Serving legal documents by recorded delivery - different name signed on receipt?

jez9999

I've sent a response to a demand for payment of debt by recorded delivery. The Royal Mail tracker indicates that the letter was delivered and signed for, although the name given and the signature are unrecognizable to me (the name isn't a name I would've expected given the people demanding the debt be paid). I've double-checked and the letter was definitely sent to the correct address, according to Royal Mail.

So, could the person demanding the debt claim, in court, that they had not received the response because someone with a different name signed for the letter? Do you actually need it to be signed for by a recognized person?

JGB1955

I may be wrong but thought that 'signed for' letters are actually signed for by the Post(wo)man - something that was introduced during the first lockdown.

EDIT - I AM wrong - apparently signature on delivery was reinstated on 1 May 2022.

jez9999

Really?  Odd that nothing on the Royal Mail tracker indicates that at all.  It looks like the policy is that the postman *signs for* the delivery, but is still supposed to take the name of the person they give it to.  So the question still stands: what if that name is unrecognized?

jez9999

JGB1955 could you give a link to a source as to when that was reinstated?  Thanks.

jez9999

It's come to my attention that, in fact, our local postie *isn't even opening the door and talking to a person* for the "signature on delivery" services.  Comparing several different tracked items in the area, the same signature is used and we received such an item through the letterbox.  I've submitted a claim and a complaint to Royal Mail about this.  What on earth is the point in paying extra for these services?  6 quid so they can fake a signature?  Crazy!

molerat

"6 quid" would not be recorded delivery but Special Delivery.  The recipient would have difficulty arguing it was not delivered.  Much cheaper options are available for the same proof of delivery, +£1.40 on the normal letter price,  but without the guaranteed delivery time and lower loss cover.

jez9999

Sure, but I'm talking about whether it was delivered *and signed for by someone there*.  It looks like the Royal Mail are taking the !!!!!! in this area and are just posting letters that are "signed on delivery", but even if they were doing their job, the person receiving could just lie about their name and signature.  Legally, I presume it's acceptable merely to prove delivery at that person's address?  Which kind of begs the question as to what's the point in having "signed for" services, really.  All they're actually doing is proof of delivery.

GrumpyDil

Yes which is why signed for is often not recommended. There is a presumption that letters posted first class are received x days after posting so generally the suggestion is to get a free certificate of posting only. 

chrisw

I always thought that legally it was just proof of posting that was required which is obtained for free from the post office. Delivery is then automatically presumed. Signed for and recorded were just insurance if the item was lost or not delivered.

jez9999

I see.  Nevertheless, if one had opted for recorded delivery, I suppose the tracking page indicating delivery would be acceptable proof too.  (even though it doesn't technically prove that the document was delivered to the person in question!)

GrumpyDil

jez9999 said:

I see.  Nevertheless, if one had opted for recorded delivery, I suppose the tracking page indicating delivery would be acceptable proof too.  (even though it doesn't technically prove that the document was delivered to the person in question!)

Yes as proof is required of delivery to the relevant address not a specific individual.  As an aside the Royal Mail signed for services never specify delivery to a specified individual anyway.