I'm livid. Royal Mail have recently introduced additional surcharges for items such as 'unreadable barcode' and 'incorrectly applied label'. We take extreme care when labeling our packages, there isn't a chance that our barcodes are 'unreadable', and what even constitutes an 'incorrectly applied label'??! Surely the label is either there or it's not?? We use Royal Mail supplied label stock and a Royal Mail recommended thermal printer. I've disputed each of these surcharges, there appears to be 1 of each per weekly invoice at the moment, with an additional 'administration surcharge' for the 'privilege' of being surcharged. Initially, the response from Royal Mail was that the surcharge had been incorrectly applied and would be credited, they're now dismissing our disputes.
Royal Mail have the gumption to forward their guide to labeling correctly along with their dispute rejection email. We've been doing this for over 20 years, I believe we know how to print and apply a label. The obvious observation is that any loss or damage to labels occurs after the the packages have been taken and mishandled by Royal Mail, we should be compensated - not penalised! I would urge anyone reading this to check the last page of their invoice carefully and dispute ANY and ALL surcharges, other than green surcharge which is unavoidable.
Conveniently, Royal Mail are only occasionally able to provide poor quality photographic evidence of the package and label AFTER they've re-labelled it - curiously, it appears to be identical to the original label we'd originally used. I need to see the 'damage' please Royal Mail, so that I can work to prevent it in future.
I hope every other business hit with these unjustified surcharges is disputing them and will continue to do so. Royal Mail will be bringing in many thousands in revenue from what, without proof, is essentially theft.
Cheers
Your concern is well founded. The surcharges that Royal Mail are now imposing must be considered against the background of the contractual and statutory framework under which they operate. When a business contracts with Royal Mail, the terms of service are governed by their published schemes made under the Postal Services Act 2000, which constitute statutory instruments and have the force of law. These schemes must comply with the requirements of fairness under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and, where applicable, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, and cannot be enforced in a manner that amounts to an unreasonable exercise of contractual discretion.
In your case, Royal Mail appear to be levying surcharges for alleged “unreadable barcodes” and “incorrectly applied labels” without providing contemporaneous evidence of any defect at the point of handover. As you correctly observe, if the label is clear and legible when it leaves your possession, any degradation or damage that renders it “unreadable” will most likely occur after Royal Mail have assumed custody. In such circumstances, it is not consistent with principle to penalise the sender for the mishandling of items by the carrier. The common law imposes upon a contracting party an implied term to exercise reasonable care and skill in the performance of the service (see section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015). To levy an additional charge for the consequences of its own mishandling is, on its face, a breach of that duty.
Royal Mail’s ability to impose surcharges must also be considered in light of the doctrine against penalties. Although the doctrine is traditionally concerned with clauses triggered by breach, the Supreme Court in Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67 confirmed that clauses which operate to impose charges out of all proportion to any legitimate commercial interest may be unenforceable. A charge that is triggered by alleged mislabelling, in circumstances where the sender has used Royal Mail approved labels and printers, and where Royal Mail fail to produce adequate proof of fault, may fall within the class of clauses that are penal and therefore unenforceable.
Your further point about photographic evidence is important. If Royal Mail are only able to provide indistinct or post-factum photographs after relabelling, then they are not satisfying the evidential burden of showing that the surcharge was properly applied. The burden rests upon them to justify the charge; otherwise, any sum extracted without proper basis may amount to unjust enrichment, for which restitution would lie. It is no answer for Royal Mail to dismiss disputes with generic references to their labelling guides, particularly where you have demonstrated long-standing compliance.
The remedies available to you are threefold. First, you are entitled to pursue Royal Mail’s internal dispute procedure to exhaustion, but you should do so while making clear that you reserve all legal rights. Secondly, you may escalate the matter to the Postal Review Panel and, if necessary, to Ofcom, who regulate postal operators under the Communications Act 2003 and have powers to investigate systemic unfair practices. Thirdly, you have a direct cause of action in the County Court for restitution of the surcharges already paid and a declaration that the charging practice is unenforceable. The claim would be brought as a civil debt or unjust enrichment claim, and the relevant procedural rules are contained in CPR Part 7.
It is also worth noting that a business which imposes systematic surcharges without proper contractual or statutory justification may be vulnerable to collective action or a representative claim under CPR 19.8, especially where the sums extracted from multiple businesses are relatively small but cumulatively very large. Your instinct that these surcharges are a form of hidden revenue raising is not without legal foundation, and the courts are slow to permit large commercial entities to use standard-form terms to shift the risk of their own failures onto customers without clear justification.
In practical terms, I would advise that you continue disputing each surcharge in writing, demanding strict proof of the alleged defect with contemporaneous evidence, and reserve your rights to bring proceedings. Keep a detailed record of all correspondence. Should Royal Mail fail to credit the surcharges, you would be entitled to issue a small claim for their recovery, and in the course of that litigation Royal Mail would be compelled to disclose their internal guidance, evidence standards, and data concerning the incidence of such charges. That exercise alone is likely to prove highly uncomfortable for them.
The most effective strategy is therefore to maintain pressure through formal dispute and regulatory escalation, while preparing the ground for a small claim or representative action. This combination maximises your leverage and significantly increases the prospect of a settlement or a change in Royal Mail’s charging practices.
