We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Previous owner using our address for banking, DVLA and setting up new accounts
Comments
-
Deleted_User said:
If what you are saying was correct...user1977 said:
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.p00hsticks said:
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.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?
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!).It is correct.There are many previous threads where this has been debated to the nth degree. There is nothing illegal about simply opening an item of post which is correctly addressed and delivered to your property.4 -
No the intention of the act is to protect the mail both when it is in the Royal Mail's custody part V 83 Offenses of Interfering with the mail postal operators, and in the custody of the general public part V 84 Offenses of Interfering with the mail general.user1977 said:
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.Deleted_User said:user1977 said:
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.p00hsticks said:
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.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?
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?
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."
Our difference of opinion is over the interpretation of correctly delivered to him. If the person's name is relevant. You view it as not relevant because the royal mail deliver to a letter box not a specific person under 83 Offenses of Interfering with the mail postal operators. I view it as relevant because the legislation uses delivered to him under 84 Offenses of Interfering with the mail general, not simply delivered or delivered to the address. I view that in context the person's name is relevant.0 -
What you are saying is at odds with what the Royal Mail says and what the legal advise to Landlords is on what to do if they receive former tenants mail which is do not open it. So are you saying your interpretation of the law is correct and they are mistaken. On what basis are you confident of your interpretation, can you refer to case law or are you legally qualified to give expert legal. advise. Because otherwise as a lay person I would err on the side of caution and do what the royal mail tells people to do.user1977 said:
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.Deleted_User said:
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.user1977 said:
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.p00hsticks said:
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.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?
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!).0 -
Then how do you explain the interpretation section which specifically says that for the purposes of the Act (i.e. the entire Act), delivery to the address shall be deemed to be delivery to the addressee? If the Act intended the packet to actually get into the correct person's hands, why does it not say anything which encourages that to happen? e.g. any obligation on the OP to return the mail to sender.Deleted_User said:
No the intention of the act is to protect the mail both when it is in the Royal Mail's custody part V 83 Offenses of Interfering with the mail postal operators, and in the custody of the general public part V 84 Offenses of Interfering with the mail general.user1977 said:
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.Deleted_User said:user1977 said:
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.p00hsticks said:
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.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?
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?
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."
Our difference of opinion is over the interpretation of correctly delivered to him. If the person's name is relevant. You view it as not relevant because the royal mail deliver to a letter box not a specific person under 83 Offenses of Interfering with the mail postal operators. I view it as relevant because the legislation uses delivered to him under 84 Offenses of Interfering with the mail general, not simply delivered or delivered to the address. I view that in context the person's name is relevant.
I don't know what "legal advice to Landlords" you're talking about, but the Royal Mail's advice on this webpage is:What you are saying is at odds with what the Royal Mail says and what the legal advise to Landlords is on what to do if they receive former tenants mail which is do not open it.
"If you’ve received mail which has your address, but not your name, this is because we deliver to addresses rather than names. If this does happen, you can put a cross through the address and write 'Not known at this address' or 'No longer lives here' and put it back in a postbox." (my emphasis)
Nothing which suggests you'd be committing a criminal offence by opening it or that you're obliged to return to sender.
A law degree and 25 years' practice as a solicitor.On what basis are you confident of your interpretation.11 -
Deleted_User said:
What you are saying is at odds with what the Royal Mail says and what the legal advise to Landlords is on what to do if they receive former tenants mail which is do not open it. So are you saying your interpretation of the law is correct and they are mistaken. On what basis are you confident of your interpretation, can you refer to case law or are you legally qualified to give expert legal. advise. Because otherwise as a lay person I would err on the side of caution and do what the royal mail tells people to do.user1977 said:
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.The advice to 'return to sender' is just that, "advice".Something which is advice doesn't make doing something else illegal by itself. It is a good idea to RTS mail which is delivered to someone who doesn't live at that address anymore, but in most cases it is equally valid to open the envelope to look for contact details for the sender to advise them about the misaddressed mail.2 -
The first thing the interpretation section states is "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—"user1977 said:
Then how do you explain the interpretation section which specifically says that for the purposes of the Act (i.e. the entire Act), delivery to the address shall be deemed to be delivery to the addressee? If the Act intended the packet to actually get into the correct person's hands, why does it not say anything which encourages that to happen? e.g. any obligation on the OP to return the mail to sender.Deleted_User said:
No the intention of the act is to protect the mail both when it is in the Royal Mail's custody part V 83 Offenses of Interfering with the mail postal operators, and in the custody of the general public part V 84 Offenses of Interfering with the mail general.user1977 said:
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.Deleted_User said:user1977 said:
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.p00hsticks said:
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.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?
