Email vs letter

jamie11

I think this may all change in the 'not too distant' future anyway. The writing is on the wall for snail mail, before too long any communication is going to have to have been sent electronically, even now there is a way to see if your email has been read at the other end, all that needs to make it legally acceptable for court is for the ip address to be recorded as well. (might already be done for all I know.)

donfanatico

Ok cheers, so notices for which there is no reply required by snail mail and permission requests for which there is a reply required by email.

Thanks all!

ValHaller

jamie11 wrote: »

I think this may all change in the 'not too distant' future anyway. The writing is on the wall for snail mail, before too long any communication is going to have to have been sent electronically, even now there is a way to see if your email has been read at the other end, all that needs to make it legally acceptable for court is for the ip address to be recorded as well. (might already be done for all I know.)

Dynamic IP means that an IP address means nothing. And as for seeing if email has been read, this depends upon the cooperation of the sender to permit reciept acknowledgement. Which is generally not a good idea from the point of view of spam prevention.

But I would be interested if RFC's (internet standards) are developed which would support the necessary legal proofs. Generally, the need for backwards compatibility will probably run counter to that, so I suspect new internet standards will be required.

olly300

dgtazzman wrote: »

I'd say traditional mail has a higher legal value, though emails can be admitted into evidence these days, if there is proof they were received..

It doesn't.

In the civil court cases I've been involved, including landlord issues, for any correspondence to be viewed as proof that you have highly likely sent it if the correspondent doesn't co-operate then you either:
1. Need to send two letters on the issue using recorded delivery or other signed for proof for the second, or,
2. Need to send the message by two from first class letter, email and fax, or,
3. If you are sending it to a company and hand deliver the letter then get a signed receipt.

If you send one letter even if you have proof of posting, one email or one faxand the landlord states they haven't received it, then they will be given the benefit of the doubt by the judge.

If you used a signed for method and the landlord refuses the letter or doesn't collect it the RM will write the letter was refused or wasn't collected on the envelope. Keep the envelope. If you have sent two letters with time delay of 14 days between and they were both refused/not collected then the judge will know the landlord is up to something. They will be asked why they didn't collect it.

Yorkie1

Can you link to the Civil Procedure Rule which sets out the law as you've outlined it, please, olly?

Zorz_2

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Can you link to the Civil Procedure Rule which sets out the law as you've outlined it, please, olly?

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#IDAWP2HC

Lou67

I would never send something so important by email! Send it snail mail and recorded delivery too!

Yorkie1

Zorz wrote: »

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#IDAWP2HC

Thanks, Zorz.

However, I've read that CPR but I can't see anywhere in it which actually states what Olly has said is the law, particularly his assertion that the law requires two copies to be sent.

Could you or Olly highlight that part of the CPR, please, as I can't see it for looking. Or is this detail not actually in the CPR?

olly300 wrote: »

It doesn't.

In the civil court cases I've been involved, including landlord issues, for any correspondence to be viewed as proof that you have highly likely sent it if the correspondent doesn't co-operate then you either:
1. Need to send two letters on the issue using recorded delivery or other signed for proof for the second, or,
2. Need to send the message by two from first class letter, email and fax, or,
3. If you are sending it to a company and hand deliver the letter then get a signed receipt.

If you send one letter even if you have proof of posting, one email or one faxand the landlord states they haven't received it, then they will be given the benefit of the doubt by the judge.

If you used a signed for method and the landlord refuses the letter or doesn't collect it the RM will write the letter was refused or wasn't collected on the envelope. Keep the envelope. If you have sent two letters with time delay of 14 days between and they were both refused/not collected then the judge will know the landlord is up to something. They will be asked why they didn't collect it.

Zorz_2

AFAIK, there is no such legal requirement but it's probably more of a belt and braces tactic.

rpc

Perhaps the most relevant bit of the CPR is this (under Practice Direction 6A)

4.1

Subject to the provisions of rule 6.23(5) and (6), where a document is to be served by fax or other electronic means –
(1) the party who is to be served or the solicitor acting for that party must previously have indicated in writing to the party serving –
(a) that the party to be served or the solicitor is willing to accept service by fax or other electronic means; and

(b) the fax number, e-mail address or other electronic identification to which it must be sent; and


(2) the following are to be taken as sufficient written indications for the purposes of paragraph 4.1(1) –
(a) a fax number set out on the writing paper of the solicitor acting for the party to be served;

(b) an e-mail address set out on the writing paper of the solicitor acting for the party to be served but only where it is stated that the e-mail address may be used for service; or

(c) a fax number, e-mail address or electronic identification set out on a statement of case or a response to a claim filed with the court.

It seems to me that email is OK for questions, but not for serving notices.


Also worth noting that service requirements are different in Scotland - first class post is not an acceptable method for service of legal notices (recorded or sheriff officers only)