Previous owner using our address for banking, DVLA and setting up new accounts

user1977

p00hsticks said:

Deleted_User said:

Postal Services Act 2000

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.

(5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

Level 5 fine Unlimited for offences committed after 13 March 2015

" postal packet " means a letter, postcard, reply postcard, newspaper, printed packet, sample packet, or parcel, and every packet or article transmissible by post, and includes a telegram;

Would invading someone's privacy by opening their private mail be acting to their detriment?

I can't see how it can be in your case , as you would be doing it in an attempt to ensure that the named person actually receives the communications that they are currently not getting. That would also count as a 'reasonable excuse', so no offence is being committed. 

And as I said above, that only applies to items which have been "incorrectly delivered"  - which for the purposes of the Act means to the wrong address - the name isn't relevant. Your postie is meant to deliver the mail to your address even if it's got a previous resident's name on it.

There is absolutely no offence committed merely by opening mail addressed to your address (though obviously things like theft or fraud are still to be avoided!).

Grizebeck

elsien said:

https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/email/

You are overthinking it. Because bailiffs can’t force entry without a CCJ and any court paperwork would more than likely be coming to your address.

Thats wrong
Neither bailiffs nor a HCEO force their way into a domestic premises. 

[Deleted User]

p00hsticks said:

Deleted_User said:

Postal Services Act 2000

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.

(5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

Level 5 fine Unlimited for offences committed after 13 March 2015

" postal packet " means a letter, postcard, reply postcard, newspaper, printed packet, sample packet, or parcel, and every packet or article transmissible by post, and includes a telegram;

Would invading someone's privacy by opening their private mail be acting to their detriment?

I can't see how it can be in your case , as you would be doing it in an attempt to ensure that the named person actually receives the communications that they are currently not getting. That would also count as a 'reasonable excuse', so no offence is being committed. 

You are supposed to cross out the address and write NOT KNOWN AT THIS ADDRESS, RETURN TO SENDER, and stick it back in the post. If there is no return address a Post Office return letters centre can legally open it.

Arguably you cannot claim that opening a letter is not to the detriment of the intended recipient when there is a standard procedure to return it unopened, rendering any opening by you unnecessary.

[Deleted User]

user1977 said:

p00hsticks said:

Deleted_User said:

Postal Services Act 2000

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.

(5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

Level 5 fine Unlimited for offences committed after 13 March 2015

" postal packet " means a letter, postcard, reply postcard, newspaper, printed packet, sample packet, or parcel, and every packet or article transmissible by post, and includes a telegram;

Would invading someone's privacy by opening their private mail be acting to their detriment?

I can't see how it can be in your case , as you would be doing it in an attempt to ensure that the named person actually receives the communications that they are currently not getting. That would also count as a 'reasonable excuse', so no offence is being committed. 

And as I said above, that only applies to items which have been "incorrectly delivered"  - which for the purposes of the Act means to the wrong address - the name isn't relevant. Your postie is meant to deliver the mail to your address even if it's got a previous resident's name on it.

There is absolutely no offence committed merely by opening mail addressed to your address (though obviously things like theft or fraud are still to be avoided!).

(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.

Him is a person not a house. 

And for delivery to the address. The section on tampering with mail in transit that uses address as the delivery has a proviso "unless the context otherwise requires". The intent of the law appears to be relevant. Is the intent not that the mail gets to who it is intended for not just where the house?

user1977

Deleted_User said:

user1977 said:

p00hsticks said:

Deleted_User said:

Postal Services Act 2000

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.

(5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

Level 5 fine Unlimited for offences committed after 13 March 2015

" postal packet " means a letter, postcard, reply postcard, newspaper, printed packet, sample packet, or parcel, and every packet or article transmissible by post, and includes a telegram;

Would invading someone's privacy by opening their private mail be acting to their detriment?

I can't see how it can be in your case , as you would be doing it in an attempt to ensure that the named person actually receives the communications that they are currently not getting. That would also count as a 'reasonable excuse', so no offence is being committed. 

And as I said above, that only applies to items which have been "incorrectly delivered"  - which for the purposes of the Act means to the wrong address - the name isn't relevant. Your postie is meant to deliver the mail to your address even if it's got a previous resident's name on it.

