Previous tennants mail

taxmessage

I would say it has been incorrectly delivered to him. Although I guess you could argue on semantics what is incorrectly and correctly delivered. The spirit of the law is that post intended for a named person should only be opened by that person and I suspect any argument otherwise would not hold up. This also applies to intentionally "delaying" someone else's post

There's probably no intent to harm, although destroying someone else's post could be argued to be harm in itself.

chattychappy

taxmessage wrote: »

I would say it has been incorrectly delivered to him. Although I guess you could argue on semantics what is incorrectly and correctly delivered.

It's criminal law. These things are defined - if not by statute, then by case law. In this case in s125.

s125(3) For the purposes of this Act— ... (c) the delivery of a postal packet (i) at the premises to which it is addressed or redirected, ..., ... shall be a delivery to the addressee.

ikati5

custardy wrote: »

no it doesnt

There was a post on here last week regarding a birthday card with money having been delivered to the wrong address and reposted. The op was told that it gets sent to a Ireland where it will be destroyed and she had no chance whatsoever of recovering it.

What does happen to it then?

ihateyes

ikati5 wrote: »

There was a post on here last week regarding a birthday card with money having been delivered to the wrong address and reposted. The op was told that it gets sent to a Ireland where it will be destroyed and she had no chance whatsoever of recovering it.

What does happen to it then?

generally returned mail goes to the Royal Mail office in Tomb Street, Belfast (northern Ireland)(remember Ireland has their own mail service).

They will open the card if and there is an address of the sender then will forward on if not, destroy....

Where the mony goes is anybodys guess?

custardy

ikati5 wrote: »

There was a post on here last week regarding a birthday card with money having been delivered to the wrong address and reposted. The op was told that it gets sent to a Ireland where it will be destroyed and she had no chance whatsoever of recovering it.

What does happen to it then?

well why would you send all the items to Belfast?
an item with a return address goes to its return address
only certain types of items go to Belfast

jalexa

taxmessage wrote: »

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.

legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/section/84

Am interesting quote which was first brought to my notice (thanks) a few posts ago. Normally I recognise the grammatical difference between "and" (and "or") but I'm struggling with the interpretation of this one. It reads to me that "with reasonable excuse" it is perfectly OK "to act to another person's detriment". So could a "legal eagle" explain why I'm wrong.

I worry that "and" (in a statute) reads differently to a lawyer than to a layperson, simply based on it being patently wrong to open mail addressed to another person. Particularly if the rear of the envelope had a "return to" address. And maybe particulary particularly if it was evidently a financial item.

chattychappy

jalexa wrote: »

Am interesting quote which was first brought to my notice (thanks) a few posts ago. Normally I recognise the grammatical difference between "and" (and "or") but I'm struggling with the interpretation of this one. It reads to me that "with reasonable excuse" it is perfectly OK "to act to another person's detriment". So could a "legal eagle" explain why I'm wrong.

No... because you are correct! If you have a reasonable excuse, then you can act to the other person's detriment without an offence being committed.

jalexa wrote: »

I worry that "and" (in a statute) reads differently to a lawyer than to a layperson, simply based on it being patently wrong to open mail addressed to another person. Particularly if the rear of the envelope had a "return to" address. And maybe particulary particularly if it was evidently a financial item.

Lawyers (well, courts) are supposed to determine the will of parliament when interpreting legislation. Sometimes, of course, legislation is just drafted poorly. There are devices such as the Interpretation Act 1978 that assist. Most Acts have a "definitions" section. Sometimes the wording of an Act is simply a rewriting of earlier Acts or an incorporation of well litigated common law principles - so these are used as guidance.

"without reasonable excuse" is quite a common phrase. Really it is intended to prevent an Act catching situations it was never intended to. "Reasonable" is typically the man on the clapham omnibus (as represented by a jury). So you might have an excuse, but would a normal guy agree? So in the examples you give, it probably isn't reasonable. BUT, remember this is hypothetical - as per my earlier post, once the item has been delivered to the correct address (albeit not the addressee) then you are outside of the scope of Postal Services Act 2000. The offences under that Act are really designed to deal with post in transmission. Once delivered, you are back to standard property offences.

antrobus

jalexa wrote: »

Am interesting quote which was first brought to my notice (thanks) a few posts ago. Normally I recognise the grammatical difference between "and" (and "or") but I'm struggling with the interpretation of this one. It reads to me that "with reasonable excuse" it is perfectly OK "to act to another person's detriment". So could a "legal eagle" explain why I'm wrong.

No, I believe you are correct.

The intention might have been to cover situations such as when someone moves into a property and is in receipt of mail from the previous occupier in relation to their unpaid debts. That someone might open said mail, contact the companies concerened, and inform them of the previous occupier's current address. Such a course of action might well be deemed to be 'detrimental' to the previous occupant, but the current occupier might well possess a 'reasonable excuse'.

chattychappy wrote: »

BUT, remember this is hypothetical - as per my earlier post, once the item has been delivered to the correct address (albeit not the addressee) then you are outside of the scope of Postal Services Act 2000. The offences under that Act are really designed to deal with post in transmission. Once delivered, you are back to standard property offences.

Dunno about that. s 84 (3) Postal Services Act 2000 specifially states, "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." So clearly s 84 (3) refers to post that has been delivered and is not in transmission.

antrobus

jane12345 wrote: »

Hi all,

After recently moving in to rented accommodation i had received several letters for the previous tenant, now i know i should have wrote "return to sender" however in my admittedly lazy attitude as each one arrived i simply threw it in the bin.

I have now had the previous tenant round complaining i haven't held their mail and they have threatened me with legal action.

Surely none of this is my problem? Should i be worried?

Many thanks.

One question occurred to me. How does the OP know that the person that called really was the previous tenant?

KingElvis

I would tell the previous occupier to go do one on no uncertain terms. Lazy shyster should've had it done properly.