Misused Address

[Deleted User]

There needs to be intent to harm.

It's one of those urban myths that just won't die.

NoodleDoodleMan

Para 84 does not appear to support the urban myth status.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/26/part/V/crossheading/offences-of-interfering-with-the-mail

[Deleted User]

Yes, it does.

Did you actually read it?

NoodleDoodleMan

Yes - which bit is unclear ?

[Deleted User]

None of it. It's very clear.

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.

NoodleDoodleMan

(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



Transmission starts with the sender, and ends with the intended receipient - surely ?


Therefore anybody, than the latter, opening a letter is in breach.


Anyway, I have a train to catch !!!

[Deleted User]

No. Transmission ends when it gets to the pre-determined destination. Not any other location.

That clause refers to stopping it between sender and that address.

Fingerbobs

Going back to the original post, I had exactly this at my address. Using the return address on the back of the envelope, I was able to deduce who was sending the letters (a debt collection company), and rang them each time a letter arrived to tell them that this person had never lived at or had any connection with my address.

They couldn't seem to grasp the fact that this person had never, ever, ever lived at this address, and just kept repeating "it must be a previous tenant" because it's recorded as a linked address at one or more of the credit reference agencies.

They told me that returning the letters to sender was pointless, and advised me to just bin any future letters - which I did. Nothing came of it, and about 5 years later the letters finally stopped.

adindas

Fingerbobs wrote: »

They told me that returning the letters to sender was pointless, and advised me to just bin any future letters - which I did. Nothing came of it, and about 5 years later the letters finally stopped.

I do not understand why pointless. You do not need to do it frequently as one in a month with several insolicitated mail for instance is fine. It just takes you less than a few minutes to do that.

Fingerbobs

adindas wrote: »

I do not understand why pointless. You do not need to do it frequently as one in a month with several insolicitated mail for instance is fine. It just takes you less than a few minutes to do that.

Presumably pointless because returning them will have no effect. I suspect they simply gather them all up and put them in the bin at their end, so you're just cutting their workload by binning them locally.