Name change and County court letters

antrobus

sarahg1969 wrote: »

If I were you I'd open it. It's not illegal to open post once it's been delivered, even if it's not addressed to you (which this letter actually is).

Is the correct answer.

Well Ok, I might quibble and point out that it should say that 'it's not illegal to open post once it's been correctly delivered', as it might well be an offence to open post that has clearly been put through your letterbox in error.

buuuug wrote: »

....

Legally i had to relinquish old name, havent used it since 2007, so if i open and engage in correspondance am i committing an illegal act as its not my mail?

....

No, is the simple answer. In any case, you know it's meant for you don't you? As far as the law in England and Wales is concerned you can call yourself anything you like.

arcon5

antrobus wrote: »

Is the correct answer.

Well Ok, I might quibble and point out that it should say that 'it's not illegal to open post once it's been correctly delivered', as it might well be an offence to open post that has clearly been put through your letterbox in error.



No, is the simple answer. In any case, you know it's meant for you don't you? As far as the law in England and Wales is concerned you can call yourself anything you like.

Actually, it is only illegal if you are opening mail if your intention is detriment to the intended recipient, even if incorrectly delivered.

Postal Services Act 2000

(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.

To be honest I find this whole thread peculiar. I fail to believe something can genuinely believe opening mail intended for them is illegal. Thousands of people get married each year and take a new surname, it's not uncommon.

mttylad

Just open the damn letter!

DVardysShadow

arcon5 wrote: »

.... To be honest I find this whole thread peculiar. I fail to believe something can genuinely believe opening mail intended for them is illegal. Thousands of people get married each year and take a new surname, it's not uncommon.

You are not the only one who finds it peculiar. In particular I would point out:

buuuug wrote: »

.... Legally i had to relinquish old name, havent used it since 2007, so if i open and engage in correspondance am i committing an illegal act as its not my mail?

I can't imagine why someone might legally have to relinquish their name - unless it was something like "London-2012-Olympics" or the internet domain name of some company who were suing to protect their brand name.

But, if we can understand why OP had to relinquish their name, I think we would be in a better position to provide a useful answer.

WhiteHorse

Johno100 wrote: »

The OP is clearly interested in his/her historic finances or they wouldn't have started another thread a few months ago about making PPI claims for financial products sold to him/her prior to the name change.

Ah ...

If successful I'm sure they won't return those letters unopened if they bear the wrong name.

Quite.

Forwandert

DVardysShadow wrote: »

You are not the only one who finds it peculiar. In particular I would point out:

I can't imagine why someone might legally have to relinquish their name - unless it was something like "London-2012-Olympics" or the internet domain name of some company who were suing to protect their brand name.

But, if we can understand why OP had to relinquish their name, I think we would be in a better position to provide a useful answer.

Its just part of the wording on the statutory declaration.

antrobus

arcon5 wrote: »

Actually, it is only illegal if you are opening mail if your intention is detriment to the intended recipient, even if incorrectly delivered.

Postal Services Act 2000

(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.

You've missed the significance of the word "delivered". Postal operators deliver mail to physical addresses not people. If a piece of mail bears a particular address it has been correctly delivered if stuffed through the letterbox at that address irrespective of whose name is on it.

See the Royal Mail's website here - http://www.royalmail.com/customer-service/personal-customers/receiving-mail/im-getting-someone-elses-mail - which makes clear the distinction between mail that has been "sent to the correct address" and "mail with a different address has been mistakenly put through your letterbox". The criminal sanctions of s3 PSA 2000 only apply in the latter case.

antrobus

DVardysShadow wrote: »

You are not the only one who finds it peculiar. In particular I would point out:

I can't imagine why someone might legally have to relinquish their name - unless it was something like "London-2012-Olympics" or the internet domain name of some company who were suing to protect their brand name.

But, if we can understand why OP had to relinquish their name, I think we would be in a better position to provide a useful answer.

Well yes, it's not clear what the OP means by "Legally i had to relinquish old name". I'm not aware of any circumstances in which the law would force someone to change their name.

arcon5

antrobus wrote: »

You've missed the significance of the word "delivered". Postal operators deliver mail to physical addresses not people. If a piece of mail bears a particular address it has been correctly delivered if stuffed through the letterbox at that address irrespective of whose name is on it.

See the Royal Mail's website here - http://www.royalmail.com/customer-service/personal-customers/receiving-mail/im-getting-someone-elses-mail - which makes clear the distinction between mail that has been "sent to the correct address" and "mail with a different address has been mistakenly put through your letterbox". The criminal sanctions of s3 PSA 2000 only apply in the latter case.

Which still makes it legal to open.. so whats your point?

Forwandert

antrobus wrote: »

Well yes, it's not clear what the OP means by "Legally i had to relinquish old name". I'm not aware of any circumstances in which the law would force someone to change their name.

Again.. its just the wording when you change your name. You relinquish the right to use your old name and change to your new one. Just download a statutory declaration for name change and you will see what the OP means.