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

mandragora_2

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

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.

The act does apply to the public, and the part which does is that which I've highlighted in red. Up to you if you choose to ignore it, I'm just pointing out the law which would apply, I think.

You don't have the right to open mail which has been incorrectly delivered to you, though the weak bit of the wording seems to me to be that which says you're doing it 'intending to act to a person's detriment'. It's never easy to prove - or deny - intentions, but if you open mail which is clearly addressed to an ex-husband, who you're no longer living with, and which shows bank details, I'd think you might be putting yourself in a tricky situation. That's all. I'd be careful, because it is a criminal offence, and not one to trifle with - but if others think or see it differently, fair play to them. Go ahead.

I was just interested to see that bit of legislation when I looked it up following reading this thread. I don't have a huge axe to grind on the issue!

Yorkie1

The prosecutor would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you had the requisite intent and that you had no reasonable excuse.

That is an incredibly high hurdle to get over on both elements. Bear in mind that the person who has opened the post does not have to prove their innocence or their reasonable excuse.

There is such a wide range of situations where a reasonable excuse might be found, such as:
If one suspects that one's address is being used fraudulently, then one has a reasonable excuse - the prevention of crime.
If one suspects that bailiffs might keep writing / attending the address, within the harassment laws, then that is arguably a reasonable excuse.
If one suspects that harm might be done to one's credit record, one can again arguably act to prevent that harm and correct one's credit record.

So you can see that the hurdle is really high before the prosecution even start to prove the other element - the malicious intent.