We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

Ex opened my mail & tried to bank cheque.. What can I do?

13

Comments

  • AylesburyDuck
    AylesburyDuck Posts: 939 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 500 Posts
    Postal Services Act 2000:



    127. Section 84(1) provides for it to be an offence if persons intentionally delay or open postal packets without reasonable excuse. It amalgamates the content of offences previously included in the Post Office Act 1953.

    128. Subsection (3) makes it an offence for a person, intending to act to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse, to open a postal packet which he knows or suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.
    ,
    Fully paid up member of the ignore button club.
    If it walks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck, it's a Duck.
  • Grumpelstiltskin
    Grumpelstiltskin Posts: 5,996 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    AylesburyDuck wrote: »
    Postal Services Act 2000:



    127. Section 84(1) provides for it to be an offence if persons intentionally delay or open postal packets without reasonable excuse. It amalgamates the content of offences previously included in the Post Office Act 1953.

    128. Subsection (3) makes it an offence for a person, intending to act to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse, to open a postal packet which he knows or suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.


    The problem would be proving detriment when you have the excuse of not knowing what was in the envelope until you had opened it.


    I wonder how many people have been convicted of that offence?
    If you go down to the woods today you better not go alone.
  • AylesburyDuck
    AylesburyDuck Posts: 939 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 500 Posts
    Grumpelstiltskin wrote: »
    The problem would be proving detriment when you have the excuse of not knowing what was in the envelope until you had opened it.


    I wonder how many people have been convicted of that offence?
    The reasonable excuse alone would cover it in the case of the OP.
    Presumably still in contact with each other over the 3 or 4 children so no excuse to open when a text or phonecall would have covered it.
    Add in any other backstory and history and in all likelyhood it would just come across as vexatious.
    ,
    Fully paid up member of the ignore button club.
    If it walks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck, it's a Duck.
  • Kynthia
    Kynthia Posts: 5,692 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    AylesburyDuck wrote: »
    Postal Services Act 2000:



    127. Section 84(1) provides for it to be an offence if persons intentionally delay or open postal packets without reasonable excuse. It amalgamates the content of offences previously included in the Post Office Act 1953.

    128. Subsection (3) makes it an offence for a person, intending to act to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse, to open a postal packet which he knows or suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.

    As this shows, opening post that is correctly delivered to the address on the envelope isn't an offense even if it isn't addresses to you. He'd have to have interfered with post being delivered to the address marked or there be evidence of detriment. Paying into an account just in his name or trying to alter the name on the cheque would be evidence, but paying into one of your own accounts where he wouldn't even be able to draw it out with the overdraft is arguable. We all know he probably wasn't acting in your best interests but I'm not sure there's anything tgat can be done about it.
    Don't listen to me, I'm no expert!
  • Alice_Walker
    Alice_Walker Posts: 574 Forumite
    mrswack wrote: »
    It's OD because of me having to leave the marital home because he refused to, it can get sorted with the finances we're not financially struggling between us but neither of us is prepared to pay this off, he could afford to as he doesn't have to pay for the kids and has a tiny mortgage and is on 50% more than me but keeping the bills paid here is my current priority and since FD have no issues neither do I.

    You don't need a policeman, you need a mediator.

    Is he not paying maintenance?
  • ViolaLass
    ViolaLass Posts: 5,764 Forumite
    mrswack wrote: »
    It's OD because of me having to leave the marital home because he refused to, it can get sorted with the finances we're not financially struggling between us but neither of us is prepared to pay this off, he could afford to as he doesn't have to pay for the kids and has a tiny mortgage and is on 50% more than me but keeping the bills paid here is my current priority and since FD have no issues neither do I.

    What is this doing to your credit history?
  • chesky
    chesky Posts: 1,341 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts
    edited 27 August 2016 at 3:49PM
    More than worrying about something that in the end didn't happen, I'd be worrying about my solicitor who seems to be letting my ex get away with financial murder. At least you can do something about that.
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    mrswack wrote: »
    He also opened mail addressed to me that actually is against the law but hey ho...

    Which law?
  • Tigsteroonie
    Tigsteroonie Posts: 24,954 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    mrswack wrote: »
    The bank are sending me a copy of the cheque and the paying in slip at HSBC can I follow this up anyway or get some justice??
    mrswack wrote: »
    The PPI was investigated about 2 years ago and they said they had no records, since then they've been told to investigate and the cheque was out of the blue, I had a redirection on for 6 months and everything is changed.

    He did bank it but First Direct called as it was unusual activity and won't be banking it.
    mrswack wrote: »
    The funds have been sent via Bacs so luckily he didn't get a penny but the fact he has tried to cash it and could have succeeded if FD or Barclaycard weren't as efficient.

    Am I the only confused by this thread? :huh:
    :heartpuls Mrs Marleyboy :heartpuls

    MSE: many of the benefits of a helpful family, without disadvantages like having to compete for the tv remote

    :) Proud Parents to an Aut-some son :)
  • Marvel1
    Marvel1 Posts: 7,512 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Tigsteroonie wrote: »
    Am I the only confused by this thread? :huh:

    First Direct is part of HSBC

    Copy of cheque is because the bank has the original

    Banked it and not banked it = he went into the bank to bank it, but the bank are not cashing (banking) it.

    Funds sent through BACS, probably because they cannot return the original cheque
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.6K Life & Family
  • 261.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture