abroad puts money into your bank account. All you do is move it into another account, keeping your 5% commission. I've had £1.2M through my account in the last 3 months. I've made £60K! (seems to be a problem, though, as it's not in any of my accounts).

;0/
[quote][p][bold]Mindvor[/bold] wrote: Mountain out of molehill aside...what made me chuckle was this bit.. "Another said: “I thought I’d won a competition..." Sounds like sort of person that falls for the 419 scams that still do the rounds occasionally. Congrats...you have won! Now if you could just give us your bank details along with a small retainer we'd be happy to transfer across your win![/p][/quote]You mean I haven't won a prize, even though I gave them my bank account details and ALL my credit card numbers? You can't believe anything people say any more. Just been promised £6000 for that accident I had 3 years ago. Must have been a bad one - I don't remember a thing about it. Seriously - number was +447707599060 if anyone wants to blacklist it. Oh - if anyone wants, I can give you the details a /great/ work from home job. A company abroad puts money into your bank account. All you do is move it into another account, keeping your 5% commission. I've had £1.2M through my account in the last 3 months. I've made £60K! (seems to be a problem, though, as it's not in any of my accounts). ;0/ JackJohnson
  • Score: 2

5:59pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Rich© says...

Gingertree wrote:
Ranting for ages about £1.50 my god woman get a life Surely you understand errors occur even in your rosie perfect world
4/10 for the photo as it contains no dragons or folded arms, wont you think of the children ! as you say it happens, no one died or lost out from it.
[quote][p][bold]Gingertree[/bold] wrote: Ranting for ages about £1.50 my god woman get a life Surely you understand errors occur even in your rosie perfect world[/p][/quote]4/10 for the photo as it contains no dragons or folded arms, wont you think of the children ! as you say it happens, no one died or lost out from it. Rich©
  • Score: 2

7:45pm Sat 29 Mar 14

rozmister says...

JackJohnson wrote:
ShuttleX wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
spooki wrote:
You would think (hope?) someone would notice 900 letters leaving an office without franking. Someone must have put them in the envelopes and in to post, someone else should have dealt with them in the Post Office sorting office and someone with half a brain cell would have thought "oh, someone things up here".
And posted them anyway, apparently.
A bag of unfranked mail put in the wrong place is then sealed and collected by the postman and taken to the sorting office. Or maybe a franking machine ran out of labels and didn't stop.

Obviously someone's been more than a little careless and may well be looking for a new job.

I would have expected someone at the sorting office to notice there has been a large error, withdraw as many unfranked items from the machinery as possible, and get someone to contact the sender to correct the error. That is good customer service. To just put them through and attempt to penalise all the intended recipients is NOT good customer service - it is either giving Royal Mail / Post Office staff extra unnecessary work, or it is profiteering.
On second thoughts, if the error was due to a franking machine occasionally pulling through 2 envelopes instead of 1 it's possible the error could go unnoticed. Even so, checks on the counters / £ franking done should have given the operator a clue that something was not right. Also, checks on the output from the franking machine should have flagged up unfranked envelopes and told the operator that more checking should be done. Even so 900 of 400000 (population in 2011) is only 0.225%. Not a significant error (unless you're on the receiving end of it) so probably easy to miss if the sampled %age is not high enough and depending on the cause of the problem.
Bournemouth has never had a population of 400,000. In 2011 the total was 183,500.
My mistake - even so that only doubles (approx) the error. Any error below 1% could be missed if the sample for checking was even 10%.
Those 186,000 equate to about 87,000 households so it's an error of just under 1%. Like you say, not a significant amount really.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ShuttleX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spooki[/bold] wrote: You would think (hope?) someone would notice 900 letters leaving an office without franking. Someone must have put them in the envelopes and in to post, someone else should have dealt with them in the Post Office sorting office and someone with half a brain cell would have thought "oh, someone things up here". And posted them anyway, apparently.[/p][/quote]A bag of unfranked mail put in the wrong place is then sealed and collected by the postman and taken to the sorting office. Or maybe a franking machine ran out of labels and didn't stop. Obviously someone's been more than a little careless and may well be looking for a new job. I would have expected someone at the sorting office to notice there has been a large error, withdraw as many unfranked items from the machinery as possible, and get someone to contact the sender to correct the error. That is good customer service. To just put them through and attempt to penalise all the intended recipients is NOT good customer service - it is either giving Royal Mail / Post Office staff extra unnecessary work, or it is profiteering.[/p][/quote]On second thoughts, if the error was due to a franking machine occasionally pulling through 2 envelopes instead of 1 it's possible the error could go unnoticed. Even so, checks on the counters / £ franking done should have given the operator a clue that something was not right. Also, checks on the output from the franking machine should have flagged up unfranked envelopes and told the operator that more checking should be done. Even so 900 of 400000 (population in 2011) is only 0.225%. Not a significant error (unless you're on the receiving end of it) so probably easy to miss if the sampled %age is not high enough and depending on the cause of the problem.[/p][/quote]Bournemouth has never had a population of 400,000. In 2011 the total was 183,500.[/p][/quote]My mistake - even so that only doubles (approx) the error. Any error below 1% could be missed if the sample for checking was even 10%.[/p][/quote]Those 186,000 equate to about 87,000 households so it's an error of just under 1%. Like you say, not a significant amount really. rozmister
  • Score: 0

