That Old Chestnut

blitzboy

sfax wrote: »

What if there's no return address on the outside of an envelope? Should you bin it without opening it or open it to find the sender's address to return it to?

Still write 'NOT KNOWN AT THIS ADDRESS' on it and re-post it. The post office will then open it and return it to the address if there is one inside.

smallblueplanet

Obi167 wrote: »

I would not open an ex tenants mail, or another householders, but if mail was addressed to someone i had not heard of to my address i would open it to check that for example loans or credit cards are not fraudulently been taken out from my address.

I agree. The law being quoted above talks about it being against the law if it is 'to a person's detriment', can't see that would be the case here. Also if it looked 'dodgy' I'd photocopy, seal it up and put 'opened in error, return to sender' on it and repost it. But that's just me.

Out of interest what is the punishment for illegally opening someones post?

oldagetraveller

How about a "having a nice time, wish you were here" type holiday postcard? Doesn't need "opening" and there will no doubt be no sender's address.
What can be legally done with that? If not at this address is written across it then popped into a post box will RM destroy it? It's criminal damage if they do according to post 11!

blitzboy

oldagetraveller wrote: »

How about a "having a nice time, wish you were here" type holiday postcard? Doesn't need "opening" and there will no doubt be no sender's address.
What can be legally done with that? If not at this address is written across it then popped into a post box will RM destroy it? It's criminal damage if they do according to post 11!

I believe they keep it for a while and if it is not claimed then it becomes their property as it was placed in their care and they are then able to destroy it.

This is what I have been told by someone who was working for RM at the time anyway.

stclair

I have never understood why people get their knickers in a twist about letters that are not addressed to them.

Especially debt collection letters etc just bin them or what ever you feel appropriate.

StevieJ

smallblueplanet wrote: »

I agree. The law being quoted above talks about it being against the law if it is 'to a person's detriment', can't see that would be the case here. Also if it looked 'dodgy' I'd photocopy, seal it up and put 'opened in error, return to sender' on it and repost it. But that's just me.

Out of interest what is the punishment for illegally opening someones post?

I guess it would be to their detriment if they were fraudulently using your address and they ended up in prison because you opened the mail

chattychappy

No issues under the Postal Services Act 2000 as far as I can see:

s84(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.

NB it says "incorrectly delivered" to him. Not "incorrectly sent" to him. As with many Acts, there is an interpretation section:

s125(3) For the purposes of this Act— ... (c) the delivery of a postal packet (i) at the premises to which it is addressed or redirected, ..., ... shall be a delivery to the addressee.

So, if the packet has been delivered to the premises then it is deemed to have been delivered to the addressee. Provided it has been delivered to the address on the envelope then it has been correctly delivered, even if the person is unknown at that address.

Agree there could be Criminal Damage/Theft issues. Which? should be more precise as to what offence they thing is being committed.

pvt

Thanks for all the responses - particularly Chatty's response defining what "delivery to an addressee" is.

Analysing 128 (3), it says "intending to act to a person's detriment" - so intention has to be proved, and it also doesn't define that the person is necessarily the addressee, so it could equally apply to the sender or any other person at all. Also, it says "AND without reasonable excuse", so as long as the "opener" can provide a reasonable excuse, it appears it doesn't matter if opening it is to "a person's detriment". And a "reasonable excuse" is surely just one you can provide a "reason" for - it doesn't need to be a good excuse. "I want to know why someone I've never heard of is using my address" sounds like a reason to me.

g6jns_2

pvt wrote: »

Thanks for all the responses - particularly Chatty's response defining what "delivery to an addressee" is.

Analysing 128 (3), it says "intending to act to a person's detriment" - so intention has to be proved, and it also doesn't define that the person is necessarily the addressee, so it could equally apply to the sender or any other person at all. Also, it says "AND without reasonable excuse", so as long as the "opener" can provide a reasonable excuse, it appears it doesn't matter if opening it is to "a person's detriment". And a "reasonable excuse" is surely just one you can provide a "reason" for - it doesn't need to be a good excuse. "I want to know why someone I've never heard of is using my address" sounds like a reason to me.

That is reasonable excuse. Depending on the contents you might take various actions. Although it may be a pain it may well be less trouble in the long run to contact the sender than to just ignore it. Soon after I moved into my current house I received started receiving letters addressed to the previous owner's late husband. I forwarded these and then had a letter from the sender's fraud department asking for a forwarding address. Some months later there was a report in a local paper about the seller. She had been convicted of defrauding her late husband's pension provider. She had not informed them of the death of her husband. The amount ran into five figures.

agrinnall

antrobus wrote: »

It would appear so.

In this case the Which? legal team are simply wrong.

I suspect not for the first time, in my opinion they often take a very simplistic view without considering alternative situations.