Nuisance debt-collector letters addressed to previous residents

unholyangel

DiddyDavies said:

unholyangel said:

davidmcn said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

AIUI, you are OK to open mail delivered to your address to a person whom is unknown to you so long as you have reasonable cause to do so and you have no dishonest or fraudulent intent in doing so.

You're ok to open mail addressed to your address, full stop. You don't even need to justify "reasonable cause" etc. That caveat only applies if mail addressed to a different address is delivered to you e.g. for a neighbour.

Otherwise next thing you know debt collectors will be turning up

I wouldn't have thought that's particularly likely. It costs pennies for them to churn out letters, much more to send somebody round in person - they're only likely to do that if they're a bit more convinced that they've got the right address or the debt is high enough to justify it.

Well, not quite. 

(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.

The point that davidmcn was making is that the section of the legislation that you quote above wouldn't apply because if a letter is delivered to your property and it has the correct address stated on it (even if the named addressee doesn't live there) then that letter hasn't been incorrectly delivered as Royal Mail are only required to deliver to the stated address.
Once that has occurred, the mail has been delivered as required and you have no need to justify your actions in opening it.

There are two separate offences. One of opening mail during it's tranmission (aka before it is delivered to the address) and another for incorrectly opening once delivered. If what you (and davidmcn) said was true, why would they need two separate offences? 

Also, the wording is incorrectly delivered to him, not incorrectly delivered to his address. The interpretation/rule you speak of is in relation to the postal packet still being in transmission or not. 

ETA: 

(3)
For the purposes of this Act—
(a)a postal packet shall be taken to be in course of transmission by post from the time of its being delivered to any post office or post office letter box to the time of its being delivered to the addressee,
(c)the delivery of a postal packet—
(i)at the premises to which it is addressed or redirected, unless they are a post office from which it is to be collected,
(ii)to any box or receptacle to which the occupier of those premises has agreed that postal packets addressed to persons at those premises may be delivered, or
(iii)to the addressee’s agent or to any other person considered to be authorised to receive the packet,
shall be a delivery to the addressee.

As I said, the rule of when it is delivered relates to whether it is still in considered to be in transmission or not. 

Delivery to the written address is taken to be delivery to the addressee, but if you are not in fact the addressee then it has been incorrectly delivered to you. By the letter of the act, it needs to have been delivered to the correct address (as directed by the item of mail) else it is still considered in transmission and not delivered at all never mind incorrectly so! 

DiddyDavies

unholyangel said:

There are two separate offences. One of opening mail during it's tranmission (aka before it is delivered to the address) and another for incorrectly opening once delivered. If what you (and davidmcn) said was true, why would they need two separate offences? 

What you have stated above (the bit I've put in bold) is incorrect.
The offence is not for incorrectly opening mail once delivered, it's for opening mail that's been incorrectly delivered.
Provided the letters in question show the OP's address then by opening them,no offence has occurred as they have been delivered to the correct location as shown on the envelope.

unholyangel said:
Also, the wording is incorrectly delivered to him, not incorrectly delivered to his address. The interpretation/rule you speak of is in relation to the postal packet still being in transmission or not. 

From RM themselves:

We’re obliged to deliver to the address on an item, and not the name. So there can be situations when we deliver items to your address which aren't in your name, but not the other way round.

Someone else has received my mail (royalmail.com)

davidmcn

unholyangel said:

DiddyDavies said:

unholyangel said:

davidmcn said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

AIUI, you are OK to open mail delivered to your address to a person whom is unknown to you so long as you have reasonable cause to do so and you have no dishonest or fraudulent intent in doing so.

You're ok to open mail addressed to your address, full stop. You don't even need to justify "reasonable cause" etc. That caveat only applies if mail addressed to a different address is delivered to you e.g. for a neighbour.

Otherwise next thing you know debt collectors will be turning up

I wouldn't have thought that's particularly likely. It costs pennies for them to churn out letters, much more to send somebody round in person - they're only likely to do that if they're a bit more convinced that they've got the right address or the debt is high enough to justify it.

Well, not quite. 

(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.

