Mail redirection

[Carol Anne]

We are moving soon and I was looking into how to get our post redirected. On the website it explained that they are required by law not to redirect benefits mail etc and are reuired to pass the datails on to the agency concerned. Not that this affects me, but at the bottom it said that the Royal Mail reserves the right (not required by law) to pass on redirection details to other organisations to pervent fraud and money laundering. I get the feeling that this is some money making enterprise on their part by passing on my private details. Would I be right?

[Postdog]

Actually, I think you are. I am a postman, and I noticed this a couple of months back and thought it fishy then - like HOW ELSE could they know?.

Basically, when a redirection comes into play, a little while later you can virtually guarantee a letter to "the homemover" will arrive from Sky TV. Given that we still get mail from friends and other business to the old people after they have moved out, how is it Sky know there is someone new there?

[Oneeyedvic]

Quite possibly - but if you think that it dosn't affect you it does.

By passing on the new address, they are helping prevent people from running away from their responsibilities and also preventing fraud.

Think about who actually pays for fraud. You, me and every other honest person.

[Carol Anne]

Actually Oneyedvic, I think it's up to me who gets to know when I move and where I've gone. They've got absolutely no business doing this, and if they make money out of it, even worse!! Something should be done to stop it. We don't live in a police state. (yet)

[Postdog]

Carol Anne - just wanted you to know I am not stalking you. Without realising it was for the same person, I have answered 2 of your questions tonight (redirection and brookside). So anyway, don't worry OK

[Carol Anne]

Oh don't worry.... I do that all the time:-)

[Oneeyedvic]

1) If they do pass on the details for money laundering and fraud purposes then I would assume that they do not make money on this. (you may assume that they do, so we can disagree on this).

2) If they are selling on data to people for money so that they can canvass you (like sky) then this is wrong - but that is not what you report their terms & conditions state.

3) Whilst we are not in a police state, I do believe that certain companies (not just councils for council tax etc, but also to include financial one who you have made a contract with) should be allowed this information. Of course - people who have debts and don't want people chasing them will argue against this.

Don't forget that ertain information such as Voter's Role info is accessible by the public anyway.

[Carol Anne]

Credit companies, huge, vast, multi-billion pound profit making organisations, are commercial enterprises just like any other. The government does not make any special arrangements for them to keep track of customers, good or bad, otherwise the RM would be required to provide this commercially valuable information to them. If it was done for them then why not for any other business enterprise? The fact is the RM is ideally placed for providing this commercially valuable data to credit reference agencies, but they do it off their own bat, and not because the law says they have to. Why would the RM go to the trouble and expense of this effort unless it was profitable for them to do so? If they are so worried about ME being an absconder, then why not inform all my neighbours too, incase I happened to have stitched one of them up or so they could so they could tip the wink to any bailiff who happened by and found their quarry gone away.

No, the remit of the Royal Mail is to handle the post and not to facilitate the operations of other commercial organisations by disclosing personal data about customers. The morals of being a credit worthy individual do not come into this, and whether or not these vast institutions can keep track of their customers just like any other business is nothing to do with running the mail, and as such they should not be allowed to disclose any information that is not required by law. It's a privacy thing Oneeyedvic.

[Carol Anne]

As for the voters roll, councils up and down the country sell this to any business who wants it on CD rom, but they HAVE to give people on the roll the choice of whether they want to be on the version that is sold commercially. Again it's about privacy. Ordinary voters rolls are available to anyone, but you have to know the town you want, and you have to physically go there to search it.

[Oneeyedvic]

"...pass on redirection details to other organisations to prevent fraud and money laundering"

Fraud and Money laundering are both CRIMINAL activities. If I see someone committing a criminal activity, then (most of the time) I would report it.

Being a bad payer is not a fraudulently activity. Taking out a loan in someone else's name (maybe a previous tenant) is fraud.

The information they are passing on ( I am guessing) will include details like "Moved away" written on an envelope. This is a good thing as when you do move, do you want the new tenants / owners to receive information from loan companies in your name? I certainly don't.

Whether it is for financial gain or not is irrelevant (and pure speculation).

Guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Carol Anne]

I agree Fraud and money laundering are criminal offences and if the RM or anyone else has evidence of such, the of course it should be reported. They are passing on the address a redirectee has moved to, not as a magnanamous gesture toward law and order but because they have identified a market for such data, and, as an organisation famously strapped for cash, it stands to reason that it it would not be going to the trouble and expense to do so, voluntarily, unless it was worth their while. Again, prevention of fraud etc while important, is still nothing to do with running the mail efficiently, something which they would be far better applying their efforts to than facilitating the tracing of debtors to vast profit making financial institutions. In other words they would be far better employed in getting their own house in order in running an efficient and cost effective mail service without concerning themselves in the smooth running of other profit making concerns.

[Postdog]

I just want to add a bit about what I said earlier. The thing with the Sky promo's is that no actual names appear - they are always addressed to the homeowner, which suggests that RM have simply informed them (if they do, and I can't see how else it could be done) that a person has moved from that address. Sky are targeting the address, not indivuduals.

[dzug]

If you look at the application form carefully you'll see you can opt out of having your details passed on for marketing purposes. If you don't tick the boxes you have agreed to them doing so.

The Sky question is more awkward - whose privacy are they breaching if they sell Sky (if they do - I get enough junk mail from Sky without moving) details of addresses (not names) that have recently been the subject of a redirection request. I don't know the answer to this one.

[Oneeyedvic]

Postdog - not calling you paranoid, but despite the fact that we have lived in this house for over 2 years, we still get letters addressed "to the homeowner" which is pure junk mail.

As part of my business, I purchase data for marketing purposes. this is fairly costly (around 10-20p per name and address). Alternatively I could just send out letters to "The Business owner". This would cost me a lot less but I don't think that it would work very effectively.

The company I purchase data from is www.marketingfile.co.uk and I can buy various lists (marketing fie are a reseller). Listings are from various companies like Experian, Equifax, Thomson Directories, but (as far as I know) not Royal Mail.

[Carol Anne]

yes dzug, but in the small print they still 'reserve the right' to pass on details of one's new address to, presumably the major credit reference agencies, for the 'prevention of fraud and money laundering'.

Sounds plausable, but it's just a smokescreen for what they're really up to, and that is selling personal information to third parties. It's wrong and it should be stopped.

[dzug]

I think I'd agree with you, Carol Ann.

I've a nasty feeling though there may be a loophole in that because no names are involved it's not personal information.

[Postdog]

Sorry, I should be more precise

Shy address them to the NEW homeowner.