We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.

Mail marked Private & confidential

If you send a letter to someone at their work, and it's marked 'Private & Confidential', can their boss legally...

1. open their mail and
2. then not pass it on to the person

ps..not sure where to post this
Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why then you're as thick and stupid as the moderators on here - MSE ForumTeam
«1

Comments

  • Not sure if there is a law, but when I was a secretary, I was told all post marked "P&C" can be opened by anyone, but post marked "Personal" is for the addressee only. I obviously passed on all the opened post to my boss, unless they were circular type letters :)
    Never put tables and chairs in the same room.
    If they congregate together for any length of time, they will inevitably hatch plots against you and your pets.

    Rohan Candappa
  • unholyangel
    unholyangel Posts: 16,864 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    · If you open someone else's mail, technically you are committing a criminal offence. Under the Regulation of Investigatory powers Act 2000 it is an offence to open, destroy, hide or delay any post that is addressed to someone else, even if you know that it has been incorrectly delivered.

    although quoted from the guardian so not sure about how much - if any - water it holds. I know from previous posts on here people said you can open someone else mail providing its not with intent to harm or for malicious reasons (such as fraud)..........if this is true though, i would say delaying the letter getting to them (or not giving it at all) could be considered intent to harm.
    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
  • so not sure about how much - if any - water it holds.

    Not much (in my opinion).
    The RIP act is really about the interception of communications during their transmission (journey), and once a letter has been delivered them I don't think this act would apply. (and RM are obligated to deliver to an address and not a particular individual).

    As you say, it's okay to open mail not addressed to you provided that you are not "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.". (Postal services act 2000)

    I would say that the boss in question could open the mail, but by failing to pass it on they are then committing an offence as they are in effect stealing from the intended recipient and must be acting to "a person’s detriment"
  • WestonDave
    WestonDave Posts: 5,154 Forumite
    Rampant Recycler
    I've worked in places where we were told that all mail regardless of markings etc would be opened if it was sent to the office address - this was an anti fraud measure to stop any chance of us being paid backhanders etc. At the time a few objections were raised to which the blunt answer was - "don't use this address as a private mailbox - you want it kept personal and private - that's what your home address is for." When you think about it, that's fair enough - employers don't want you doing private deals with customers, or engaging in hidden correspondance which may end up getting the employer in trouble or liable.

    When it comes to failing to pass on the mail, I would imagine that could only be justified if there was something of concern to the employer about the employee's behaviour which is evidenced by the letter - e.g. a letter from a customer or client where inappropriate behaviour is going on (teacher getting dodgy letters from a pupil, customer getting a good deal in return for a bit of cashback on the side etc), or where the employee is wasting a lot of time on personal business in work time.
    Adventure before Dementia!
  • Mark_Hewitt
    Mark_Hewitt Posts: 2,098 Forumite
    I would have thought that any mail is the property of the recipient and as such nobody has the right to open it except the named person?

    Fair enough if the employer doesn't want you to receive personal mail, but that gives them no right to withhold or inspect the mail. Getting mail may subject you to disciplinary procedures, however that doesn't give them the right to invade your privacy.
  • sarahg1969
    sarahg1969 Posts: 6,694 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    "Course of transmission means until it's delivered to the addressee."

    Course of transmission means until it's posted through the letterbox or otherwise delivered to the address by the Royal Mail. Post is delivered to the address, not the person.
  • "Course of transmission means until it's delivered to the addressee."

    As I stated earlier, Royal mail do not deliver to an addressee. They are only contracted to deliver to an address.

    RM's Terms and conditions.
    3.16 Our duty is to deliver items to the address and not the person whose name is
    written or printed on the item.
  • But the important bit is how the PSA actually defines the addressee.


    Postal services act Sect 125 (Interpretation)
    (3)For the purposes of this Act—

    (a)a postal packet shall be taken to be in course of transmission by post from the time of its being delivered to any post office or post office letter box to the time of its being delivered to the addressee,

    (b)the delivery of a postal packet of any description to a letter carrier or other person authorised to receive postal packets of that description for the post or to a person engaged in the business of a postal operator to be dealt with in the course of that business shall be a delivery to a post office, and

    (c)the delivery of a postal packet

    (i)at the premises to which it is addressed or redirected, unless they are a post office from which it is to be collected,

    (ii)to any box or receptacle to which the occupier of those premises has agreed that postal packets addressed to persons at those premises may be delivered, or

    (iii)to the addressee’s agent or to any other person considered to be authorised to receive the packet,

    shall be a delivery to the addressee.
  • squeaky
    squeaky Posts: 14,129 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    It's easy to see why the OP would think this ought to be an offence of some description.

    So if the letter is deemed to have been delivered as you guys say above, where now to look for an answer?

    Are companies required to have a written policy pertaining to mail like this?

    Does such a policy have to follow any guidelines?

    Did the manager break the company's policy?

    I saw loads of queries along these lines on a google search - but none that I followed pointed to a definitive answer.

    You'd think that somebody, somewhere, somewhen, must have taken their company to court over this?
    Hi, I'm a Board Guide on the Old Style and the Consumer Rights boards which means I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly and can move and merge posts there. Board guides are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com. It is not part of my role to deal with reportable posts. Any views are mine and are not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.
    Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
    DTFAC: Y.T.D = £5.20 Apr £0.50
  • fluffnutter
    fluffnutter Posts: 23,179 Forumite
    I always thought it was only an offence if any action arising from your opening someone else's mail was to that person's detriment. You can't, for example, be prosecuted for merely opening someone else's mail accidentally. Nor would you be prosecuted if you were trying to, say, find out who was sending it so you can advise they had the wrong address.

    The interesting point of the query for me is not the fact of opening mail addressed to someone else; it's about the fact that this was then not passed on. Why not? What reason did the boss have for not giving the mail to the addressee? That could well be criminal, if the intention was to cause harm, inconvenience or some such other problem for the addressee. Regardless of legality it *should* contravene the company's code of ethics (if it has one).

    I think the Private and Confidential part is an irrelevancy, legally speaking. Although it might well mean something in the workplace, in terms of convention.
    "Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward Abbey.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 241K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.7K Life & Family
  • 254.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.