Debt collectors - previous occupier

adouglasmhor

liam8282 wrote: »

:j You WORKED for RM. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::T:T:T:T:T

Nice evasion, I see you are just spouting and have nothing but gossip and opinion to bring to the subject. Well done sir, your opinion and 41p will get you a first class stamp.

adouglasmhor

liam8282 wrote: »

I'll bring this to the table:

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/EnergySupplyandPost/post/yourmail/mailforpreviousoccupiers

Under the Postal Services Act 2000, a person commits an offence if they open an item of post which they know or reasonably suspect has been correctly delivered to the address - but addressed to a previous occupant.

Royal Mail are obliged to deliver the post as addressed and advise that the only way to stop a mailing is at source.

Score through the address with a pen and write on the front of the envelope NOT KNOWN AT THIS ADDRESS RETURN TO SENDER. Put the mail back into a post box - free of charge. If there is no return address visible, Royal Mail have a returned letter centre in Belfast where they are allowed to open the mail and repatriate with the sender. The relevant database should then be amended and the mailings stop. If no suitable recipient can be established the item will be destroyed.

They are obviously as mistaken as you. Here is the section of the act in question, you have to be pretty dumb to get that from this.
PART V

Page 8 of 19
Previous Next
First page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Last page
Expand All Explanatory Notes (ENs)
Part V

Offences in relation to Postal Services

Offences of interfering with the mail

83 Interfering with the mail: postal operators (1) A person who is engaged in the business of a postal operator commits an offence if, contrary to his duty and 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) Subsection (1) does not apply to the delaying or opening of a postal packet or the opening of a mail-bag under the authority of—
(a) this Act or any other enactment (including, in particular, in pursuance of a warrant issued under any other enactment), or
(b) any directly applicable Community provision.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the delaying or opening of a postal packet in accordance with any terms and conditions applicable to its transmission by post.
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to the delaying of a postal packet as a result of industrial action in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
(5) In subsection (4) “trade dispute” has the meaning given by section 244 of the [1992 c. 52.] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 or Article 127 of the [S.I. 1995/1980 (N.I.12).] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995; and the reference to industrial action shall be construed in accordance with that Act or (as the case may be) that Order.
(6) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both,
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.
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.


So reasonable excuse and no detriment. You're cluching at straws Willie.

liam8282

Consumer direct is wrong?

An official government website is wrong?

The Government made the act didn't they?

The Government own RM don't they?

No, I think your interpretation of the act is clearly wrong.

Personally, I would go with the advise from a government website, about a government act, about a government business, before the jumped up opinion (& wrong interpretation) of an act, from some random person on an internet forum.

Golden_Anemone

Liam8282 - The relevant wording from the Postal Services Act 2000 has already been posted. I'll copy and paste it here again with a link to the Statutory Instrument online.

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.

The criminal law requires that all elements aof an offence are satisfied before the offence is proven. This means that the person opening the item of mail must both:

1. intend to act to a person's detriment

AND

2. not have a reasonable excuse.

Finding vague summaries from Internet sites which support your position don't alter the way the criminal law or this particular statute operates. You should perhaps consider stopping digging!

Golden_Anemone

liam8282 wrote: »

Personally, I would go with the advise from a government website, about a government act, about a government business, before the jumped up opinion (& wrong interpretation) of an act, from some random person on an internet forum.

Just to clarify Liam, my law degree is from QUB. Where did you get yours?

hippyadam

You kids better knock it off or there'll be no disneyland for anyone!

Back in the real world, the fuzz have much more important things to deal with than a householder opening a previous occupiers mail... You know, like solving crimes :rotfl:

OP i'm in a similar position in my house (although the previous occupiers didn't leave the cat!) i used to return everything not known at this address, but after 4yrs it just gets binned...

Don't waste your time or money trying to tell any creditors anything, they should have procedures in place for returned mail and your credit report shouldn't show anything untoward either.

If a bailiff or debt collector turns up on the doorstep, do not let them, in just explain the situation, show some ID and off they will go...

And count yourself lucky its not the police, who turned up banging on my door at 11.30pm six months after i moved in to arrest the previous occupant :eek: The curtain twitchers loooooved that lol

liam8282

"1. intend to act to a person's detriment

AND

2. not have a reasonable excuse."

1. It is very difficult to prove either way that the OP has not opened the post to act to the addressee's detriment.

To be fair, I think it is quite clear that the OP hasn't opened the mail with any bad intentions. But my opinion may differ to that of the addressee or the sender of the post, my opinion clearly differs to several posters on this thread.

2. In these circumstances, there is no reasonable excuse to open another persons post, when you can clearly see it is addressed to another person.

As you can clearly see that it is addressed to another person, I would argue that it is causing detriment to the addressee because they are simply not receiving post which has been sent to them.

There are guidelines available on what to do with post not addressed to yourself, and you are choosing to ignore them and open the post anyway.

What reasonable excuse could there be for this?


As I said, I don't even want to argue about this, but as I have shown time and time again, I am not wrong.

caz2703

Ok I think this thread is getting out of hand. All the advice given will be noted but what I didn't envisage was a slanging match between members. All I wanted to see was if there was anything else I could do to put an end to this situation but it seems like returning the post to sender is really the cheapest and easiest option.

Bigcammy

I agree Caz, what happened to the be nice rule here!

Golden_Anemone

liam8282 wrote: »

As I said, I don't even want to argue about this, but as I have shown time and time again, I am not wrong.

Quite clearly saying something doesn't make it so. :rotfl:

This is my last word on this because it is absolutely ridiculous that you are still offering legal opinions without any qualification to do so.

1. The O/P would not have to prove anything. It would be for the court to prove intent and I agree - this would be very difficult to do!

2. Reasonableness would be an objective test applied by the court, based on all the facts and I believe would be very easy to demonstrate in these circumstances.

Perhaps that would indicate why there don't appear to have been any private individuals in NI prosecuted with such an offence in the 10 years the legislation has been in place.