Court of Appeal upholds GBP 9.62 million financial penalties imposed on Royal Mail
The Court of Appeal has upheld the GBP 9.62 million financial penalty Postcomm imposed on Royal Mail for failing to protect adequately the mail in its care, following an appeal of the penalty by Royal Mail. The judgment reinforces Postcomm’s position that the penalty is proportionate and reflects the loss suffered by customers.
In a unanimous judgment, the three judges confirmed that Postcomm had a broad discretion to determine the amount of the penalty and that, in reaching its determination, it had made the best assessment it could, given the evidence available to it.
Royal Mail did not dispute Postcomm’s finding that it breached its licence requirements to keep mail safe and secure, nor that this breach was serious; it appealed only against the level of the financial penalty.
On 24 August 2006, Postcomm imposed a financial penalty of GBP9.62 million on Royal Mail for breaching its licence by failing to properly protect the mail in its care. The penalty followed a review of Royal Mail’s mail integrity procedures, during which Postcomm found that some important features of Royal Mail’s procedures were not being applied across the business. Royal Mail previously challenged the penalty in the High Court but, following a hearing, the court ruled in favour of Postcomm. The Court of Appeal has now upheld the earlier decision of the High Court.
The most significant weakness found was the poor management of the recruitment and training process for non-contract (agency) staff. In addition, the framework and information systems that Royal Mail had put in place to prevent the loss, theft and damage to mail were not operated effectively. These weaknesses significantly reduced Royal Mail’s ability to protect its customers’ mail.
The Court of Appeal has upheld the GBP 9.62 million financial penalty Postcomm imposed on Royal Mail for failing to protect adequately the mail in its care, following an appeal of the penalty by Royal Mail. The judgment reinforces Postcomm’s position that the penalty is proportionate and reflects the loss suffered by customers.
In a unanimous judgment, the three judges confirmed that Postcomm had a broad discretion to determine the amount of the penalty and that, in reaching its determination, it had made the best assessment it could, given the evidence available to it.
Royal Mail did not dispute Postcomm’s finding that it breached its licence requirements to keep mail safe and secure, nor that this breach was serious; it appealed only against the level of the financial penalty.
On 24 August 2006, Postcomm imposed a financial penalty of GBP9.62 million on Royal Mail for breaching its licence by failing to properly protect the mail in its care. The penalty followed a review of Royal Mail’s mail integrity procedures, during which Postcomm found that some important features of Royal Mail’s procedures were not being applied across the business. Royal Mail previously challenged the penalty in the High Court but, following a hearing, the court ruled in favour of Postcomm. The Court of Appeal has now upheld the earlier decision of the High Court.
The most significant weakness found was the poor management of the recruitment and training process for non-contract (agency) staff. In addition, the framework and information systems that Royal Mail had put in place to prevent the loss, theft and damage to mail were not operated effectively. These weaknesses significantly reduced Royal Mail’s ability to protect its customers’ mail.
Notes for editors
The penalty was first proposed on 10 February 2006, when Postcomm published a consultation document proposing an amount of GBP 11.38 million. After taking account of representations from Royal Mail and other respondents, Postcomm published its proposal to vary the penalty to GBP 9.62 million last June, and finally imposed this penalty in August. In March 2007, Royal Mail challenged the level of the penalty in the High Court but was unsuccessful. Royal Mail then appealed the High Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal.
