My landlord is in massive debt, where do I stand?

Yorkie1

BBetty you are incorrect, as other posters have said.

The mail has already been correctly delivered and therefore opening it after that point is not unlawful interception.

Opening it after delivery is not illegal unless there is the mal fides, or mental intention, to go with it - which is not established here.

As for sending the letter to the LL, a previous poster suggested sending it recorded delivery. I would advise against that. If it is not signed for then it will be returned undelivered and you have proof that it was not served. Whereas if you send it first class post, from 2 different post offices and getting a free certificate of postage from each, then service will be far more straightforward to prove.

couponqueen123

If you stop paying rent the land lord will turn up

also i think you be well with in yr right as both tenant and landlord have to keep proprity in good condition

DVardysShadow

breadlinebetty wrote: »

You're wrong.

And I choose to post up the link to prove it.

"
Postal Services Act 2000
Under the Postal Services Act 2000:
“A person commits an offence if he, without reasonable excuse, intentionallydelays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, orintentionally opens a mail bag.”


[STRIKE]“A person commits an offence if intending to act to a person’s detriment andwithout reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonablysuspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.”
This, in essence, means that if you deliberately intercept, throw away oropen somebody else’s post you are likely to be breaking the law.
Convictions
It can, however, be very difficult to prove that somebody is “intending toact to a person’s detriment” and therefore there are not many people convictedsimply of opening somebody else’s post.
Often an individual who is intercepting or opening somebody else’s post willhave to then act on it to show that they did indeed “intend to act to a person’sdetriment”. This will often include the individual subsequently using theinformation they obtained from opening your mail e.g. opening somebody else’smail, finding a credit card and then using it for themselves running up a debton the credit card.
This would be a clear example in which opening the post would have shown anintention to act to a person’s detriment. In this example, any punishment would,of course, be on top of the more serious offence of theft and fraud in relationto the credit card itself.
However, sometimes people accidently open other’s post, and they should notface criminal punishment. For example, if somebody receives a lot of post andtherefore opens it quickly, it is quite likely that they may open another’s post(which may have been incorrectly sent to them) without looking at who the letteris addressed to.
Clearly, in this situation it would be wrong to face criminal punishment foropening another’s post. But this highlights the difficulties faced by those whowould attempt to prove someone’s intent to act to a person’s detriment.
Punishment
Every day, highly confidential and personal information is sent by post and,with a large number of identity fraud crimes being enabled by stealing thisinformation, it is in the interest of the pubic that it is a punishable offenceto open another person’s post.
The Postal Services Act 2000 states that any person who commits this offencemay be “liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on thestandard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or toboth”.
Level 5 on the standard scale is a fine of £5,000.
If you believe that your post is being intercepted, you should contact asolicitor or the police. "[/STRIKE]

No Betty, 'tis you who are mistaken. I am going ignore the material you have quoted because it is not from the act itself, it is unreferenced interpretation for which unfortunately you do not give the source. Here is the relevant text from the act itself taken from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/26/part/V/crossheading/offences-of-interfering-with-the-mail

84 Interfering with the mail: general.E+W+S+N.I.

(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.

People get very hung up on (1). But once the letter has dropped through a letter box it is no longer 'in the course of transmission'. So this part does not apply here.

(3) is the issue of concern, and there are 2 issues to be addressed

• Does the person opening the postal packet have a reasonable excuse?
• Does the person opening it intend to act to the detriment of the person the packet is addressed to?

Taking first the 'reasonable excuse' issue If the letter does not have the correct street address, it should be returned to the postal system. But if it does have the correct postal address, the immediate reasonable excuse is that the person opening the letter wishes to ascertain whether there are any adverse events likely to arise - such as attendance by debt collectors or bailiffs - or any ID theft in progress for example.

In OP's case, given that there are many indications that the Landlord has financial issues which could disturb OP's peace, I would advise that each and every delivered letter with the correct street address is opened and assessed. This is the policy I apply to mail which comes through my front door.

The intended thrust of this clause in the legislation is IMO a lot to do with Houses in Multiple Occupation and flats where some further process of delivery occurs after the Royal Mail have left the letters - or house shares, with unrelated sharers, although it can be broader than this.

