Digital v Paper Waste, Climate Change & Net Zero | DISABLED ENTREPRENEUR

Written by Andrew Jones

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal, financial, medical, or data protection advice. Laws, public authority policies, and benefit rules can change. Anyone affected by excessive paper correspondence, inaccessible communication, missing medical records, or repeated digital reminders should seek advice from Citizens Advice, the Equality Advisory Support Service, the ICO, a solicitor, or the relevant complaints body.

Paper Waste and the Push for Net Zero. Why Digital Communication Must Be Accessible

Going digital can save public money, reduce paper waste, support Net Zero, and improve accessibility, but only if public bodies stop duplicating messages, respect reasonable adjustments, and protect personal data securely.

The UK Government has committed to reaching Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, meaning emissions produced should be balanced by emissions removed from the atmosphere. That commitment is often discussed in terms of transport, energy, heating, and industry, but one overlooked issue is the everyday waste created by public bodies printing, posting, duplicating, and re-sending information that could often be sent securely by email or accessed through an online account.

Digital transformation is already a major government aim. The Government’s 2025 digital blueprint says progress across public services has been uneven, that under-digitisation remains a problem, and that digital inclusion must be central so that services support those who are digitally excluded rather than abandoning them. In other words, the solution should not be “digital-only”; it should be “digital-first, accessible, secure, and choice-based.”

How Much Money Is Wasted on Printing and Postage?

There does not appear to be one simple published figure showing the total amount spent across the whole UK public sector on printing and posting documents. This is part of the problem: costs are spread across central government departments, councils, NHS bodies, outsourced print suppliers, case-management systems, legal notices, benefit letters, council tax bills, and automated correspondence.

However, the available figures show the scale. The National Audit Office reported that HMRC spent £68 million on outgoing postage and print costs in 2022–23 and intended to save £16.5 million in 2024–25 by reviewing its 100 highest-volume letters to see whether they could be stopped, digitised, or better signposted to digital channels.

GOV.UK Notify, the central government messaging platform, says emails are free to send through the service, while letters cost money. Its letter pricing, last updated 1 July 2026, shows that even a one-sheet letter costs 63.8p by economy mail, 73p by second class, and £1.56 by first class, excluding VAT. That means one million one-page letters can cost from £638,000 to £1.56 million before considering staff time, returned mail, complaint handling, duplicate reminders, storage, and environmental costs.

Royal Mail’s current second-class letter price starts at 91p for a standard letter up to 100g, and larger or heavier letters cost more. Public bodies using bulk suppliers may pay different rates, but every letter still has a cost: paper, printing, envelopes, handling, postage, failed delivery, and sometimes follow-up correspondence when the recipient does not receive or cannot deal with the letter.

Local authority examples also show the savings. GOV.UK’s own blog reported that Dacorum Borough Council sent 3,000 fewer letters in one three-month period after using text reminders for council tax arrears, saving £5,000 in printing and postage. Epping Forest District Council says paperless council tax billing helps reduce printing and postage costs and makes bills available online 24/7.

Paper Waste and Climate Change

Paper communication has a carbon footprint before it even reaches the door. It involves paper production, ink, envelopes, printers, electricity, storage, transport, postal delivery, returned mail, and disposal. Digital communication is not carbon-free either because emails, cloud storage, data centres, and servers use energy. However, repeated paper correspondence, especially where the recipient has asked for digital communication, is difficult to justify in a Net Zero public sector.

The environmental argument is not simply “email good, paper bad.” The better argument is: send the right message, once, through the safest and most accessible channel, and avoid unnecessary duplication. A short, secure email or online account notification may be appropriate for routine information. A formal legal notice, safeguarding letter, or court document may still need postal service. The key is proportionality.

Why Are Councils and Agencies Still Sending Historical Data Every Month?

Many local authorities and agencies use legacy systems that automatically generate monthly statements, council tax notices, benefit notifications, rent account summaries, arrears letters, or historical transaction breakdowns. Sometimes these are necessary because the public body must prove a debt, confirm a payment schedule, notify of a change, or comply with statutory rules. For example, council tax demand notices are legally important because they confirm the amount due and instalment dates.

But where a person is receiving monthly historical data that adds nothing new, the public body should be asked: why is this necessary, what legal duty requires it, and can it be sent digitally instead? The ICO’s data minimisation principle says personal data should be adequate, relevant, and limited to what is necessary for the purpose. It also says organisations should not hold or process more personal data than they need.

