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

Grizebeck

Countrysider said:

Grizebeck said:

The part about people coming  out to visit is rubbish. 99.9% of debt collection agencies dont do home visits. 

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 to 

That is because there are only a few  DCAs which employ field collection agents

Section62

Deleted_User said:

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. 

It has been correctly delivered to the address.

You won't be "acting to their detriment" by "invading their privacy".  You are combining two different bits of legislation to come up with that idea.  Acting to their detriment would be things such as if you knew the letter contained a fixed penalty notice and you deliberately acted to stop the person finding out they had action being taken against them until it had escallated to a more serious situation.  Or more obvious and serious issues such as theft of money etc.

It is sufficient "reasonable excuse" to open an item addressed to someone where there is ongoing and repeated deliveries to that person who doesn't live at the address.  By opening the item and making contact with the sender, the person doing so may help prevent fraud and/or other illegal activity.

The fact Royal Mail have a RTS system in place doesn't make it illegal to open items which have been sent to your address.

TripleH

Some points of consideration

1. Where we last rented, there was a mail redirection in place that came to an end. As a result we started receiving the previous tenant's mail (the landlord's son).

The postman was very apologetic but said even though he knew we weren't the named parties, he had to deliver the letters there as per instructions (on the letters themselves).

2. You could argue binning / returning the letters to sender is also to the detriment of the addressee if they were bills as you are helping parties they owe money to to find them.

3. If you are getting business post, then you do need to act on this as whilst it is your residential home, it could be construed as a place of business and thus bailiffs may justify that as reason to enter.

4. My surname is enough to scare the living daylights out of some when asked to pronounce it. I tend to open all mail that vaguely matches the spelling (mainly because there are so few alternative names used that it could be.

5. My wife and I do not have the same surname, if I had ignored a letter from the council addressed to me with my wife's surname (which I never use) I would have ended up in court with unpaid council tax. This was an error on their behalf as we had never filled in any paperwork to suggest I went by that name.

(Points 4 and 5 reasonable arguments  for opening mail not addressed to you for those worried about it).

6. DVLA should be contacted as soon as possible about the wrong address being used. That the ex-owner will be in hot water for not updating their address is not your issue.

An alternative to putting return to sender on the envelopes is to put them through the post box of the seller's solicitors office for them to sort out (if the firm is nearby to you). They should have a contact address for their client and will no doubt be happy to pass the items on for a reasonable fee. By you giving this 'care of' address out, you are also being prudent in providing a sensible alternative. (You won't be thanked though).

user1977

Deleted_User said:

user1977 said:

Deleted_User said:

user1977 said:

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."

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.

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. 

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.

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.

I don't know what "legal advice to Landlords" you're talking about, but the Royal Mail's advice on this webpage is:

"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.

On what basis are you confident of your interpretation.

A law degree and 25 years' practice as a solicitor.

The first thing the  interpretation section states is "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—" 
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?

If it has your address on it then the Royal Mail have correctly delivered it to your address. What else are they meant to do with it? It may of course have been incorrectly addressed, but that's not what we're talking about.

The landlord legal advice at the landlord law blog by solicitor Tessa Shepperson. 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."

Note even she doesn't say you'd be committing a criminal offence by opening it.

What is your expert legal advice on parcels then. If a parcel gets delivered with my address on it but not my name. According to you it has been correctly delivered to me and I can open it. As according to you I do not know or suspect it has been incorrectly delivered to me despite someone else's name being on it. So do I not then believe it is for me and get to keep it?
Does the law around theft have a different definition of correctly delivered and knowing or reasonable suspicion it is not for me.

None of this has anything to do with the law about theft, which is a completely separate matter. I don't think anybody here is arguing that you're entitled to steal mail for somebody else. We're just talking about whether or not it's a crime to open mail.

sheramber

But you wouldn’t keep what was in the parcel. You would look to see who sent and contact them to advise it is the wrong address and ask them to arrange collection or forward postage costs to return it. 

I opened letters and re addressed the envelopes to the address on the correspondence as sending back to sender for several months was ignored. They stopped after doing that.

[Deleted User]

oldernonethewiser said:

Deleted_User said:

Section62 wsaid:

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...

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.