Now the second point, about 'intending to act to a person’s detriment'. Simply put, protecting your home against what may come based on mail that comes through your door is not acting to the detriment of the person the letter is addressed to. Even not forwarding that mail IMO is not acting to the person's detriment, because it could be unopened and unforwarded to an identical detriment. And any detriment is a detriment the person will have brought down on themselves by not advising senders of their correct address.

olly300

OP please can you get a pen out, get the bag of post out and start putting on the envelopes "Not At This Address Return To Sender", then go and post them all in the post box. DO NOT KEEP THEM FOR THE LANDLORD ANY MORE.

It is very important that you do this. With the letters you opened or where not sealed properly just seal them/ tape them up and return them.

I lived in a house where:
1. A former tenant thought it was OK to continue using the place as their UK address
2. There was loads of random mail from someone else who was apparently the former owner who hadn't lived there for over 10 years. Other tenants had just binned his mail.

The former tenant got a bank card and a cheque book delivered to them and I sent them back. I was with the same bank so knew what their letters looked like. The bank then rang the house and after talking to me understood that the person didn't live there since I moved in so froze their account.

With the junk mail and other random letters after 6 months of returning them the number decreased to a trickle and after a year no more letters came.

If the landlord or his wife questions you about the letters just say nothing.

skintandscared_2

Out of interest, is it acceptable for a landlord to keep using a rental property address for their own mail? We are getting a lot too, and from the envelopes it's clear they are items of post from courts. The landlord has never lived here.

DVardysShadow

skintandscared wrote: »

Out of interest, is it acceptable for a landlord to keep using a rental property address for their own mail? We are getting a lot too, and from the envelopes it's clear they are items of post from courts. The landlord has never lived here.

In my book it is not acceptable. And in your position, I would open every item to assess whether you are likely to be visited by bailiffs.

olly300

skintandscared wrote: »

Out of interest, is it acceptable for a landlord to keep using a rental property address for their own mail? We are getting a lot too, and from the envelopes it's clear they are items of post from courts. The landlord has never lived here.

Not it's not. The landlord has a legal duty to other people to give them the address s/he lives or can be contacted at, and your address isn't it.

This is due to the property being your home, and that you can legally refuse the landlord permission to come into the property or get a court order that prevents them doing so. Both things have been done when tenants have accused landlords' of harassment.

In your case depending on how well you get on with your landlord either:
1. Put return to sender on it and post it back, OR
2. Redirect the mail to the landlords' address, OR
3. Open one of the letters, write a letter to the sender giving the landlords' actual address then send everything including the letter you opened to the sender.

I personally would do 1 but if the landlord was not fulfilling his/her duties I would do 3. And yes I have done 3 on a landlord who tried to get out of paying council tax and bills when I moved and also harassed me.

skintandscared_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

In my book it is not acceptable. And in your position, I would open every item to assess whether you are likely to be visited by bailiffs.

Two items arrived this morning, one for husband and one for wife. Have just opened wife's. It's a county court judgment against her. What do I do with them?!

olly300

skintandscared wrote: »

Two items arrived this morning, one for husband and one for wife. Have just opened wife's. It's a county court judgment against her. What do I do with them?!

1. Write a letter to the court giving the landlord's real address. You don't need to state who you are just state something like I think this has come to the wrong address as x lives at y.
2. Put that letter and the court judgement in an envelope and seal it.
3. Put a stamp on the envelope and post it to the court.

BTW the CCJ only really effects the person not the address. However on some occasions some companies will refuse to deal with the address if they have issues with previous occupants or people in the postcode.

skintandscared_2

olly300 wrote: »

1. Write a letter to the court giving the landlord's real address. You don't need to state who you are just state something like I think this has come to the wrong address as x lives at y.
2. Put that letter and the court judgement in an envelope and seal it.
3. Put a stamp on the envelope and post it to the court.

BTW the CCJ only really effects the person not the address. However on some occasions some companies will refuse to deal with the address if they have issues with previous occupants or people in the postcode.

I'll do that on Monday. Many thanks.