The point that davidmcn was making is that the section of the legislation that you quote above wouldn't apply because if a letter is delivered to your property and it has the correct address stated on it (even if the named addressee doesn't live there) then that letter hasn't been incorrectly delivered as Royal Mail are only required to deliver to the stated address.
Once that has occurred, the mail has been delivered as required and you have no need to justify your actions in opening it.

There are two separate offences. One of opening mail during it's tranmission (aka before it is delivered to the address) and another for incorrectly opening once delivered. If what you (and davidmcn) said was true, why would they need two separate offences?

They're not identically worded - it's an offence to open any mail during its transmission (which would include things actually addressed to you!). And although "transmission" doesn't appear to be defined, I would take that to mean while it's actually being moved about by the postal service, rather than after they've delivered to an address (whether a correct address or not).

Delivery to the written address is taken to be delivery to the addressee, but if you are not in fact the addressee then it has been incorrectly delivered to you.

But that is the address to which the postal service is meant to deliver it - in what sense is the delivery "incorrect"? Doing anything else with it (in the absence of e.g. a redirection instruction) would be incorrect.

unholyangel

DiddyDavies said:

unholyangel said:

There are two separate offences. One of opening mail during it's tranmission (aka before it is delivered to the address) and another for incorrectly opening once delivered. If what you (and davidmcn) said was true, why would they need two separate offences? 

What you have stated above (the bit I've put in bold) is incorrect.
The offence is not for incorrectly opening mail once delivered, it's for opening mail that's been incorrectly delivered.
Provided the letters in question show the OP's address then by opening them,no offence has occurred as they have been delivered to the correct location as shown on the envelope.

unholyangel said:
Also, the wording is incorrectly delivered to him, not incorrectly delivered to his address. The interpretation/rule you speak of is in relation to the postal packet still being in transmission or not. 

From RM themselves:

We’re obliged to deliver to the address on an item, and not the name. So there can be situations when we deliver items to your address which aren't in your name, but not the other way round.

Someone else has received my mail (royalmail.com)

davidmcn said:

unholyangel said:

DiddyDavies said:

unholyangel said:

davidmcn said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

AIUI, you are OK to open mail delivered to your address to a person whom is unknown to you so long as you have reasonable cause to do so and you have no dishonest or fraudulent intent in doing so.

You're ok to open mail addressed to your address, full stop. You don't even need to justify "reasonable cause" etc. That caveat only applies if mail addressed to a different address is delivered to you e.g. for a neighbour.

Otherwise next thing you know debt collectors will be turning up

I wouldn't have thought that's particularly likely. It costs pennies for them to churn out letters, much more to send somebody round in person - they're only likely to do that if they're a bit more convinced that they've got the right address or the debt is high enough to justify it.

Well, not quite. 

(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.

The point that davidmcn was making is that the section of the legislation that you quote above wouldn't apply because if a letter is delivered to your property and it has the correct address stated on it (even if the named addressee doesn't live there) then that letter hasn't been incorrectly delivered as Royal Mail are only required to deliver to the stated address.
Once that has occurred, the mail has been delivered as required and you have no need to justify your actions in opening it.

There are two separate offences. One of opening mail during it's tranmission (aka before it is delivered to the address) and another for incorrectly opening once delivered. If what you (and davidmcn) said was true, why would they need two separate offences?

They're not identically worded - it's an offence to open any mail during its transmission (which would include things actually addressed to you!). And although "transmission" doesn't appear to be defined, I would take that to mean while it's actually being moved about by the postal service, rather than after they've delivered to an address (whether a correct address or not).

Delivery to the written address is taken to be delivery to the addressee, but if you are not in fact the addressee then it has been incorrectly delivered to you.

But that is the address to which the postal service is meant to deliver it - in what sense is the delivery "incorrect"? Doing anything else with it (in the absence of e.g. a redirection instruction) would be incorrect.

Did both of you just read one line of my post and forget to read the rest? 

The section I just quoted defines what transmission is. As from the time it is dropped off at the post office/letter box until it is delivered to the addressee. It also states that a delivery to the named address will be taken as delivery to the addressee. 

