Misused Address

NoodleDoodleMan

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

That's not my interpretation, let's agree to disagree.

Nicholas

NoodleDoodleMan wrote: »

(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 !!!

I think para 84 (3) is more appropriate (para (1) is more related to actually interfering with post that is in the course of being delivered):

"(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."

I think even this is open to interpretation in the circumstances. ie. down to the intention of the person opening the letter.

walesrob

adindas wrote: »

But majority will stop sending you if you return it multiple times. This is based on my personal experience.

My experience has been the opposite. I live in a rented property and after 10 months I'm still getting letters for previous 2 tenants, all debt collections. I've marked then return to sender since day 1 (most days its 2-3 letters), and they did stop for a few weeks, and then started again. Now I'm going to bin them. The sender has had numerous returns, so they should have got the message by now.

adindas

walesrob wrote: »

My experience has been the opposite. I live in a rented property and after 10 months I'm still getting letters for previous 2 tenants, all debt collections. I've marked then return to sender since day 1 (most days its 2-3 letters), and they did stop for a few weeks, and then started again. Now I'm going to bin them. The sender has had numerous returns, so they should have got the message by now.

I did mention it in my previous post, didn't I??

A few might be keep sending you especially if they don't have any alternative address where to send it and they desperately want to prove that they send you the letter.

..... The exception is if they don't have any alternative address to send and they desperate want to prove that they send you the letter.

In your case all debt collectors. They defenitely do not have other address so they keep sending the letter to the last known address. Every debt collector will do that to keep the case hot.

Terry_Towelling

What the legislation doesn't make clear is, in whose opinion transmission is deemed to be complete - the sender, the deliverer, the intended recipient or the actual recipient - if different).

The mail service doesn't care who the individual named on the letter is and doesn't know whether they live at the address or not. All they are concerned with is getting the letter to the address on the envelope. As soon as that is done, 'transmission' is finished (in my opinion).

If a letter drops on your mat but the address is different to yours, 'transmission' is still finished (albeit incorrectly) in the eyes of the deliverer, but arguably not in the eyes of the sender.

Where the house number and postcode are correct but the occupier/street name/village/town are inaccurate, no one can say for sure which of the addressee's details are right or wrong but the deliverer will still consider the transmission finished.

The correct response of the recipient in these situations is probably to 'return to sender' or mark the letter as 'not known at this address' and whether you define this as 'continuing the transmission' or 'starting a new transmission' is, again, debateable, but opening the item with no intent to cause harm is surely not a crime.

walesrob

Unless the letter is sent recorded or tracked, there is no proof the intended recipient has received the letter, or if it has been destroyed by an unintended recipient (or anyone else for that matter), trying to prove otherwise, well good luck. Your welcome to sift through the contents of my shredder, which by the way, shreds to confetti.

[Deleted User]

NoodleDoodleMan wrote: »

Other sources suggest it is, under the Postal Services Act 2000.

For it to be illegal, you would have to use the contents, to act in some way that is intended to be detrimental to the addressee.

Postal_Services_Act_2000 wrote:

84 Interfering with the mail: general.

(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.

(emphasis is mine)

[Deleted User]

adindas wrote: »

Also could people not report it as harassment if you have done it multiple times and they keep sending it ??

It has been done.

https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/Personal_injury_claims_litigation/Lisa_Ferguson_v_British_Gas_150409

[Deleted User]

walesrob wrote: »

I live in a rented property and after 10 months I'm still getting letters for previous 2 tenants, all debt collections.

I've lived her for almost 10 years and, while the flood has faded to a trickle, I still get the odd letter.

molerat

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

It has been done.

https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/Personal_injury_claims_litigation/Lisa_Ferguson_v_British_Gas_150409

But in that case the complainant was the intended recipient of the mailings, completely different from this case.