Mail for my ex-husband being sent to me - how?

luxor4t

Enjoy a special treat with the £50!

shellsuit

carlositd wrote: »

opening a letter not addessed to you

There's nothing wrong with doing that unless you're going to do something dodgy with the info the letter contains.



Mary, thanks for coming back and updating, not a lot of people do that! And I hope you treat yourself to something nice with the £50

maryroberts

carlositd wrote: »

opening a letter not addessed to you

I explained that I only opened the first letter in order to find out the contact details - I wanted to do the right thing, not that I need to justify myself.

Thanks to the other posters, yes the cheque will come in handy as we are away next week. Not a holiday but a funeral but I'm sure a few drinks will be enjoyed!

themull1

I would open any letter thats got my address on it. I would want to know if there is anything untoward going on with my address.!

I_wanna_live_for_free

themull1 wrote: »

I would open any letter thats got my address on it. I would want to know if there is anything untoward going on with my address.!

We do the same. The amount of different names that post arrives for, you would think this house is a multiple occupancy 16 bedroom hostel! And I've lived here for 10 years myself.

We just open it to make sure it's nothing untoward and then it gets binned.

mandragora_2

Postal services Act 200:

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.

Be careful!

BitterAndTwisted

I suggest you read that quote from Postal Services Act rather more closely than you appear to have done. Or get someone competent to explain it to you.

In the OP's case the mail was correctly delivered. So please can you explain where the detriment was, the reasonable excuse had been absent and precisely how an offence had occurred? Ta

shellsuit

mandragora wrote: »

Postal services Act 200:

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.

Be careful!

Be careful with what? And who?

BitterAndTwisted

Mandragora appears to think that the Postal Services Act applies to every member of the public rather than those employed by the postal service. I'd have a pretty hard job interfering with mail in transit or mail-bags and I expect you would, too.

Numpty.

I_wanna_live_for_free

mandragora wrote: »

Postal services Act 200:

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.

Be careful!

Not incorrectly delivered. Royal Mail deliver to the address. And if it's addressed to Noddy, BigEars, Scooby Doo or even Zippedy-Doo-Da at my home address, then it's been correctly delivered and I am within my rights to open it.