A resident should be able to ask for:

“Please stop sending monthly historical paper statements unless there is a new decision, legal notice, arrears action, payment change, or urgent matter. I request digital access to routine information and paper correspondence only where legally required.”

Can You Ask for Digital Communication Only?

Yes, you can ask. Whether the organisation must agree depends on the type of document, the law governing that service, and whether you are asking as a general preference or as a disability-related reasonable adjustment.

For ordinary service updates, reminders, statements, newsletters, and account information, many public bodies already offer email, online accounts, portals, or e-billing. For certain formal notices, a public body may still argue that post is required or safer, especially where legislation, identity verification, legal enforcement, or evidence of service is involved. Some council tax electronic communication rules depend on the person agreeing to receive documents electronically.

The important point is that “we always send paper” is not a good enough answer when a person has a disability, anxiety, visual impairment, mobility difficulty, contamination-related OCD, dyslexia, executive-function difficulty, or another condition that makes postal communication harder to manage.

Reasonable Adjustments: Difficulty Opening Mail

A person can request reasonable adjustments if a disability or long-term health condition makes it harder to access a service. Citizens Advice explains that reasonable adjustments can include changes to a rule, process, or way of doing things, including how an organisation contacts someone. It also gives examples such as having more contact options, changing a process, or providing information in alternative formats.

Difficulty opening mail can be real and serious. It may arise because of physical pain, arthritis, tremors, visual impairment, cognitive overload, trauma responses, OCD contamination fears, anxiety, or depression. If postal mail causes substantial distress or creates a barrier to accessing a service, the person can request email-only or digital-first communication as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010.

A reasonable adjustment request should explain:

“I have a long-term health condition/disability which makes postal correspondence difficult to manage. Opening, sorting, and responding to physical mail causes substantial distress and create a barrier to accessing your service. I request that routine communication be sent by email or online account notification, and that postal letters be only used where legally required or genuinely urgent.”

If a public body refuses, it should explain why the adjustment is not reasonable, whether any alternative adjustment is available, and how the person can complain.

Can You Request Only the Most Important Notifications?

Yes. You can ask an agency to reduce communication to the minimum necessary. This can be framed as both an accessibility request and a data protection request.

Under UK GDPR, the right to object can apply where personal data is processed for a public task, official authority, or legitimate interests, although that right is not absolute. The ICO says individuals must give specific reasons based on their particular situation, and the organisation must consider whether it has compelling grounds to continue. If the processing causes substantial damage or distress, that should carry weight in the balancing exercise.

For public services, a sensible request might be:

“Please send only essential notifications, such as legal decisions, deadlines, payment changes, appointment changes, safeguarding matters, or action required. Please do not send duplicate reminders or monthly historical statements unless there is a new change or a legal requirement.”

This does not mean a person can opt out of all statutory notices. A council, DWP, NHS body, or court may still need to send certain documents. But they should not bombard people unnecessarily, especially where a person has explained that repeated notifications worsen a disability or mental health condition.

Digital Bombardment: When Digital Becomes the Problem

Going digital should not mean replacing paper waste with email harassment, text-message anxiety, and repeated portal alerts. Some agencies may send the same message by email, text, and online journal. Others may send daily reminders until a task is complete. This may be automated, but automation does not remove responsibility.

Universal Credit is a useful example. If someone is self-employed, GOV.UK says they must report business income and expenses to Universal Credit every month, even if there is no income or expenses that month. DWP says it will send a text message or email when the claimant needs to report, and a payment may be delayed if the report is late. GOV.UK also explains that when Universal Credit sends a journal message, the person will usually receive a text or email telling them to check their online account.

A reminder is understandable where benefits depend on monthly reporting. However, sending the same reminder every day, through multiple channels, can become disproportionate, distressing, and counterproductive. One reminder, one follow-up, and one final warning before a deadline may be enough in many cases.

Is a Daily Duplicate Notification “Harassment”?

Not automatically. This is where wording matters.

Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, harassment is linked to a “course of conduct” and generally requires conduct on two or more occasions that alarms a person or causes distress. The CPS says harassment includes alarming a person or causing distress, but whether repeated conduct legally amounts to harassment depends on context, connection between incidents, and reasonableness.

Under the Equality Act 2010, harassment involves unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. The EHRC gives examples, including offensive emails, but the conduct must fall within a situation covered by the Equality Act.