There is absolutely no offence committed merely by opening mail addressed to your address (though obviously things like theft or fraud are still to be avoided!).

(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.

Him is a person not a house. 

And for delivery to the address. The section on tampering with mail in transit that uses address as the delivery has a proviso "unless the context otherwise requires". The intent of the law appears to be relevant. Is the intent not that the mail gets to who it is intended for not just where the house?

No, the intent of the law is to protect the integrity of the postal system while items are in the Royal Mail's custody - and RM's only job is to deliver to the address on the packet, not for the postie to investigate where the previous resident has moved to. It isn't concerned with what happens after the item has hit the correct doormat.

Look at the interpretation section:

"s.125 (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...

...

shall be a delivery to the addressee."

Countrysider

This has happened at every house i've ever lived at, and is happening at my current house. I always cross of the name on the letter and repost with 'not know at this address' written on the envelop. 

Some observations

- Banks, DVLA, council, and utilities generally respect this and stop writing
- Debt agencies will take no notice and will eventually send two heavies to your door demanding your ID before they go away.

The debt collectors will assume you are the debtor until they see your ID (even calling you by the debtor's name to get you to slip up!) and they'll try to gain 'peaceful entry' so make sure you close the door on their face before you go back inside to get your ID. 

As an aside: I do find it extraordinary that someone can appear at your house, demand your ID, and try to get in when your back is turned. I have no sympathy with their excuse that their client is owned money, as their client should have been more diligent when they loaned the money in the first place. 

[Deleted User]

user1977 said:

p00hsticks said:

Deleted_User said:

Postal Services Act 2000

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.

(5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

Level 5 fine Unlimited for offences committed after 13 March 2015

" postal packet " means a letter, postcard, reply postcard, newspaper, printed packet, sample packet, or parcel, and every packet or article transmissible by post, and includes a telegram;

Would invading someone's privacy by opening their private mail be acting to their detriment?

I can't see how it can be in your case , as you would be doing it in an attempt to ensure that the named person actually receives the communications that they are currently not getting. That would also count as a 'reasonable excuse', so no offence is being committed. 

And as I said above, that only applies to items which have been "incorrectly delivered"  - which for the purposes of the Act means to the wrong address - the name isn't relevant. Your postie is meant to deliver the mail to your address even if it's got a previous resident's name on it.

There is absolutely no offence committed merely by opening mail addressed to your address (though obviously things like theft or fraud are still to be avoided!).

If what you are saying was correct. If I had a lodger I could legally open all their mail addressed to them at my address. And people  house sharing could all legally open each others mail. Hell if someone was visiting my home they could legally open any post that arrived addressed to me, as it would have been delivered to the address house. 

Brie

(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.

So just to be extra safe get her to open the post.

user1977

Deleted_User said:

user1977 said:

p00hsticks said:

Deleted_User said:

Postal Services Act 2000

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.

(5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

Level 5 fine Unlimited for offences committed after 13 March 2015

" postal packet " means a letter, postcard, reply postcard, newspaper, printed packet, sample packet, or parcel, and every packet or article transmissible by post, and includes a telegram;

Would invading someone's privacy by opening their private mail be acting to their detriment?

I can't see how it can be in your case , as you would be doing it in an attempt to ensure that the named person actually receives the communications that they are currently not getting. That would also count as a 'reasonable excuse', so no offence is being committed. 

And as I said above, that only applies to items which have been "incorrectly delivered"  - which for the purposes of the Act means to the wrong address - the name isn't relevant. Your postie is meant to deliver the mail to your address even if it's got a previous resident's name on it.

There is absolutely no offence committed merely by opening mail addressed to your address (though obviously things like theft or fraud are still to be avoided!).

If what you are saying was correct. If I had a lodger I could legally open all their mail addressed to them at my address. And people house sharing could all legally open each others mail. Hell if someone was visiting my home they could legally open any post that arrived addressed to me, as it would have been delivered to the address house. 

Correct, none of these things is a criminal offence. Which is why you won't have heard about anybody being prosecuted for doing such things.

Sunsaru

Happened for a while at my house. I ended up opening some of the more official looking letters, phoning the relevant company, quoting whatever reference number I found and letting them know that the previous resident had left. 99% stopped sending stuff and anything else now goes on the recycling.
So long as you're not using the stuff for personal gain you should be fine.