Junk Mail

[BankFodder]

Sorry I am not willing to name them as they could be monitoring this site. At this point its is not relevant its a National PLC and brand name, the advice should be the same who ever they are.

 

Sorry, but this is completely wrong.

 

It is highly relevant to name this company because we can then start to discover whether there are other people who are similarly affected by them which will add weight to any action or complaint that can be made.

 

Also, companies don't like being named on public forums and so identifying them here will help to put pressure on them.

 

If they monitor this forum – then well and good. If they monitor this forum then how on earth they going to identify you as a complainant anyway?

 

I think that if you asked for help from us then you should do whatever you can to help us to help you and that includes naming these people.

 

We prefer straight dealing with people and quite frankly there is no room for cloak and dagger skulduggery here

[dennisjackie]

I fully agree with you they should all be named and shamed at some point, I have named them some time ago but just to make it clear it is Virgin Media.

 

My point was more the advice should be the same no matter what company it is.

 

So sorry if my response was not what you would have expected.

[king12345]

I fully agree with you they should all be named and shamed at some point, I have named them some time ago but just to make it clear it is Virgin Media.

 

My point was more the advice should be the same no matter what company it is.

 

So sorry if my response was not what you would have expected.

 

Well, surely they won't be able to identify you!

You're one of the millions they bombard with junk mail.

I even wrote to the CEO regarding my personal data and i received no reply whatsoever.

They are above the law, just accept it.

Mr Branson is determined to kill the last trees left in the rainforest by flooding all of us with junk mail.

He's got his own green island so why should he care about the rest of us, poor slaves of the system and condemned to breathing dirty air.

We better accept that Virgin media is untouchable and enjoy our short lives.

[BankFodder]

Do you have a contract with virgin media? Or have you had one in the past at that address?

[dennisjackie]

There was a reason I was worried about being identified. but what the heck if they do identify me so what.

 

My reason was some 4 years ago I had the same problem with them and after a lot of letters from them making excuses and failing to stop it. I started to copy in a Mr Branson at his home address and return the junk mail there, interestingly although he did not respond within a month I received an apology from them and had nothing until a few months ago. Unfortunately he has moved since then or I would do the same again.

 

Part of me agrees with you just accept it, but they are not above the law and why should any of us have to put up with this from them, the more of us that walk a way from this the more they get away with it.

[dennisjackie]

No have never had a contract with them, and no one at this address has ever had one as have lived here longer than cable TV has been around. We where only the second house in the road to have a phone installed by the GPO that's how long we have been at this address.

[king12345]

There was a reason I was worried about being identified. but what the heck if they do identify me so what.

 

My reason was some 4 years ago I had the same problem with them and after a lot of letters from them making excuses and failing to stop it. I started to copy in a Mr Branson at his home address and return the junk mail there, interestingly although he did not respond within a month I received an apology from them and had nothing until a few months ago. Unfortunately he has moved since then or I would do the same again.

 

Part of me agrees with you just accept it, but they are not above the law and why should any of us have to put up with this from them, the more of us that walk a way from this the more they get away with it.

 

If you think they're not above the law I can only wish you the best of luck.

Even if you took them to court and got some money from them, they wouldn't change their ways.

Even £100k is pocket money to Mr Branson.

He's got more saying in our society than the prime minister.

If a law doesn't suit his organisations it is simply not passed.

If an existing law doesn't suit his organisations they just ignore it as you well know.

Unfortunately we can't change that: Money talks.

[Mr.P]

Mr Branson is determined to kill the last trees left in the rainforest by flooding all of us with junk mail.

 

Whilst Mr Branson might still be the public face of Virgin Media in the sdverts, it is now owned by Liberty Global. Perhaps redirecting the mail to Tom Mockridge care of their head office in London might get a result.

 

For the record, I also get junk mail (known as direct marketing mail in the trade) from Virgin. It gets dropped straight in to the recycle bin without a second glance.

[dennisjackie]

Thanks Mr P, will give it a try who knows they stop it just think if we all just put it in the recycling they have won. We all have to pay for the recycling and the inconvenience of picking it up sorting through it and putting it there, although it helps pay my brothers wages delivering it.

[king12345]

Whilst Mr Branson might still be the public face of Virgin Media in the sdverts, it is now owned by Liberty Global. Perhaps redirecting the mail to Tom Mockridge care of their head office in London might get a result.

 

For the record, I also get junk mail (known as direct marketing mail in the trade) from Virgin. It gets dropped straight in to the recycle bin without a second glance.

