
MPS screening checks mailing records against the Mailing Preference Service, helping direct mail teams identify registered preferences before printing and posting a campaign. It belongs alongside your own suppression records and address quality checks when preparing an audience.
The practical question is not simply whether an address can receive a letter. It is whether this named contact should be included in this particular marketing mailing. This guide explains where MPS fits, what it cannot decide and how to build the check into campaign preparation.
The Mailing Preference Service lets people register to reduce unsolicited addressed advertising mail. It concerns postal marketing and is separate from the telephone preference registers. The official MPS frequently asked questions explains the service’s coverage and exceptions.
MPS does not stop all post. Its coverage does not extend to mail addressed simply to “The Occupier” or “The Homeowner”, or to a business name. Existing relationships and requested mail also need separate consideration. Treat screening as a defined check rather than a universal stop-mail system.
A screening process compares the relevant recipient and address information with the preference register and identifies matches for handling under your campaign rules. DataSoap provides an MPS screening service as part of its data quality platform.
Record which list was screened, when the check took place and how matches were handled. A clean-looking spreadsheet is not evidence that a preference check has been performed.
| Check | Question it helps answer |
|---|---|
| MPS screening | Does the record match the postal preference register? |
| PAF address validation | Does the postal address match recognised Royal Mail address data? |
| Internal suppression | Has this person told our organisation not to use their details for this marketing? |
| Campaign eligibility | Does the record belong in the audience we have chosen? |
A successful address match does not override an objection. Likewise, absence from a preference register does not settle every question about using personal information. Read our PAF validation guide for the address-quality side of the process.
Write down what you are sending, to whom and why. Separate a marketing campaign from operational correspondence rather than applying one rule indiscriminately to all letters.
Work from the intended audience instead of the entire CRM. This reduces unnecessary processing and makes the final reconciliation easier.
Check that names and address elements are in the appropriate fields. Preserve the original record ID so results can be matched back without relying on a name alone.
Do not assume that every entry at an address represents the same person or preference. Discuss the matching requirements with your provider if a source file has incomplete or unusual name fields.
Apply the organisation’s own postal marketing suppression records. An objection received directly from a person matters even if no register match is returned. Make sure the mailing team can obtain the latest exclusions, including objections received after the original export.
Use PAF validation to assess address quality and MPS screening for the preference check. Set rules for uncertain matches and incomplete data before processing the whole file. A representative sample can expose layout problems before they affect a large campaign.
Separate records ready for the next stage from matches excluded under your rules and records requiring review. Give the fulfilment team only the approved campaign file, not an unfiltered export with an expectation that someone will interpret it later.
Imagine a fundraising team preparing a mailing to a defined prospect audience. One address is perfectly formatted but the recipient has already objected directly to that charity’s marketing. Another address has missing information. A third record produces an MPS match.
All three need attention, but for different reasons. The first needs its objection respected, the second needs address review, and the third needs the campaign’s MPS handling rule applied. Combining everything into one unexplained “bad data” label makes future imports and enquiries harder to manage.
Build screening into the preparation timetable before artwork quantities and final fulfilment files are locked. Leave time to review uncertain records and reflect changes in the audience.
For recurring mailings, do not assume that an old result describes the audience forever. Agree an appropriate refresh process and take account of the current provider requirements, campaign timing and new objections. Reapply internal exclusions to the final file close to release.
A useful job record includes the source segment, screening date, checks performed, count of approved and excluded records, handling rules and the person responsible for sign-off. Keep access controlled and apply your retention policy to exports and working files.
The ICO’s preference guidance explains why suppression records should contain only what is needed to respect objections. A screening exercise does not remove the need to assess the wider data protection requirements for your campaign.
No. MPS relates to postal marketing, while TPS and CTPS relate to live marketing calls. Choose the check relevant to the channel.
No. Preference screening is not a residency check. Address validation and accurate customer records serve different purposes.
No. Your internal records of objections remain a separate and essential part of preparing the campaign.
Combine a clear audience, current suppression records and suitable address checks before committing to production. Explore DataSoap MPS screening and PAF address validation, or ask the team about preparing your mailing file.
£100 of credits for £4.99. New customers, once.