It does not state that delivery to any address will be taken as delivery to the addressee. By the letter of the act, if it is delivered to an address not named on the postal packet, it hasn't been delivered. Therefore in order to satisfy the offence involving "incorrectly delivered to him", it needs to have been delivered to the correct address. As any mail received at the wrong address would be caught under s84(1)

J_B

coffeehound said:

Over the past two years, letters from debt collectors are regularly delivered to this address.  I've sent back about half a dozen marked 'not known at this address, please RTS' but to no avail.  Since they are marked 'private and confidential' I suppose I shouldn't even know who they are from, but since there are so many I opened one to see what it was.  Anything else to be done in this situation?

We bought a pair of semis in 2009 which had both been repossessed - we were in a similar situation.

In the end I just made a document saying something like "to whom it may concern ... the following are no longer associated with these addresses. We purchased these properties on X date from the official receivers. Please unlink this address with this name"

I would open all the mail and any with contact details, I would fire one of these off.

Maybe unnecessary, (?) but it made me feel better!!!!

Money_Grabber13579

unholyangel said:

DiddyDavies said:

unholyangel said:

There are two separate offences. One of opening mail during it's tranmission (aka before it is delivered to the address) and another for incorrectly opening once delivered. If what you (and davidmcn) said was true, why would they need two separate offences? 

What you have stated above (the bit I've put in bold) is incorrect.
The offence is not for incorrectly opening mail once delivered, it's for opening mail that's been incorrectly delivered.
Provided the letters in question show the OP's address then by opening them,no offence has occurred as they have been delivered to the correct location as shown on the envelope.

unholyangel said:
Also, the wording is incorrectly delivered to him, not incorrectly delivered to his address. The interpretation/rule you speak of is in relation to the postal packet still being in transmission or not. 

From RM themselves:

We’re obliged to deliver to the address on an item, and not the name. So there can be situations when we deliver items to your address which aren't in your name, but not the other way round.

Someone else has received my mail (royalmail.com)

davidmcn said:

unholyangel said:

DiddyDavies said:

unholyangel said:

davidmcn said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

AIUI, you are OK to open mail delivered to your address to a person whom is unknown to you so long as you have reasonable cause to do so and you have no dishonest or fraudulent intent in doing so.

You're ok to open mail addressed to your address, full stop. You don't even need to justify "reasonable cause" etc. That caveat only applies if mail addressed to a different address is delivered to you e.g. for a neighbour.

Otherwise next thing you know debt collectors will be turning up

I wouldn't have thought that's particularly likely. It costs pennies for them to churn out letters, much more to send somebody round in person - they're only likely to do that if they're a bit more convinced that they've got the right address or the debt is high enough to justify it.

Well, not quite. 

(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.

The point that davidmcn was making is that the section of the legislation that you quote above wouldn't apply because if a letter is delivered to your property and it has the correct address stated on it (even if the named addressee doesn't live there) then that letter hasn't been incorrectly delivered as Royal Mail are only required to deliver to the stated address.
Once that has occurred, the mail has been delivered as required and you have no need to justify your actions in opening it.

There are two separate offences. One of opening mail during it's tranmission (aka before it is delivered to the address) and another for incorrectly opening once delivered. If what you (and davidmcn) said was true, why would they need two separate offences?

They're not identically worded - it's an offence to open any mail during its transmission (which would include things actually addressed to you!). And although "transmission" doesn't appear to be defined, I would take that to mean while it's actually being moved about by the postal service, rather than after they've delivered to an address (whether a correct address or not).

Delivery to the written address is taken to be delivery to the addressee, but if you are not in fact the addressee then it has been incorrectly delivered to you.

But that is the address to which the postal service is meant to deliver it - in what sense is the delivery "incorrect"? Doing anything else with it (in the absence of e.g. a redirection instruction) would be incorrect.

Did both of you just read one line of my post and forget to read the rest? 

The section I just quoted defines what transmission is. As from the time it is dropped off at the post office/letter box until it is delivered to the addressee. It also states that a delivery to the named address will be taken as delivery to the addressee. 