 

We've been there before.

Mr Branson is only the face of the Virgin brand, bla bla bla, he's not responsible for what they do, bla bla bla, he's not involved with the decisions whatsoever, bla bla bla, Virgin directors don't answer to him, bla bla bla, etc. etc.

I wonder... Why would a multi billionaire put his face and reputation on the line for a group of companies he's not involved with???

The truth is that all companies directly or indirectly linked to the Virgin brand are under the thumb of Mr Branson.

The executive directors are only puppets being manoeuvred by him.

And the smartest move is that his name doesn't appear in any company registered at companies house.

Smart!

How did he make billions without working???

Did they pay him that much just to film the adverts???

Come on...

[deg4ugm]

Virgin media keeps on sending me tons of junk mail despite writing to them a lot of times and telling them to completely erase my name and address from their database.

They ignored me completely.

Shame they don't send a return franked envelope anymore.

I used to send them lots of rubble in cardboard boxes with the prepay envelope stuck on it.

 

 

But they do quote a Freephone number. I rang it and said that unless they stopped sending me offers I don't want, I would continue to ring it and tie up one of their advisors until they removed me from the list. Touch wood, since then I have had no post from them. It did take a couple of weeks for it to go, but it went. Can't remember if I had to speak to complaints, but they were pretty good about removing me. I can't remember when I last had a mail drop from Virgin, but of course now I have posted this they may start again.

[Norm1710]

...

Shame they don't send a return franked envelope anymore.

....

 

You don't need to go to the trouble of all that effort.

 

I always write on RTS on every piece of junk mail and post it back to them even if I've opened it or it has no address.

 

Royal Mail are obliged to return it and they charge for this as a result. The companies get massive discount rates for mass mailings but get changed more than the price of a first class stamp for returns.

 

If everyone returns junk mail these companies would soon find it uneconomic to continue untargeted mass mailings.

 

Does it work? My elderly mother was receiving 10-15 junk mails a day. After three months of returning the junk we are unluckly enough to get 1-2 junk mails a week.

 

If the practice doesn't pay, they won't do it so hit them where it hurts.

[comedykev]

I did manage to stop them sending me mail, my method is puerile. Definitely not to everyone's taste and NSW. So you have been warned but if all else fails this should get their attention!

 

As I cannot yet post links (post count too low) it's a bit of a puzzle but I'm sure you'll figure it out.

 

www dot twitter.com/shepherdkevin/status/621650227620106240

[king12345]

I Like the fact that you said "please"

[jimmy419]

The best way to stop unwanted mail is to put the mail into another envelope address it and put a 1 penny stamp on it.

The mail service is obliged by law to deliver it and will charge the company for the undercharge which usually amounts to more than £1.

That stops the mail coming.

The music man

[king12345]

The best way to stop unwanted mail is to put the mail into another envelope address it and put a 1 penny stamp on it.

The mail service is obliged by law to deliver it and will charge the company for the undercharge which usually amounts to more than £1.

That stops the mail coming.

The music man

 

Where do we buy 1 penny stamps?

[maroondevo52]

Where do we buy 1 penny stamps?

 

http://shop.royalmail.com/stamp-sheets/make-up-values/icat/makeupvalues

[blackambermay]

I was receiving mail from Virgin Media on average 2 to 3 times per week. I am registered not to receive unsolicited mailings and I got into quite a public argument with them via facebook and twitter. They are under the impression that registering stops the mail and telling Royal Mail not to deliver the letters would also work, but as I explained to them, if the mail is actually addressed to an address by law it has to be delivered. But they know this, it really is just lazy marketing. It is a loophole in the law and they are exploiting it. By not addressing it to the person registered to not receive junk mail but by addressing it to the occupier means they have met their obligations under the mailing preference. By putting an actual address on it so that Royal Mail are legally obliged to deliver it covers that loophole. You won't get anywhere with them, they are either very clever or a special kind of stupid and I am not sure which.

[king12345]

http://shop.royalmail.com/stamp-sheets/make-up-values/icat/makeupvalues

 

Thanks, I'm gonna flood VM offices with their own mail from now on.

[xockered]

Afternoon everyone,

 

Is there a section on this site that deals with Junk mail?

 

My problem is that a National company is sending addressed mail to my address it is always addressed to the householder or occupier and is franked and not part of a mail shot to other addresses. so falls outside the data protection act as its not a named person.

I have been in correspondence with the company and they say they cant stop it. But they send it so its not a case of cant its a case of wont. Is anyone aware of any legislation I can use to stop them?

