Real Life MMD: Can I keep the magazines?

bogwart

It takes longer than that to get any action out of database staff, but I don't see any objection to keeping them. Eventually they will do something about it, but as the subscription has already been paid for the only loser is the previous occupier who, it seems, doesn't care anyway.

JayD

You have done what is morally required. If the publisher keeps sending them, it is not for lack of you telling them that the recipient doesn't live there any more.

KEEP THEM!!!

Happy Christmas!

cockshooters

When we moved here 4½ years ago, we had a good relationship with the vendor, whose late father was the previous occupant. For nearly 3 years we received DVLA reminders about car taxation and even a parking fine! We also received BT share certificates addressed to his father - co-incidently our surname is very similar to his - so we had every opportunity for a bit of fraud! We faithfully forwarded all these communications and emailled him about them. Eventually we had an email from his wife telling us that she had taken charge of the matter (she had been reading his emails - naughty wife!) and everything was sorted. We also had some scam letters from Spanish "boiler rooms" - needless to say they went staight in the shredder!

Littlemissteapot

scotsbob wrote: »

Under the 1971 Unsolicited Goods and Services Act, as amended, they are yours to keep.

This Act tells us that it is an offence to demand payment for goods known to be unsolicited, in other words, they were sent to a person without any prior request made by them or on their behalf.
The economist is not asking for payment so this Act does not apply to this situation


They are not yours as they are not addressed to you, you need to contact below, if mailing them back is not working:
The Economist Subscription Services
PO Box 471
Haywards Heath
RH16 3GY
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1444 475647
Fax: +44 (0) 1444 445572
E-mail: [EMAIL="economist.subs@quadrantsubs.com"]economist.subs@quadrantsubs.com[/EMAIL]

redglass_2

I have had a similar problem. A fancy new development was built next door to my house and my pratty neighbours gave lots of people MY address thinking it was theirs. (How they imagined this I don't know - there is my house, with its number, right next door to them.)

Stuff began to arrive which wasn't for me and at first I didn't know what was happening. I had some fairly scary mail about my utilities suppliers being changed and even about my land being registered for change of ownership at the Land Registry.:eek:

When I realised what was going on, I went to see the neighbour and asked him to do something. I was waved away with the assurance that everything was now in hand. No apology for distress even though I told him how frightening it is to receive Land Registry documuments implying that your land isn't really yours. The general attitude was that I was a nuisance.:mad: Can't help thinking that this was partly because their house is 4 times the size of mine. Tough! This is still my address, not theirs.

2 weeks later I received a bunch of flowers from NEXT online... and they were for these same bl**dy people. Unfortunately I had an electrician working in the house at the time who answered the door & took in the flowers without checking. I rang NEXT and told them. They promised to contact the sender, who would ring Mr & Mrs Prat and tell them to come and collect the flowers (I draw the line at being their delivery service when they haven't exactly been helpful towards me). I left the flowers out for collection but nobody turned up for 3 days. As luck would have it, Mrs Prat arrived while another workman was in the house and I was at the shops. Big tantrum: My flowers are ruined! - all because I wouldn't run round there with her property. My heart bled, I can tell you.

Moral: contacting the suppliers doesn't always work.

The Post Office has now agreed not to deliver anything to my address unless it has my name on it. To get this done, I had to go in person to the sorting office, with ID, and fill in a form. Suggest you try this.

You could also try putting the magazines in a box with something very heavy and posting them back to the suppliers with no stamp.

cuba2008

You could try slipping a note inside the next magazine you send back, simply stating that, since you have previously advised the company that the addressee no longer lives at that address, any further mail will be treated as unsolicited and as such you will retain for three months to give them time to arrange collection (why should you have to keep taking the time to write on the wrapper and go to the mailbox?). Tell them that, if you do not hear from them, they will then be binned (whether you read them first is up to you).

Believe me, as someone who has had experience of receiving others mail longer after they have moved, I know exactly how annoying it is.

Marco12452

You've done the decent thing and advised the sender, so why waste anymore of your own time.
Keep them or bin them if they are of no use to you (removing the address before binning, of course).

phillp

You have done enough, however.
if you like the mag then keep it, read it.
If you don't then tell in writing to stop sending it or you will bill them £50, ask them to confirm they will stop. Keep a copy of the letter's.
Next time you get a mag bill 'em.
I have done this with junk mail in the past and been paid!

anyway the person who is not getting the mag will simply have to sort themselves out, but that is really no longer your problem
Phill

ghanagirl

Your just wasting your time returning the magazines like the economist etc not all mags, but most of them.
My family has a contract to deliver various magazines and parcels, The economist magazine along with various other magazines are delivered straight from the printers, we also receive pre-paid sleeves to put the magazine in from another printer.
The magazines if returned go straight in to a shredder if the redirection section is not filled out on the envelope, so it does not matter what you write it will never be seen, we are told its not cost effective to go through the magazines as most subs are for 12 months.

I am a Royal Mail manager and in the legal, Rules books, every Royal Mail and Post Office Building has a copy.
Postal Services Act 2000

Section 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.

Also the mail belongs to the "QUEEN" until its in the hands of the person named on the item so by pilling them up on the side for six months or throwing them in the bin, IE destroying them, you can be charged with "interfering with the queens mail".

You can also be charged under the official secrets act depending on the contents of the mail.

Under EU Law Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, one's home and correspondence.
A person under EU Law has a right to the following privacy.
Sexual, financial, Political, Medical, Internet, etc so if a letter contained any personal details you will be breaking the law on a persons right to privacy.

How or if these laws are used alters from case to case but remember.
Ignorantia juris non excusat

MothballsWallet

ghanagirl wrote: »

Also the mail belongs to the "QUEEN" until its in the hands of the person named on the item so by pilling them up on the side for six months or throwing them in the bin, IE destroying them, you can be charged with "interfering with the queens mail".

Interesting. I have read elsewhere on MSE that the USO states that the mail must be delivered to the address on the envelope, not a named person/entity (strictly speaking).

ghanagirl wrote: »

Ignorantia juris non excusat

cathedra quoque humanis iurisconsulti *

* For those of us who aren't fully fluent in Latin, this means (roughly) "Armchair lawyers are human too" from an English-Latin translation site.