Royal Mail's Price Hikes Expose Ofcom's Regulatory Weakness

The numbers tell a damning story. Royal Mail hasn't met its annual first-class delivery targets since 2019-20. Yet that hasn't stopped the company announcing its eighth stamp price increase in six years, pushing first-class stamps to £1.80 and second-class to 91p from 7 April.

Prices have more than doubled whilst service quality has demonstrably declined. What's remarkable isn't the increase itself—it's that the regulator keeps allowing it to happen.

When accountability vanishes

This is what regulatory failure looks like when you strip away the euphemisms. Ofcom, charged with holding Royal Mail accountable, has presided over a system where a company can consistently miss its legal obligations whilst repeatedly extracting more money from consumers. The uncomfortable question isn't just why Royal Mail thinks this is acceptable—it's why Ofcom does.

Enjoying this article?

Get stories like this in your inbox every week.

Join the Community

The pattern is textbook. Royal Mail points to falling letter volumes—down 70% over two decades—and rising costs as justification. Richard Travers, the firm's managing director for letters, notes that UK adults now spend just £6.50 annually on stamps, positioning the increases as modest against European averages of £1.56 for second-class and £1.93 for first-class stamps.

That comparison requires scrutiny. Are those European postal services consistently missing their delivery targets? If they're charging more whilst actually delivering on their obligations, the analogy collapses.

What consumers face here isn't expensive postage—it's expensive, unreliable postage. There's a material difference.

The timing raises further questions. Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky's EP Group acquired Royal Mail's parent company International Distribution Services for £3.6 billion last June. Less than a year into new ownership, prices climb again. Whether this reflects genuine cost pressures or new owners prioritising returns over investment isn't clear from Royal Mail's public statements.

Reform in limbo

Ofcom approved structural reforms in 2024 intended to modernise the service: scrapping Saturday second-class deliveries and moving to alternating weekday collection. Royal Mail has piloted these changes across 35 delivery offices but can't agree terms with the Communication Workers Union to roll them out across its 1,200-office network. Month-long talks concluded on 2 March without agreement, though they've been extended for two weeks.

This creates an absurd limbo. Consumers pay more based partly on promised reforms that haven't materialised. The universal service obligation—the legal requirement to deliver letters six days weekly at uniform prices nationwide—sits unenforceable whilst Royal Mail and the union negotiate.

Meanwhile, MPs have hauled the company before committee to explain "chaos" since Christmas, including allegations of batch letter delivery that suggests operational failures beyond structural volume decline. What's interesting here is the mismatch between Royal Mail's narrative and observable reality.

The company speaks of creating "a more modern, more reliable and more sustainable service" through reform. But reliability has declined under the existing service model.

The regulatory ratchet

Citizens Advice has called for Ofcom to tie future price increases to performance metrics. Anne Pardoe, the charity's head of policy, put it directly: "Higher prices must come with higher standards—increases should be tied to Royal Mail's performance on the doorstep." More than half a decade of missed targets suggests the current regulatory framework lacks teeth.

This matters beyond postal services. If a regulated utility with a universal service obligation can consistently underperform whilst raising prices, what precedent does that set? Energy companies, water utilities, and transport operators all face similar tensions between commercial viability and public service obligations.

Royal Mail's situation tests whether regulators can enforce accountability or merely observe market dynamics whilst issuing stern statements. The structural challenge is real: letter volumes have collapsed as digital communication replaced physical post. Royal Mail delivers to 32 million addresses, four million more than two decades ago, handling far fewer items per address.

The economics genuinely have deteriorated. But that's an argument for reforming the service model or renegotiating the universal service obligation—not for maintaining legal targets whilst missing them and charging more.

Ofcom's next move will signal whether regulatory oversight means anything substantive. If the regulator approves further increases without demanding measurable performance improvements, it confirms what many suspect: that consumer protection in privatised utilities is largely performative. The alternative—linking pricing power to delivery performance—would represent actual accountability.

Royal Mail's reforms may eventually deliver a sustainable service model. The union negotiations may conclude with workable compromises. But those are future possibilities, not present realities. Right now, consumers face higher prices for worse service, and the institution meant to prevent exactly that outcome appears unable or unwilling to act.

More articles by Ross Williams