It does not state that delivery to any address will be taken as delivery to the addressee. By the letter of the act, if it is delivered to an address not named on the postal packet, it hasn't been delivered. Therefore in order to satisfy the offence involving "incorrectly delivered to him", it needs to have been delivered to the correct address. As any mail received at the wrong address would be caught under s84(1)

Whilst not 100% clear, I would suggest that Royal Mail themselves believe it to be an offence to open mail which they know belongs to someone else, even if it is delivered to the address on the letter - they given the example of mail address to a former owner.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/allowed-mail-law-parcel-neighbour-3647335

wealdroam

Money_Grabber13579 said:

unholyangel said:

DiddyDavies said:

unholyangel said:

There are two separate offences. One of opening mail during it's tranmission (aka before it is delivered to the address) and another for incorrectly opening once delivered. If what you (and davidmcn) said was true, why would they need two separate offences? 

What you have stated above (the bit I've put in bold) is incorrect.
The offence is not for incorrectly opening mail once delivered, it's for opening mail that's been incorrectly delivered.
Provided the letters in question show the OP's address then by opening them,no offence has occurred as they have been delivered to the correct location as shown on the envelope.

unholyangel said:
Also, the wording is incorrectly delivered to him, not incorrectly delivered to his address. The interpretation/rule you speak of is in relation to the postal packet still being in transmission or not. 

From RM themselves:

We’re obliged to deliver to the address on an item, and not the name. So there can be situations when we deliver items to your address which aren't in your name, but not the other way round.

Someone else has received my mail (royalmail.com)

davidmcn said:

unholyangel said:

DiddyDavies said:

unholyangel said:

davidmcn said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

AIUI, you are OK to open mail delivered to your address to a person whom is unknown to you so long as you have reasonable cause to do so and you have no dishonest or fraudulent intent in doing so.

You're ok to open mail addressed to your address, full stop. You don't even need to justify "reasonable cause" etc. That caveat only applies if mail addressed to a different address is delivered to you e.g. for a neighbour.

Otherwise next thing you know debt collectors will be turning up

I wouldn't have thought that's particularly likely. It costs pennies for them to churn out letters, much more to send somebody round in person - they're only likely to do that if they're a bit more convinced that they've got the right address or the debt is high enough to justify it.

Well, not quite. 

(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.

The point that davidmcn was making is that the section of the legislation that you quote above wouldn't apply because if a letter is delivered to your property and it has the correct address stated on it (even if the named addressee doesn't live there) then that letter hasn't been incorrectly delivered as Royal Mail are only required to deliver to the stated address.
Once that has occurred, the mail has been delivered as required and you have no need to justify your actions in opening it.

There are two separate offences. One of opening mail during it's tranmission (aka before it is delivered to the address) and another for incorrectly opening once delivered. If what you (and davidmcn) said was true, why would they need two separate offences?

They're not identically worded - it's an offence to open any mail during its transmission (which would include things actually addressed to you!). And although "transmission" doesn't appear to be defined, I would take that to mean while it's actually being moved about by the postal service, rather than after they've delivered to an address (whether a correct address or not).

Delivery to the written address is taken to be delivery to the addressee, but if you are not in fact the addressee then it has been incorrectly delivered to you.

But that is the address to which the postal service is meant to deliver it - in what sense is the delivery "incorrect"? Doing anything else with it (in the absence of e.g. a redirection instruction) would be incorrect.

Did both of you just read one line of my post and forget to read the rest? 

The section I just quoted defines what transmission is. As from the time it is dropped off at the post office/letter box until it is delivered to the addressee. It also states that a delivery to the named address will be taken as delivery to the addressee. 

It does not state that delivery to any address will be taken as delivery to the addressee. By the letter of the act, if it is delivered to an address not named on the postal packet, it hasn't been delivered. Therefore in order to satisfy the offence involving "incorrectly delivered to him", it needs to have been delivered to the correct address. As any mail received at the wrong address would be caught under s84(1)

Whilst not 100% clear, I would suggest that Royal Mail themselves believe it to be an offence to open mail which they know belongs to someone else, even if it is delivered to the address on the letter - they given the example of mail address to a former owner.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/allowed-mail-law-parcel-neighbour-3647335

Or is that just a journalist's interpretation of what a 'Royal Mail spokesperson' might've said?

badmemory

Return to send gone away doesn't work, neither for that matter does return to sender addressee deceased!

