The review stopped short of recommending that the PAF be spun out to its own company – rather, it’s in Royal Mail but surrounded by “Chinese Walls”.

Postcomm also noted that “As a result of the issues of database rights and IP rights, licences are particularly complex” – but it then washed its hands of them.

Their report also shows that Royal Mail made £1.5 million in profit from the PAF data.

It’s a shame that spin-out wasn’t considered. Surely a better, safer, fairer approach would be to go for a Linx type approach – a not for profit trust, that manages, maintains and develops the PAF, and sets the charges appropriately – including, possibly, letting it be free for non-profit/public use.

@chloe: Text/Geolocation and other methods are reducing the importance of postcodes – but the expectation of typing in postcodes into webpages isn’t going to go away anytime soon.

Our website really needs full postcode searching, but as a not-for-profit the kind of money concerned to buy the PAF doesn’t come easily. Sadly all the other options are incomplete – and using the Google reverse geocoder requires use of their map base to be within their T&Cs.

The PAF needs to be made freely accessible, as a public resource. But that needs to come through legal change (not ripping it off), and perhaps the current Earnest Marples stunt will help make that happen.

What are/were ErnestMarples.com actually using? Returning for the first response from a range of APIs?

businesses and charities publish their addresses on their websites, estate agents and online property services
use often list postcodes that can be found by search engines.

I enjoy working for royal mail and I am not a royal mail hater but they are behind the times and still fear the internet, texting, email and so on. there is a time to let go and provide a service and garner appreciation not cling to old ways of thinking and short term profits.