Therefore, a daily Universal Credit reminder is not automatically “harassment” simply because it is annoying or repetitive. A safer legal argument is:

“Repeated duplicate notifications may amount to maladministration, poor service design, excessive processing, or failure to make reasonable adjustments where the agency has been told the reminders cause disability-related distress. In serious cases, repeated unwanted communications may be relevant to a harassment complaint, but this depends on the facts.”

Subject Access Requests and Medical Records Sent by Post

Medical records are highly sensitive. When someone makes a Subject Access Request, the ICO says they have the right to obtain a copy of their personal data and supplementary information, and organisations should respond without undue delay and within one month in most cases. A SAR can be made verbally or in writing and does not need special wording.

If medical records are sent by ordinary second-class post and never arrive, that raises serious questions. It is not automatically unlawful to use post, but health data is special category data and requires strong security. NHS Resolution says SAR responses are sent securely by email or by recorded delivery if post is requested. That is a sensible benchmark: highly sensitive medical records should not be treated like junk mail.

The ICO’s security principle says personal data must be processed in a way that ensures appropriate security, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and accidental loss, destruction, or damage. The ICO also says a personal data breach can include loss, unauthorised disclosure, sending personal data to the wrong recipient, or loss of availability of personal data.

If medical records do not arrive, the organisation should investigate, confirm how they were sent, whether the address was verified, whether tracking exists, whether the package may have been lost or delivered incorrectly, and whether a personal data breach report is required. The patient should not be left guessing.

Privacy Policies and Security Questions Public Bodies Should Answer

When a public body insists on paper correspondence or postal SAR disclosure, it should be able to answer:

What lawful basis allows this processing?
Why is a post necessary instead of secure email or portal access?
Has the recipient requested digital communication or reasonable adjustments?
Is the data minimised to what is necessary?
Is the address verified before posting?
Is sensitive information sent, tracked, recorded, or securely encrypted?
What happens if the document is lost?
How does the privacy policy explain postal risks?
Who is accountable if records never arrive?
How can the person complain to the Data Protection Officer and the ICO?

A vague answer such as “this is our policy” should not be enough where sensitive personal data, disability access, and Net Zero commitments are involved.

Copy-and-Paste Request: Digital Communication and Reasonable Adjustments

Subject: Request for Digital Communication and Reasonable Adjustments

Dear [Organisation Name],

I am writing to request a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010 and to record my communication preferences.
Due to my long-term health condition/disability, postal correspondence causes difficulty, distress, and/or creates a barrier to accessing your service. I request that all routine correspondence be sent digitally by email, secure portal, or online account notification.

Please only send postal letters where there is a clear legal requirement, urgent safeguarding concern, court/legal notice, or where no secure digital option is available.

I also request that you reduce duplicate reminders and only send essential notifications, including legal decisions, deadlines, payment changes, appointments, or action required. Please do not send repeated monthly historical statements unless there has been a new change or legal requirement.

Please confirm:
That my digital communication preference has been recorded.
What correspondence, if any, do you say must still be sent by post?
The legal basis for any postal-only correspondence.
How can I escalate this if the adjustment is refused?

Kind regards,
[Your Name]
[Reference Number / Account Number]
[Email Address]

Copy-and-Paste Request: Secure SAR Delivery

Subject: Subject Access Request – Secure Delivery Requested

Dear [Organisation Name],

I am making a Subject Access Request for a copy of the personal data you hold about me, including [medical records/correspondence/account records/notes/call recordings, as applicable].

Because this information is sensitive, I request that it be sent by secure email, encrypted download, or secure portal. If you insist on sending it by post, please use tracked or recorded delivery and confirm the tracking reference.

Please do not send sensitive medical or personal records by ordinary second-class post without my written agreement.

Please also confirm:
What identity verification do you require?
The date you received this SAR.
The deadline for your response.
The method you will use to send the records securely.
Kind regards,
[Your Name]
[Date of Birth / NHS Number / Reference Number if needed]

Final Thoughts

The public sector cannot claim to support Net Zero while routinely printing and posting avoidable paperwork. It also cannot claim to be digital-first while bombarding vulnerable people with duplicate emails, texts, and portal reminders. Good digital government should be secure, accessible, proportionate, and respectful.

The paper should remain available for people who need it. Digital should be available for people who need it. The real waste is not simply paper itself, it is duplication, poor systems, inaccessible processes, and public bodies ignoring individual needs.

A modern public service should ask: Is this message necessary? Is this channel accessible? Is the data protected? Is the communication proportionate? Is there a greener, safer, and cheaper way to do this?