10:21pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Yankee1 says...

I think the Council should offer them all a free voucher to visit the Surf Reef.............
I think the Council should offer them all a free voucher to visit the Surf Reef............. Yankee1
  • Score: 2

8:11am Sun 30 Mar 14

whataboutthat says...

Big deal
Big deal whataboutthat
  • Score: 0

8:46pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Hobad1 says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Mindvor wrote:
Mountain out of molehill aside...what made me chuckle was this bit..

"Another said: “I thought I’d won a competition..."

Sounds like sort of person that falls for the 419 scams that still do the rounds occasionally.
Congrats...you have won! Now if you could just give us your bank details along with a small retainer we'd be happy to transfer across your win!
You mean I haven't won a prize, even though I gave them my bank account details and ALL my credit card numbers? You can't believe anything people say any more.

Just been promised £6000 for that accident I had 3 years ago. Must have been a bad one - I don't remember a thing about it. Seriously - number was +447707599060 if anyone wants to blacklist it.

Oh - if anyone wants, I can give you the details a /great/ work from home job. A company abroad puts money into your bank account. All you do is move it into another account, keeping your 5% commission. I've had £1.2M through my account in the last 3 months. I've made £60K! (seems to be a problem, though, as it's not in any of my accounts).

;0/
kn0b.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mindvor[/bold] wrote: Mountain out of molehill aside...what made me chuckle was this bit.. "Another said: “I thought I’d won a competition..." Sounds like sort of person that falls for the 419 scams that still do the rounds occasionally. Congrats...you have won! Now if you could just give us your bank details along with a small retainer we'd be happy to transfer across your win![/p][/quote]You mean I haven't won a prize, even though I gave them my bank account details and ALL my credit card numbers? You can't believe anything people say any more. Just been promised £6000 for that accident I had 3 years ago. Must have been a bad one - I don't remember a thing about it. Seriously - number was +447707599060 if anyone wants to blacklist it. Oh - if anyone wants, I can give you the details a /great/ work from home job. A company abroad puts money into your bank account. All you do is move it into another account, keeping your 5% commission. I've had £1.2M through my account in the last 3 months. I've made £60K! (seems to be a problem, though, as it's not in any of my accounts). ;0/[/p][/quote]kn0b. Hobad1
  • Score: -2

9:25am Mon 31 Mar 14

Bournemouth87 says...

Accidents happen at work and mistakes are made. It was £1.50 at the end of the day and you get it back. I bet the majority of people just waited until the next day and then got the letter re-delivered. I wonder how many people will be on the phone today claiming they want compensation for the inconvenience.
Accidents happen at work and mistakes are made. It was £1.50 at the end of the day and you get it back. I bet the majority of people just waited until the next day and then got the letter re-delivered. I wonder how many people will be on the phone today claiming they want compensation for the inconvenience. Bournemouth87
  • Score: 3

10:29pm Thu 3 Apr 14

kingsgreen says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Gingertree wrote:
Ranting for ages about £1.50 my god woman get a life Surely you understand errors occur even in your rosie perfect world
If the lady is anything like me she'd be ranting about the incompetence, not the amount in hard cash.
Perhaps ranting was rather a strong word for what I did! I also did ask if I should fold my arms!! J. Selcoe
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gingertree[/bold] wrote: Ranting for ages about £1.50 my god woman get a life Surely you understand errors occur even in your rosie perfect world[/p][/quote]If the lady is anything like me she'd be ranting about the incompetence, not the amount in hard cash.[/p][/quote]Perhaps ranting was rather a strong word for what I did! I also did ask if I should fold my arms!! J. Selcoe kingsgreen
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree