Royal Mail Group
Forensic assessment · v1.1.0 · updated 1 November 2026
Translation pending: the assessment text below is in English, the authoritative record.
- Response status
- No contact on file
- Last contact
- None on file
- Next date on file
- None on file
- Earlier version
- v1.0.0, published 21 October 2026 on the Legal Wiki
Since last assessment
14 October 2026 to 1 November 2026
Our reading: No new correspondence is on file since the last assessment. The earlier finding stands unchanged.
The assessment as last published
Carried over unchanged from v1.0.0 (21 October 2026). Links point inside this site.
Assessed 14 October 2026. Scope: modern records-access involvement on a family-history lead. Inclusion is not a finding of fault.
Documented appearances
| Date | Appearance | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 12 Aug, 17 Aug and 2 Sep 2026 | Royal Mail Group states it has not been subject to the Freedom of Information Act since 2013 and recommends the Postal Museum and Archive. | Reply register R32; see FOI & Public-Authority Reply Register |
Current finding
As at 14 October 2026, the material reviewed does not establish wrongdoing. Royal Mail Group declined to answer under FOI because it is outside the Act, and signposted the archive route. That is a jurisdiction point, not a search result.
Next step
Approach the Postal Museum and Archive with the same question that was put to Post Office Limited. Acceptance: a catalogue reference or a dated negative search result.
Related
Created 14 October 2026. Prepared with AI assistance from the wiki’s existing records, on the family’s instruction. Corrections are welcome and will be dated here.
Change history is maintained on the Master Change Log; no separate page-local version footer is maintained.
Case file
This file is built for a future reparations claim. Facts are as the records show them; interpretation is labelled “our reading”. Items marked “not checked” have not been compared with the original record.
(a) Conduct timeline
0 dated interactions, oldest first; 0 automatic acknowledgements are left out. Quotations are verbatim from the institution’s email; where the reply’s substance was an attachment, the email subject is quoted instead.
Show the timeline
| Date | Direction | Reference | Type | Verbatim |
|---|
(b) Inconsistencies and gaps
None found in the correspondence on file.
(c) Quarantined-name links
Records on the quarantine register (Kissed Frogs) that sit in, or came from, this institution’s holdings. None is treated as settled.
No quarantined-name record on the register is linked to this institution’s holdings.
(d) Duty and liability — our reading
Liability indicators (our reading): none
- Duty
- No general statutory duty to disclose; UK GDPR Art. 15 for personal data it holds; duties in contract, conveyancing practice or professional rules where it was a party, agent or adviser; once on notice of a possible claim, an expectation to preserve relevant documents.
- Indicators the duty was not met
- none found in the correspondence on file.
- Evidence still needed to confirm
- the institution’s retention schedule and disposal record for the series in question; the catalogue or file list it searched; any internal review or complaint outcome.
- Likely extent of exposure if confirmed
- Depends on its role in a transaction: where it was a party or adviser to a dealing in the land, exposure follows that role; otherwise none beyond data-protection duties.
(e) Evidence still needed
- View any deposited papers (company or estate records) at the archive that holds them. for paid visit list
Versions
| 1.1.0 | 2026-11-01 | Moved to the Forensic Assessments webapp; dated “Since last assessment” section added; response status re-read. |
| 1.0.0 | 2026-10-21 | As published on the Legal Wiki. |