+/-

[flick]

Just before Easter, I got a card from the Post Office saying that I had a letter with insufficient postage. After some thought, I decided it was probably worth sticking stamps on it and seeing what it was. Today, it arrived. I'm not entirely sure why Olympus felt it necessary to send me two copies of their PR, but I do wish that they'd also used two stamps on the envelope.

Popped into Waitrose, post wedding-suit-collection, to buy some bits and pieces and some wine. As I was hanging around in the wine section looking for a member of staff I could send off to find Michael, The Wine Man, he wandered over, greeted me like an old friend and asked if there was anything I needed. He really is very good (at least, none of the wine recipients has ever complained, and he usually points out a cheaper bottle or two for us that's always good). He very subtly and politely told me that my cunning plan was crap, and sold me something much better instead.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

One for you, one for M?

[flickgc.livejournal.com]

Only one sticker on the envelope. And doesn't explain the fact that I had to pay half the postage and a handling fee....

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

Envelope filling error, then, I imagine. Oh, dear.

[gaspode.livejournal.com]

Yes - its seems a few doubles got caught like this - Its to do with the thickness if they were put spine over spine ratehr thane spine over open edge - it seems it was thicker than 5mm that way (ie 6mm).

Sorry is all we can say - dont get me started on how annoyed at the post office I am.

[flickgc.livejournal.com]

Ummm... sorry but in what way is this the Post Office's fault?

[flickgc.livejournal.com]

And: was this actually an intentional double? It only had one label!

[gaspodia.livejournal.com]

It's easy to be annoyed at the Post Office, but it really wan't their fault; it was ours. Yes, 1mm leeway would have been nice but their rules are quite clear.

I've looked into this and it seems that the PRs had to be manually stapled and that is what caused them to be just above the limit. The test copy we measured and weighed had been automatically stapled and was within the limits as the stapling process also flattens and smooths the fold. At the last minute the process had to be changed and we didn't think about the implication of this on postage. Sorry :( I will buy you a drink to make up for it next time we meet if that is OK?

Having said that, you should only have had one in any case. Mike had his own settings for post/electronic so the label and paper PR was just for you.

[flickgc.livejournal.com]

[coff] I don't think I ever actually blamed the Post Office at any point, except possibly for the large fees that they charge when Other People don't apply the correct postage. [/coff]

Yes, afaik, I should have only had one copy. If there were to be two in the envelope (which I have no issue with), there should have been two labels. And two stamps.

It's the latter where you fell down, and, tbh, talking about widths of PRs isn't actually relevant to that unless you actually believe that, had they been machine-folded, two would have fallen within the limits.

(I do, however, appreciate your commenting to try to explain it!)

[gaspodia.livejournal.com]

It was gaspodex who seemed to be blaming the Post Office but it is his birthday today so I'll forgive him being wrong just this once :)

Eddie says two would have fallen within both the weight and width limits if they had been properly squished by the machine.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

These things happen!

[inamac.livejournal.com]

Ah, that explains the PO notice I got today - Lil and I were doubles, and this was addressed to me. I won't bother paying to collect it then. Presumably will wing its way back to you eventually.

Thanks to Flick for posting this!