New owners wont hand over post!

Jue_xx

custardy wrote: »

not always
RM have changed RTS criteria
so if that junk ail has no return address and is not stamped(that includes franked,then it is destroyed
In that case,save the ink and bin it

Is that right? I didn't know that. We have been in our house for coming up to three years and I have been diligently putting junk mail back in the post marked RTS in the hope that eventually the previous owners will get crossed off mailing lists. If RM just bin it then so will I from now on.

Jennifer_Jane

When I moved in, the previous owners had been running a business at the address. They left a few large stamped, addressed envelopes for any odd things that came through. For most of the post that came before the redirection completed, it was just a question of redirecting their post. Everything worked pretty well.

custardy

Jue_xx wrote: »

Is that right? I didn't know that. We have been in our house for coming up to three years and I have been diligently putting junk mail back in the post marked RTS in the hope that eventually the previous owners will get crossed off mailing lists. If RM just bin it then so will I from now on.

its a fairly recent change
if it has a return address,it will be returned
but no return address means its destroyed unless it has a stamp (eg full retail postage by stamp,postage office postage label etc)
you can add the the previous owners to the MPS

http://www.mpsonline.org.uk/mpsr/mps_choosetype.html

Ivrytwr3

Contact the Exam Board and query where your daughters certificates are.

When they say they have been mailed out ask them if they sent them to the old address or the new address you asked them to send them to weeks ago

Certifcates actually do sometimes go missing in the post and they have plans to deal with it. However, if you get a new set for free you will have to give lots of money to charity to help with your guilty concience.

propertyman

Under the Postal Services Act 2000 section 84.

:money:Write and say "hand it over" otherwise you are going to the police and asking them to prosecute under S84

What complete a*rs*s they are :mad:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/26/section/84
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.


Oh and ask long as you can prove that it was delivered its a little thing called Theft. And politely decline a refusal by the desk staff to act or saying that is "civil". Insist on seeing a senior officer.

Wyndham

Well, 1a doesn't apply as it's not in transmission as it had been delivered. And the only other possibility in the legalese is 3, but I suspect they've binned rather than opened, so that doesn't apply either.

And, unless you've ever had mountains of post for previous occupants you can't imagine quite how annoying it is. We still get things now for the people who moved out 12 years ago! It reduced when we went to MPS and put their name in, but we shouldn't have had to do that.

hazyjo

propertyman wrote: »

Under the Postal Services Act 2000 section 84.

:money:Write and say "hand it over" otherwise you are going to the police and asking them to prosecute under S84

What complete a*rs*s they are :mad:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/26/section/84
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.


Oh and ask long as you can prove that it was delivered its a little thing called Theft. And politely decline a refusal by the desk staff to act or saying that is "civil". Insist on seeing a senior officer.

And their reply...

"We never received it...".

Case closed.

Jx

custardy

propertyman wrote: »

Under the Postal Services Act 2000 section 84.

:money:Write and say "hand it over" otherwise you are going to the police and asking them to prosecute under S84

What complete a*rs*s they are :mad:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/26/section/84
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.


Oh and ask long as you can prove that it was delivered its a little thing called Theft. And politely decline a refusal by the desk staff to act or saying that is "civil". Insist on seeing a senior officer.

what proof is that?

have you read what you posted?
what part relates to mail correctly delivered as addressed?

rpc

propertyman wrote: »

(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.

This is the only bit that could possibly apply and it requires:

1 - intent to act to a person's detriment AND
2 - opening the postal packet

I'm not even sure this counts as incorrectly delivered. The packet was delivered to the address on the label.

If the new owners aren't intended to act to the OP's detriment then there has been no criminal offence. If the new owners did not open the post then there has been no criminal offence.

There has been no criminal offence.

In all likelihood, the new owners take the view that it isn't their job to forward post and have just chucked it or RTS. I normally leave labels to make it as easy as possible, but there can't be any serious expectation.

thegirlintheattic

RM only has to deliver to the correct address for something to be considered delivered correctly - that has been done in the OPs case.

To get done for 5 you have to have acted in the person’s detriment, that's a bit more than just the argo of not having the post.

The police will not be interested, all the other party has to say is it was not delivered - end of.