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?
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."
Our difference of opinion is over the interpretation of correctly delivered to him. If the person's name is relevant. You view it as not relevant because the royal mail deliver to a letter box not a specific person under 83 Offenses of Interfering with the mail postal operators. I view it as relevant because the legislation uses delivered to him under 84 Offenses of Interfering with the mail general, not simply delivered or delivered to the address. I view that in context the person's name is relevant.
I don't know what "legal advice to Landlords" you're talking about, but the Royal Mail's advice on this webpage is:What you are saying is at odds with what the Royal Mail says and what the legal advise to Landlords is on what to do if they receive former tenants mail which is do not open it.
"If you’ve received mail which has your address, but not your name, this is because we deliver to addresses rather than names. If this does happen, you can put a cross through the address and write 'Not known at this address' or 'No longer lives here' and put it back in a postbox." (my emphasis)
Nothing which suggests you'd be committing a criminal offence by opening it or that you're obliged to return to sender.
A law degree and 25 years' practice as a solicitor.On what basis are you confident of your interpretation.
The context is "he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him."
If someone else's name is on a letter do I know or suspect it has been incorrectly delivered to me?
As a layman I would say yes.
As a legal expert you tell me no.
You asked what landlord legal advice the Royal Mail does not give any?
Sorry I should have said. The landlord legal advice at the landlord law blog by solicitor Tessa Shepperton. A solicitor with 20 years experience who specialises in landlord and tenant law." What you do is just write ‘Return to Sender” across the envelope and re-post it. Or you can put “gone away” if you prefer. But let the mail service deal with it.
What you shouldn’t do is open it – leave that to the postal authorities. They have the authority to open post – you don’t. Likewise you should not destroy it – the post does not belong to you."
0 -
The part about people coming out to visit is rubbish. 99.9% of debt collection agencies dont do home visits. That isnt their business modelCountrysider said: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.
HCEO, court bailiffs and powerless debt collection agencies are all very different kettles of fish
No need to get your knickers in a twist over this matter..its no biggie1 -
Only if you are correct that the law does not apply because it has been correctly delivered to you despite it being someone else's name on the letter. If you are wrong and the law does apply because you know or reasonably suspect it has been incorrectly delivered to you. Then you could be acting to their detriment by opening their mail invading their privacy. And not have a reasonable excuse to do so because the Royal Mail have a system in place to return to sender, you have no need to open the letter.Section62 said:Deleted_User said:
What you are saying is at odds with what the Royal Mail says and what the legal advise to Landlords is on what to do if they receive former tenants mail which is do not open it. So are you saying your interpretation of the law is correct and they are mistaken. On what basis are you confident of your interpretation, can you refer to case law or are you legally qualified to give expert legal. advise. Because otherwise as a lay person I would err on the side of caution and do what the royal mail tells people to do.user1977 said:
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.The advice to 'return to sender' is just that, "advice".Something which is advice doesn't make doing something else illegal by itself. It is a good idea to RTS mail which is delivered to someone who doesn't live at that address anymore, but in most cases it is equally valid to open the envelope to look for contact details for the sender to advise them about the misaddressed mail.0 -
They do and they have at my home on 3 separate occasions. This was after sending the letters back for a year. I must be very unlucky or have particularly debt-laden previous occupiers to be within the 0.01% of people this happens toGrizebeck said:The part about people coming out to visit is rubbish. 99.9% of debt collection agencies dont do home visits.
1 -
We had bailiffs visit our home looking for our former tenant. Fortunately the tenant was waiting on some information about school placement, which was probably distance to school related so they hadn't informed the school of the change of address. They left their mother's address with us to forward the letter on when it arrived. We were out when the bailiffs turned up and they left a note through the door. I phoned them and gave them his mother's address and never heard anything more.OP have you tried an informal chat with any of the neighbours to find out if they know where he is now?Make £2026 in 2026
Prolific £177.46, TCB £10.90, Everup £27.79, Roadkill £1.17
Total £217.32 10.7%Make £2025 in 2025 Total £2241.23/£2025 110.7%
Prolific £1062.50, Octopoints £6.64, TCB £492.05, Tesco Clubcard challenges £89.90, Misc Sales £321, Airtime £70, Shopmium £53.06, Everup £106.08, Zopa CB £30, Misc survey £10
Make £2024 in 2024 Total £1410/£2024 70%Make £2023 in 2023 Total: £2606.33/£2023 128.8%0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards