We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Mail for my ex-husband being sent to me - how?
Options
Comments
-
Enjoy a special treat with the £50!I can cook and sew, make flowers grow.0
-
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 £50Tank fly boss walk jam nitty gritty...0 -
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 funeralbut I'm sure a few drinks will be enjoyed!
0 -
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.!0
-
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.0 -
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!
Reason for edit? Can spell, can't type!0 -
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? Ta0 -
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?Tank fly boss walk jam nitty gritty...0 -
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.0 -
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards