Why Royal Mail Should No Longer Be Trusted for Anything Important — and Why It Should Just Be Called “Mail”

---

Why Royal Mail Should No Longer Be Trusted for Anything Important — and Why It Should Just Be Called “Mail”

The recent chaos at Royal Mail has exposed a simple truth: the service can no longer be relied upon for anything that truly matters. In the West Midlands, particularly in areas like Kidderminster, letters have been piling up for weeks, with postal workers describing sorting offices as resembling a “slaughterhouse” of scattered mail. This is not a minor glitch; it is a systemic failure with real human consequences.

Residents report that vital documents have vanished into the backlog. One elderly person in Kidderminster nearly went without diabetes monitoring equipment because the batteries for their blood‑glucose meter never arrived on time. In Solihull, a family received only two deliveries after Christmas, one of which contained a husband’s cancer‑surgery and scan notifications. Had those letters been delayed even slightly, treatment could have been postponed. Another resident, working in online marketing, almost missed a court deadline because legal papers arrived two weeks late, putting her at risk of a £300 fine and deepening her anxiety.

Royal Mail publicly blames the delays on staff sickness, bad weather, and Christmas parcel overload. It insists that mail is still delivered at least once every other day. Yet postal workers say the opposite is happening: management has ordered them to prioritise parcels over letters, and has refused to approve overtime to clear the backlog. This internal logic—treating urgent correspondence as secondary to commercial parcels—turns the postal service into a profit‑driven logistics arm rather than a public utility.

When healthcare information, court notices, benefit letters, and tax documents are all at the mercy of a system that treats them as low priority, the name “Royal Mail” becomes an uncomfortable irony. The “Royal” prefix suggests stability, tradition, and trust. In practice, it now signals a brand that has failed to adapt, underinvested in infrastructure, and lost public confidence. If the service cannot guarantee timely delivery for life‑affecting items, it should not be allowed to keep a title that implies reliability and prestige.

A simple but symbolic reform would be to strip the name of “Royal” and rebrand it as “Mail” or “UK Mail.” This would reflect the reality: a basic, often unreliable carrier, not a crown‑endorsed institution. More importantly, it would force both the company and the public to treat it for what it is—a fragile, under‑resourced network that should never be the sole channel for critical communications.

Citizens, doctors, courts, and government agencies should stop assuming that “first‑class post” means “safe and timely.” Instead, they should:

• Use tracked courier services for medical and legal documents.

• Rely on secure email or verified portals for government correspondence.

• Treat any Royal Mail delivery as a best‑effort service, not a guarantee.

Until Royal Mail proves it can consistently deliver what matters, it should not be entrusted with anything that affects health, justice, or livelihood. And if it cannot live up to the dignity of its name, it should at least drop the “Royal” and be honest about its true status: just another mail service, not a national institution.