Comments on: Postcodes

By: Michael J Brook

Michael J Brook — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:36:49 +0000

Our local area post code HD2 is according to the insurance companies and reflected in our insurance premiums, – in the top 20 list of worst post codes for crime in the UK – and I would not argue this. Yet on its perimeter HD2 also contains the Birkby-Edgerton Conservation Area with some of the best surviving examples of Victorian/Edwardian/Art deco and Art Nouveau properties in the UK. As this also adjoins HD1 and HD3 postal areas, it should not be difficult for the Conservation area to be ‘exchanged’ into another adjoining area, particularly as post codes are not used to assist local delivery of mail. So who do I contact to solicit some negotiation? Gordon Brown/ Sir Humphrey Appleby ? A chap called Crozier who with help from the unions is Beeching-like intent on closing RM down. Actually it has been effectively ‘down’ for many years in certain parts of London.

By: Going Hyper-Local - Location Based Internet | WOWNDADI

Going Hyper-Local - Location Based Internet | WOWNDADI — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:34:07 +0000

[...] space is not without its issues (see this post about post code data), with access to data and privacy being major converns. However, the next few [...]

By: Fran Knight

Fran Knight — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:25:34 +0000

Hi When postcodes were first brought out I and others were led to believe you would then only need a name a house number and the postcode to send mail, it has never been like that. Why not?
Fran

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:42:51 +0000

Emergency Services also use the PAF data and currently in Wales PAF overwrite supplied primary Welsh addresses with English which causes no end of problems. Free the data please TOM

By: Free Our Data: the blog » Blog Archive » Want the Postcode Address File for free? Just ask

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:04:16 +0000

[...] Obviously, we would not condone using it in ways that breach the Royal Mail licence. We’re aiming to do this legally. But it’s definitely another success for the Power of Information taskforce and Tom Watson in the Cabinet Office. He said he’d have a go on June 29th; now he’s achieved it. Three weeks? For government and licensing regimes, that’s fast. The following posts may be related…(the database guesses): In today’s Guardian: who will address the postcode mess? (13 July 2006; score: 67.83%)Will the Post Office and Ordnance Survey ever agree about house names? (10 July 2006; score: 54.06%)Postcomm makes recommendations on future of Postcode Address File: it should make a profit (19 April 2007; score: 53.3%)Revealed: how profitable Royal Mail’s Postcode Address File (PAF) really is (26 April 2007; score: 50.18%)Paying twice for data? Through your council, you might be paying EIGHT times (21 March 2006; score: 33.52%) [...]

By: Grant

Grant — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:37:24 +0000

Given that Local Authorities are statutorily the creators of a house name/number and street name and that Royal Mail (RM) simply add the postcode to speed up their sorting, a valid address actually consists of the name/number, street and town. Note that this does not include the post-town, which often does not match the geographic town and can be very confusing.

RM have done a good job of selling the postcode as a requirement for your “official” address, assisted by companies which refuse anything without a postcode as they use PAF to determine address validity. However RM will deliver mail without a postcode (it just takes longer and presumably costs them more).

Imagine then if enough people refused to use postcodes on mail and let RM pick up the cost of the extra sorting. I think this would quickly eat into the revenues from the PAF file and make the free release of the data more attractive.

By: ARDN

ARDN — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:36:02 +0000

The counter-argument to this analysis goes as follows:

RM is not a public body within the meaning of the Directive.

Even if it is, its public task includes selling the PAF to maximise its revenues or profits.

It is not obliged to increase its costs to lower the marginal costs for re-users.

The re-use regulations allow it to withdraw PAF as a service to outside organistions completely, leaving customers to find postcodes some other way as they do for e-mail and fax numbers, for example. (There are independent businesses which publish directories.)

ARDN signing off.

By: ARDN

ARDN — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:11:37 +0000

The PAF is PSI and covered by SI 1515 of 5 July 2005 which transposed the EU Directive on Re-use of Public Sector Information, 2003.

The legislation allows charging for making PSI available for re-use provided that the price is the same for all re-users and is no greater than marginal cost. The cost of PAF for RM’s public task – roughly equivalent to its statutory duty to deliver a univesal postal service – must be incurred and covers the maintenance of the file.

The marginal cost of re-use of the PAF, given that it has to be complete, accurate and up to date to support the public task, is almost zero. If anybody in the public or private sector gets it for free, then all re-users are entitled to get it free. If it is already on line, the marginal cost of searching and retrieving all, part or individual items increases with the server power needed to cope with the demand. If it is distributed on CD, there are costs for the media, postage and handling: say a few pounds.

The counter-argument to this analysis goes as follows:

By: Greg

Greg — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:35:45 +0000

This debate really is getting some traction – the blog posts at Free Our Data and gisconsultancy.com are taking it further; and Tim Watts’ take at TreeOfKnowledge moves it into the general area of allowing Ministers to get insights from interested or knowledgeable parties for free.
Reading through here and the external posts, I’ve learnt more about the way public authorities are tied in knots with each other, passing around data, money and ridculously complex licensing arrangements.
I wonder, Tom, if the last time the Treasury looked at this they looked at the total system cost of PAF licensing within the public sector alone? That is to say, my view is that the cost to the economy of PAF licensing far exceeds the Royal Mail’s revenue. However, the Treasury will typically look at the narrow balance sheet for the Royal Mail (ie. if the RM receives Â£500m a year for licensing PAF, they want to keep that public sector income, however much more money could be made for UK PLC if it were opened up). Perhaps, though, the picture might be more conducive if the Treasury looked at the following calculation:
Revenue from PAF licensing
minus Amount paid by public sector organisations for access to PAF
minus Costs incurred by public sector organisations in legal and transactional costs
minus Opportunity costs incurred by public sector in not using PAF data as widely as they would if it were free
minus Amount spent by public sector on other sources of postcode data (QAS, Experian, etc)
minus Costs to RM in preparing, maintaining, marketing and negotiating licenses
May be time for a FOI request.

By: Rob Dunfey

Rob Dunfey — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:13:08 +0000

Tom, Dennis, Steve,

I’ve elaborated on the NLPG and the ‘Postcode Chestnut’ with a blog post ; I’d be really keen to hear any comment, especially the outcome of your research into the issue Tom.

All the best,

Rob