old landlord wont give us our post what do we do

custardy

you could have saved all this grief by asking your delivery office to retain the mail pending the redirection starting

PandorasJar

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Sorry, but you are completely mistaken. The quote you included in your post I believe relates purely to Royal Mail employees. I reiterate: it is not an offense to retain, open or destroy mail delivered to the correct address, the only potential criminal offense is putting that mail to fraudulent use.

Here's a brief extract from The Postal Act 2000

84 Interfering with the mail: general (1) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he—
(a) intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or
(b) intentionally opens a mail-bag.
(2) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 83 apply to subsection (1) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.
(3) A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 83 (so far as they relate to the opening of postal packets) apply to subsection (3) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.
(5) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

Stop spouting rubbish unless you're going to back it up with fact, rather than opinion.
This clearly states it is a criminal offence to open another persons mail without valid reasoning.

P

BitterAndTwisted

Actually, it does not. That excerpt you posted explicitly mentions the phrase "if, intending to act to a person's detriment AND without reasonable excuse". Not one or the other, but both together, simultaneously, at the same time. It's in perfectly plain and understandable English and I really don't believe that it's that difficult to comprehend but you appear not to have comprehended it. I didn't accuse you of spouting rubbish I said that I believed you were mistaken and I still do and I would ask you not to be so rude to people when you are patently suffering an inexcusable misapprehension.

PandorasJar

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Actually, it does not. That excerpt you posted explicitly mentions the phrase "if, intending to act to a person's detriment AND without reasonable excuse". Not one or the other, but both together, simultaneously, at the same time. It's in perfectly plain and understandable English and I really don't believe that it's that difficult to comprehend but you appear not to have comprehended it. I didn't accuse you of spouting rubbish I said that I believed you were mistaken and I still do and I would ask you not to be so rude to people when you are patently suffering an inexcusable misapprehension.

So withholding specific post is not to someones detriment?
Withholding possible doctors notations and bank statements isn't?

On specifically ordered things if he has signed, then it is theft.

BitterAndTwisted

PandorasJar wrote: »

So withholding specific post is not to someones detriment?
Withholding possible doctors notations and bank statements isn't?

On specifically ordered things if he has signed, then it is theft.

I believe you have misunderstood or failed to comprehend the legal definition of the word "detriment". The two examples you offered are poor ones as neither of those are irreplaceable but are inconveniences, I agree. But being inconvenienced is not against the law although deeply troublesome.

I have no wish to enter into any further communication with you about this as you have proven to be very impolite when I have been extremely temperate with my responses to you under the circumstances.

Icey77

clutton wrote: »

royal mail needs a utility bill from the old address and some photo ID in order to set up mail redirect - they are not to know you have recently molved out.... its about £40 for a year... if you want your mail.. its the only way to do it

I set mine up online, I had to provide details of a utility (isued my mobile bills) that was addressed to me at that address but didn't have to go to a post office or "show" anything to anybody.

chewmylegoff

PandorasJar wrote: »

So withholding specific post is not to someones detriment?
Withholding possible doctors notations and bank statements isn't?

On specifically ordered things if he has signed, then it is theft.

regardless of whether it is or is not a criminal offence, there would be no prospect of obtaining a criminal conviction as the offence could not be proven. there will be no evidence of any sort, unless recorded mail had been delivered and signed for by the landlord. for that to happen the landlord would have had to be at the house at the time. it sounds more likely that he simply can't be bothered to go and get the mail to forward onwards - that is certainly not a criminal offence.

as a last resort, threatening the landlord with getting the police involved (either for mail or theft offences) might have the desired effect if the landlord is dim enough to get scared at such a threat.

BitterAndTwisted

If he's reading this thread he certainly won't be!

caeler

Just my opinion, but you only moved out a couple of weeks ago, maybe your LL has just not had chance to pop it in the post 'return to sender' or 'to your new address'. I'm sure LL is busy. I've had a letter sitting by my door for a previous occupant for a couple of weeks and I've not had chance to put back in the post, infact I need some fresh air I may do it now!

chewmylegoff

vaporate wrote: »

I didn't say that. What I mean is that the LL has no right in stopping the tenant from coming and collecting their post.

well, he has no right to stop the tenant knocking on the front door of the property, or his door, and asking for the post. but the tenant doesn't have any right to be given access to the property to collect the post.