Bad debt of previous home owner

peachyprice

lvader wrote: »

This is the relevant law.

But you are choosing to ignore this part

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.

lvader

If you open it and they don't get it, it is to their detriment.

olly300

lvader wrote: »

I have quoted the law.

You have taken The Postal Services Act 2000 out of context.

You are allowed to open some ones mail that lands on your doorstep as long as you are not doing it for financial gain.

Once mail lands on your doorstep it is considered delivered regardless of whether you are the intended recipient.

If you then open the letters and contact the companies concerned that:
1. The intended recipient doesn't live at the address,
2. This is the address they now live at, AND
3. What would they like you to do now with the letter?

You have committed no crime and no offence.

However if you opened a letter (which for the sake of an example) was a pre-approved credit card application, signed up for the card and spent on it then told them the person moved out you have committed an offence. However this would likely come under a different law but they would use the Postal Services Act 2000 if they couldn't find anything else to stick.

lvader

olly300 wrote: »

You have taken The Postal Services Act 2000 out of context.

No I haven't , it clearly is talking about delivered mail.

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.

Fire_Fox

lvader wrote: »

This is the relevant law.

"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."

Which is the relevant law? You haven't referenced it therefore your quote is meaningless.

olly300

lvader wrote: »

No I haven't , it clearly is talking about delivered mail.

Are you just trolling because you are bored on a Saturday?

If you are then I got some bad news for you - I've blatantly done this since the law came in and haven't been arrested or charged.

The reason being I was not acting in the person's detriment. In one case I was actually prevent harm happening to them as the bank would have send out cards and cheque books to the addresses which could have been used by someone less scrupulous.

The bank could have quite easily chased me as I'm one of their customers as well. I told them that and gave my fullname on the phone.

lvader

It's the postal services act of 2000.

olly300

lvader wrote: »

It's the postal services act of 2000.

You only know that because I kindly wrote it for you.

lvader

olly300 wrote: »

Are you just trolling because you are bored on a Saturday?

If you are then I got some bad news for you - I've blatantly done this since the law came in and haven't been arrested or charged.

The reason being I was not acting in the person's detriment. In one case I was actually prevent harm happening to them as the bank would have send out cards and cheque books to the addresses which could have been used by someone less scrupulous.

The bank could have quite easily chased me as I'm one of their customers as well.

Millions of people break the law on a regular basis and don't get procecuted, but that in itself can't be used in your defense. Detriment is just another word for loss, not getting mail intended for them is a loss, being chased for money it his new address because you opened his mail and passed on his details to a 3rd party is to his detriment.

lvader

olly300 wrote: »

You only know that because I kindly wrote it for you.

No I'd already found it , hense I quoted from it.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2000/ukpga_20000026_en_8#pt5-pb1-l1g84