Post Office outages and service status in Boston, England
No problems detected
If you are having issues, please submit a report below.
Full Outage Map
- Post Office generated 0 outage signals in the last 24 hours around Boston, including 0 direct reports.
Post Office offers home phone and broadband internet service, as well as financial services including savings, loans and credit cards.
Problems in the last 24 hours in Boston, England
The chart below shows the number of Post Office reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Boston, England and surrounding areas. An outage is declared when the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line.
At the moment, we haven't detected any problems at Post Office. Are you experiencing issues or an outage? Leave a message in the comments section!
Community Discussion
Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.
Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.
Post Office Issues Reports
Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:
-
RLK (@RLK303303) reported@HarrovianTERF @PostOffice This is for a customer.
-
Artur Nadolny (@ArturNadol7566) reportedPOST OFFICE REWRITES ITS OWN SCANDAL I was reading through the Post Office Process Review page on the corporate @PostOffice website when one paragraph was cought my attention... The PPR, was set up after the Common Issues Judgment in March 2019, the ruling that came out of Alan Bates and others versus Post Office Limited and first forced Post Office to admit its Horizon accounting system was unreliable and that postmasters had been wrongly blamed for shortfalls the system itself created. "Since the Common Issues Judgment in March 2019, we have carried out work across the business to identify products, policies or processes that may have caused financial loss to Postmasters because of the way they were designed or delivered." The background section on the page says Post Office has carried out work to identify products, policies or processes that may have caused financial loss to postmasters because of the way they were designed or delivered. That phrasing removes Post Office as the party doing the designing and delivering. The losses did not just happen because of how something was designed, Post Office designed it. "We wish to put this right in a straightforward and transparent way, and we have therefore set up the Post Office Process Review to provide financial redress for current and former Postmasters who were impacted." A line further down says Post Office wishes to put this right in a straightforward and transparent way. That reads as voluntary goodwill. What actually happened is a court judgment forced Post Office to admit fault after years of fighting the litigation that proved it, and the PPR exists because of that judgment, not out of an independent wish to be transparent. "You may be aware that there have also been other redress schemes available for people impacted by the Horizon IT Scandal. You can submit a request to the Post Office Process Review whether or not you have separately received a payment or have a case in progress through any of those other redress schemes." Then comes the paragraph that caught my attention most. It tells readers there have also been other redress schemes available for people impacted by the Horizon IT Scandal, and that a postmaster can apply to the PPR whether or not they have already received a payment through one of those other schemes. Read on its own, with no background on the case, this makes Post Office sound like an intermediary. Something called the Horizon IT Scandal happened to postmasters, and Post Office is now helping them access redress for it, alongside other schemes that also exist to help. Post Office built and ran the Horizon system. Post Office prosecuted postmasters using data from that system. Post Office fought the litigation that eventually proved the system was flawed, for years, at public expense, before the judgment forced its hand. The redress schemes named here, including the PPR itself, exist because Post Office caused the losses they compensate. The page also treats the PPR issues and the Horizon IT Scandal as two separate subjects, one involving products, policies and processes, the other a scandal that happened elsewhere, to other people, through other schemes. A postmaster or anybody else reading this without prior context could reasonably conclude that Post Office is a well-meaning administrator cleaning up a mess it did not create. Most people who land on this page are not journalists or campaigners. They are current or former postmasters, or their family members, trying to work out if they are owed money and how to ask for it, and many will not have followed the litigation, the public inquiry, or the years of reporting that established what actually happened. For that reader, the framing on this page is the information. If it tells them Post Office is helping victims of a scandal rather than admitting to causing one, that is what they will take away, and it will shape how much scrutiny they think the process deserves. Post Office has spent years controlling how this story gets told, first by denying there was a problem at all, then by fighting compensation claims, and now by writing its own compensation scheme in language that keeps the institution at arm's length from what it did. The wording on this page is small. The pattern is not.
-
(((robingillis)))✡🦁🐇🐱 (@sweepybuns) reported@jonsdottir13 @lily_lna @PostOffice She was a CUSTOMER, ding ****.
-
Keira Connolly (@keira_con) reported@lily_lna @PostOffice Wow @PostOffice I see a well dressed woman who could be on her way to an event or a wedding using your services would you treat a person who spent the day on a beach who was wearing a wrap the same way. ?
-
Charlotte Nevison (@CharlotteNevis3) reported@juliedoherty29 @PostOffice @lily_lna She was a customer.
-
Marv147 (@Marv147) reported@Rahmani_Mreza @lily_lna @PostOffice If you read the note, it clearly says ‘backless’, not ‘blackless’. Also, an employer can, within reason dictate what is or isn’t deemed work attire. That outfit doesn’t bother me but may be too risqué for others. I can also dictate what people wear if they want service
-
Pamela ✝️🇺🇸 (@pamelagg01) reported@lily_lna @PostOffice You’re a paying customer not an employee. I don’t see that it’s any of their business. Ask them what they plan to do about it. If it’s something they shouldn’t tell them your attorney will be in contact.
-
GulagInmate57908 (@GulagInmate5790) reported@Davebale @lily_lna @PostOffice They're called burqas, you islamophobic piece of ****.
-
JSR 🛕 🇮🇳 ⚔ (@JS02Hyd) reported@NCMIndiaa NonStop corruption for ₹500-₹3000 Why not hav a robust procedure. Recommended: HOME verification,done by @IndiaPostOffice for ₹100-200 fee PostOffice NOC online& T+1 day Police commissioner NOC to MEA MEA prints passport,T+2 + Post issue,Verify Annual
-
Mac Dazzle (@DazzleMac) reported@lily_lna @PostOffice I bet the staff were from a certain religion that has a problem with women showing and kind of flesh (including the face)