Manxman_in_exile

Money_Grabber13579 said:

unholyangel said:

DiddyDavies said:

unholyangel said:

There are two separate offences. One of opening mail during it's tranmission (aka before it is delivered to the address) and another for incorrectly opening once delivered. If what you (and davidmcn) said was true, why would they need two separate offences? 

What you have stated above (the bit I've put in bold) is incorrect.
The offence is not for incorrectly opening mail once delivered, it's for opening mail that's been incorrectly delivered.
Provided the letters in question show the OP's address then by opening them,no offence has occurred as they have been delivered to the correct location as shown on the envelope.

unholyangel said:
Also, the wording is incorrectly delivered to him, not incorrectly delivered to his address. The interpretation/rule you speak of is in relation to the postal packet still being in transmission or not. 

From RM themselves:

We’re obliged to deliver to the address on an item, and not the name. So there can be situations when we deliver items to your address which aren't in your name, but not the other way round.

Someone else has received my mail (royalmail.com)

davidmcn said:

unholyangel said:

DiddyDavies said:

unholyangel said:

davidmcn said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

AIUI, you are OK to open mail delivered to your address to a person whom is unknown to you so long as you have reasonable cause to do so and you have no dishonest or fraudulent intent in doing so.

You're ok to open mail addressed to your address, full stop. You don't even need to justify "reasonable cause" etc. That caveat only applies if mail addressed to a different address is delivered to you e.g. for a neighbour.

Otherwise next thing you know debt collectors will be turning up

I wouldn't have thought that's particularly likely. It costs pennies for them to churn out letters, much more to send somebody round in person - they're only likely to do that if they're a bit more convinced that they've got the right address or the debt is high enough to justify it.

Well, not quite. 

(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.

The point that davidmcn was making is that the section of the legislation that you quote above wouldn't apply because if a letter is delivered to your property and it has the correct address stated on it (even if the named addressee doesn't live there) then that letter hasn't been incorrectly delivered as Royal Mail are only required to deliver to the stated address.
Once that has occurred, the mail has been delivered as required and you have no need to justify your actions in opening it.

There are two separate offences. One of opening mail during it's tranmission (aka before it is delivered to the address) and another for incorrectly opening once delivered. If what you (and davidmcn) said was true, why would they need two separate offences?

They're not identically worded - it's an offence to open any mail during its transmission (which would include things actually addressed to you!). And although "transmission" doesn't appear to be defined, I would take that to mean while it's actually being moved about by the postal service, rather than after they've delivered to an address (whether a correct address or not).

Delivery to the written address is taken to be delivery to the addressee, but if you are not in fact the addressee then it has been incorrectly delivered to you.

But that is the address to which the postal service is meant to deliver it - in what sense is the delivery "incorrect"? Doing anything else with it (in the absence of e.g. a redirection instruction) would be incorrect.

Did both of you just read one line of my post and forget to read the rest? 

The section I just quoted defines what transmission is. As from the time it is dropped off at the post office/letter box until it is delivered to the addressee. It also states that a delivery to the named address will be taken as delivery to the addressee. 

It does not state that delivery to any address will be taken as delivery to the addressee. By the letter of the act, if it is delivered to an address not named on the postal packet, it hasn't been delivered. Therefore in order to satisfy the offence involving "incorrectly delivered to him", it needs to have been delivered to the correct address. As any mail received at the wrong address would be caught under s84(1)

Whilst not 100% clear, I would suggest that Royal Mail themselves believe it to be an offence to open mail which they know belongs to someone else, even if it is delivered to the address on the letter - they given the example of mail address to a former owner.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/allowed-mail-law-parcel-neighbour-3647335

But accepting legal advice from RM is a bit like accepting legal advice from a policeman.  Pointless.*

And it's wrong anyway.  "The Postal Services Act is clear that a person is committing an offence if they deliberately open post which they know or suspect has been incorrectly delivered to them."  That is not what the Act says - in fact it makes it clear that's not what the Act says earlier in the article.

*  See this thread:  https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6223842/stopped-by-police-and-a-question-arose/p1