Car refund advice

macman

You don't need to prove delivery: the law assumes delivery of post after 48 hours, so all you need is proof of posting.

AndyMc.....

macman wrote: »

You don't need to prove delivery: the law assumes delivery of post after 48 hours, so all you need is proof of posting.

Which is why it's best not to used signed for delivery.

unholyangel

macman wrote: »

You don't need to prove delivery: the law assumes delivery of post after 48 hours, so all you need is proof of posting.

Worth noting that the rule you refer to only applies where a legislative act requires or authorises a document to be served by first class post is 2 business days after posting, not 48 hours.

If there is no legislation requiring or authorising it to be send by post then you can't rely on that rule.

Car_54

macman wrote: »

You don't need to prove delivery: the law assumes delivery of post after 48 hours, so all you need is proof of posting.

Are you sure? AFAIK the law in question is the Interpretation Act 1978, which only applies "Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post ...", not to the post in general.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

waamo wrote: »

What if they don't sign for it?

Then its marked as refused to sign, receipt is still proof it was sent and that is that is required to satisfy a notice of intended legal action. The Op could disguise it in a box (looking like a car part or promotional goodies) garages get signed for parts and mail all the time from the post man.

AndyMc.....

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

Then its marked as refused to sign, receipt is still proof it was sent and that is that is required to satisfy a notice of intended legal action. The Op could disguise it in a box (looking like a car part or promotional goodies) garages get signed for parts and mail all the time from the post man.

No it's not. It's evidence on the traders behalf to show it was never delivered.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

AndyMc..... wrote: »

No it's not. It's evidence on the traders behalf to show it was never delivered.

its evidence of its was delivered but rejected, theres a difference, if it wasn't delivered the tracking page would stipulate that it was due to being lost in transit etc,if its rejected the post office tells you it was rejected by occupier, plus the receipt is proof of postage. just like posting in mainstream with proof of postage as that is the minimum that is required to prove it was posted. Whether its rejected or not is moot point, the OP could prove it was posted that is the minimum that is required. This type of tittle for tattle does not fly with Small claims, "yes judge he may of sent it, but I refused it, therefore its not proof we received it" is not going to fly, its not accepted in the realms of refusal of signed for NIP's, S172's, Court Summons's, and it doesn't fly in small claims either. The judge will state You did receive the letter, its was your choice to then reject it, it is therefore evidenced it was SENT AND RECEIVED and proven WITH RECEIPT.






OP only needs to proof of SENDING it it makes no difference to whether it was through recorded normal course of mail, as the receipt shows PROOF OF POSTAGE.


And lets not forget 1.0 Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7

This states:-
"7. Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
2.0 Practice Direction - Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail

"With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.
1. Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
2. To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-
(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;
(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.
3. "Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

4. Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.
5. This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.
8 March 1985


definition of deliver
1.
bring and hand over (a letter, parcel, or goods) to the proper recipient or address.
.



So there we have it, the law states that any document to serve Only need proof of service and bring and hand to the address for the purposes of that service.


Find some case law that states otherwise ill gladly apologise and say I was wrong until then I think your mistaken from the evidence I have seen.

David_Aston

Can I ask if the op sends it by registered or similar, would that cover him?

atrixblue.-MFR-.

David_Aston wrote: »

Can I ask if the op sends it by registered or similar, would that cover him?

He can send a mate over with it and stand back and record it, He can send it through the post office in normal mail and retain the receipt, he can send it first class signed for, he can send it special delivery before 1pm, he can hire DPD, Yodel, Parcelforce, Hermes to deliver it, He could hire a enforcement agent form a local bailiff and enformcement company to deliver it.

David_Aston

That means you don't know if registered would cover him?