 

I have found that the practice of clearly writing on the envelope "NOT KNOWN, RETURN TO SENDER" and posting it back in the Post Box unopened does have an effect, If I find that I have opened an unwanted mailshot and it contains a return envelope then I am quite happy to tear up their mailshot papers, place then in the reply envelope and again post it in the Post Box, this action costs them money and you find that the mailshots will reduce significantly.

[Guest HeftyHippo]

By not addressing it to the person registered to not receive junk mail but by addressing it to the occupier means they have met their obligations under the mailing preference.

 

This may be an obvious question, but is it possible to register with the Mail Pref Service as "The Occupier"? Anything addressed to The Occupier would therefore be addressed to someone who had registered with the MPS to prevent junk mail.

 

This seems so obvious that I'd be surprised if someone else hasn't thought of it, so it may not be possible or may not work, but just a thought.

 

Secondly, try not to get wound up. The only person who suffers if you do is yourself. I get mail from Virgin, and most of the time it just gets recycled. Occasionally I look at it, and wonder why the promotion doesn't have full details to allow me to evaluate it. But then I recycle it because my attitude is if they can't be bothered to use their time to tell me exactly why their product and prices are so good.... I certainly can't be bothered to spend my time working it out.

[dennisjackie]

I was receiving mail from Virgin Media on average 2 to 3 times per week. I am registered not to receive unsolicited mailings and I got into quite a public argument with them via facebook and twitter. They are under the impression that registering stops the mail and telling Royal Mail not to deliver the letters would also work, but as I explained to them, if the mail is actually addressed to an address by law it has to be delivered. But they know this, it really is just lazy marketing. It is a loophole in the law and they are exploiting it. By not addressing it to the person registered to not receive junk mail but by addressing it to the occupier means they have met their obligations under the mailing preference. By putting an actual address on it so that Royal Mail are legally obliged to deliver it covers that loophole. You won't get anywhere with them, they are either very clever or a special kind of stupid and I am not sure which.

 

Well there have been a lot of suggestions some that have worked for others but not everyone, most of which I have tried. Your response sounds very much like what I have gone through in letters to them over the last few months and answers are still the same.

 

The suggestions that are put it in the post back with or without a stamp, are clearly from people who do not know how the postal system works. So let me try to explain how it works.

 

All post that is collected goes to a mail sorting centre. It is sorted in large machines that will rejected it as it has not got the correct postage on it. At this point it is then handled manually and someone from revenue protection then has to decide what the correct postage is, they will normally work out a price and stamp it or put a label on it with the correct price plus a handling fee. It then proceeds through the delivery system to the local delivery office as normal. The postman then has to deliver it and collect the charge put on it. However the person receiving it can refuse to pay and many companies do refuse to pay. so the postman takes it back to the delivery office and it is marked that the company would not pay or accept it, it is then returned to a centre where Royal mail normally destroy them.

 

So by sending post back like that it costs Royal Mail a lot of staff time which they do not get paid for and is reflected in the price of stamps we all pay for. In short by doing this all you are doing is playing there game but in doing so. You never see the item again you have posted so think it has been received, as the marketing campaign has stopped for a few months. Then a few months later it starts all over again.

 

There must be some legislation that can be used to stop them making a nuisance of themselves, as there junk mail is costing us all in many ways, from the waste of paper and damage to the environment to the royal mail handling it and our time getting rid of it. I would love to find a way of taking a test case to court to see what happens but need help finding some legislation that may be appropriate.

[dennisjackie]

Mail preference service only works if they are members which they are not. so good suggestion but wont work in this case.

[rinfrance]

Frankly if it is junk mail the organisation that is propagating it is the agency that needs the agro, scribble out your address, and do it well so there is no way it can be read on the envelope and write on the envelope "return to sender, address unknown, no such number" and at the end of the road is a nice red box, pop it in there. If the Royal Mail are making money from it let them have the problem!

Enjoy!

[dennisjackie]

I am not here to defend the Royal Mail in any way.

 

But you have clearly missed the point The Royal Mail are losing money on it by doing what you suggest and all of the costs of handling mail returned in the way you suggest, are passed on to us all in postal charges. We all use the postal service even if it is receiving a council tax bill, election papers, or many other forms of mail. the increase in postal charges is reflected in a very small way in everyone's costs.

 

The solution is to find a way of stopping companies from sending it in the first place, and so far I have not succeeded. But that will not stop me trying.