AS an islander and a former postman, I am interested in the debate regarding extra delivery charges to rural Scotland ("One million Scots ripped off by parcel delivery fees", The Herald, December 19).
My understanding from frequent querying of why this happens is that many suppliers enter into contracts with non-national carriers who are only happy to operate within the areas outlined by England's major cities. This is on the basis that economies of scale in relation to quantity and distance allow the carrier to profit handsomely while undercutting Parcelforce on the busiest and/or shortest routes.
But then the carrier stipulates that its customer – the supplier – must use it for all deliveries. Thus it cherry-picks where it will deliver while denying the supplier the choice of carriers (and therefore how the supplier can best service its customers).
Even when these charges are agreed and an order is placed, these carriers are not the ones which deliver – they either have sub-contracts with other regional carriers (further increasing the cost to the customer as they take their cut), or they pass the goods to Parcelforce who then deliver at the normal universal rate. We are often paying for someone to carry a package from a pick-up point to the nearest post office.
The bottom line is that Parcelforce is undercut on short-distance carriage but carrying the burden disproportionately of long-haul unprofitable deliveries. This could be readily rectified by making such restrictive practices illegal (if indeed they are not already). Firms with goods to shift would receive additional custom and consumers would get a fairer deal.
In reality pressure for this has to come from suppliers which are tied to these practices, as well as consumers.
This is not the first time Citizens Advice Scotland has raised this – but it's way past time it pushed the Office of Fair Trading hard to actually do something.
Gordon Chalmers,
Raeric Road,
Tobermory.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article