Postal Service

Johnersh

Standard advice on the forum is to send by post and never using any of the "signed for" services.

The Court of Appeal in Diriye v Bojaj have now confirmed that it is the sending that is relevant, not when the recipient receives it.  The signature is mere confirmation, but there is still "deemed service" as it is a next day delivery service.

NOTE:
https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2020/11/04/the-dog-at-my-homework-excuse-doesnt-work-well-in-court-the-judge-may-have-been-wrong-about-the-way-signed-for-1st-class-operated-but-they-were-right-to-refuse-relief-from-sanctions-court/

Le_Kirk

Interesting points made in there.  Maybe have to adjust advice to posters in light of that decision and, to me, the most telling part was -

Finally, I would be concerned that any other result would mean that an unscrupulous intended recipient could evade service altogether, simply by refusing to sign for the document in question. Solicitors use the “Signed For 1st Class” service presumably for added protection, because they obtain a record of receipt. It would be entirely counterproductive to conclude that the use of this service had the opposite effect and could allow an intended recipient to avoid service altogether.

 ............ because that is why we often advise posters not to use signed for.  

Were_Doomed

Counter-point ... what benefit does this more expensive service offer over standard 1st class with a certificate of posting? (Other than possibly a next day guarantee, which could actually be the day after depending on when the letter was received by RM).

Redx

Most postie's sign for the recipient , unless it's special delivery , especially since covid19

So signed for is not proof of delivery to the recipient , especially if it's a p o box number which these companies and debt collectors hide behind

Some of the signed for mail for the DWP goes to a post office postal centre , where it is readdressed to the actual recipient address by the post office staff (redirection)

Just goes to show that telling people that only free proof of postage is required , plus they cannot just claim , I didn't receive anything so I am not liable , is good advice

Were_Doomed

Agreed. The info in the OP is a useful reference (as a rebuttal to any claim a PPC - or anyone for that matter - may make about lack of service), but I don't think it changes our core advice of using 1st class post (via a Post Office) and obtaining a free certificate of posting. The enhanced (thus more expensive) delivery options don't give any greater protection.

Johnersh

Correct. The judgment is clear that paying for the service confers no additional benefit - the rule is the rule.

I did not suggest the broad guidance re  method of service needed to change, just that if forumites come here having already sent something registered or choose to send it registered because they have the labels at work etc, then it's clear that they can rely on it - irrespective of whether the recipient actually signs for it at all. 

Were_Doomed

I'm glad we agree.