What is your expert legal advice on parcels then. If a parcel gets delivered with my address on it but not my name. According to you it has been correctly delivered to me and I can open it. As according to you I do not know or suspect it has been incorrectly delivered to me despite someone else's name being on it. So do I not then believe it is for me and get to keep it?
Does the law around theft have a different definition of correctly delivered and knowing or reasonable suspicion it is not for me. 

It has not been correctly delivered to you, it has been correctly delivered to your address.

If you believe the latter then you are very much mistaken.

According to user1977 and section62 if the address is correct the name does not matter and "he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him" does not apply as it has been correctly delivered. And you can open private mail with other people's names on it and your address as in law you have no knowledge or suspicion that it has not been correctly delivered to you. My point is as a layperson is I disagree and think that would be absurd. It would permit landlords to open lodgers mail, people house sharing to open each others mail, people vising your home to open your mail. User1977 say yes it does and all those things are legal. So I asked about parcels and theft. If there was a different standard in regards to having no knowledge or suspicion a parcel with someone else name on it and your address was not correctly delivered to you. Because if you believe it is correctly been delivered to you why is it not yours. The answer is obviously because you know it has not been correctly delivered to you, your the wrong person. The same in my opinion applies to letters I know it's not been correctly delivered to me because it has someone else's name on it, it's for them not me. 

user1977

Deleted_User said:

oldernonethewiser said:

Deleted_User said:

Section62 wsaid:

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...

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.

What is your expert legal advice on parcels then. If a parcel gets delivered with my address on it but not my name. According to you it has been correctly delivered to me and I can open it. As according to you I do not know or suspect it has been incorrectly delivered to me despite someone else's name being on it. So do I not then believe it is for me and get to keep it?
Does the law around theft have a different definition of correctly delivered and knowing or reasonable suspicion it is not for me. 

It has not been correctly delivered to you, it has been correctly delivered to your address.

If you believe the latter then you are very much mistaken.

According to user1977 and section62 if the address is correct the name does not matter and "he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him" does not apply as it has been correctly delivered. And you can open private mail with other people's names on it and your address as in law you have no knowledge or suspicion that it has not been correctly delivered to you. My point is as a layperson is I disagree and think that would be absurd. It would permit landlords to open lodgers mail, people house sharing to open each others mail, people vising your home to open your mail. User1977 say yes it does and all those things are legal. So I asked about parcels and theft. If there was a different standard in regards to having no knowledge or suspicion a parcel with someone else name on it and your address was not correctly delivered to you. Because if you believe it is correctly been delivered to you why is it not yours. The answer is obviously because you know it has not been correctly delivered to you, your the wrong person. The same in my opinion applies to letters I know it's not been correctly delivered to me because it has someone else's name on it, it's for them not me. 

There isn't a law which says that a letter is yours because it's been put through your door, and nobody is claiming that there is. All that we are trying to explain to you is that this law only relates to the opening of items which have not (yet) made it through the postal system to the correct address.

What happens to the post inside that address is nothing to do with this law. A tenant whose landlord opens their mail may have other cause for complaint, but they can't call the cops on them.

oldernonethewiser

Deleted_User said:

oldernonethewiser said:

Deleted_User said:

Section62 wsaid:

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...

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.

What is your expert legal advice on parcels then. If a parcel gets delivered with my address on it but not my name. According to you it has been correctly delivered to me and I can open it. As according to you I do not know or suspect it has been incorrectly delivered to me despite someone else's name being on it. So do I not then believe it is for me and get to keep it?
Does the law around theft have a different definition of correctly delivered and knowing or reasonable suspicion it is not for me. 

It has not been correctly delivered to you, it has been correctly delivered to your address.

If you believe the latter then you are very much mistaken.

According to user1977 and section62 if the address is correct the name does not matter and "he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him" does not apply as it has been correctly delivered. And you can open private mail with other people's names on it and your address as in law you have no knowledge or suspicion that it has not been correctly delivered to you. My point is as a layperson is I disagree and think that would be absurd. It would permit landlords to open lodgers mail, people house sharing to open each others mail, people vising your home to open your mail. User1977 say yes it does and all those things are legal. So I asked about parcels and theft. If there was a different standard in regards to having no knowledge or suspicion a parcel with someone else name on it and your address was not correctly delivered to you. Because if you believe it is correctly been delivered to you why is it not yours. The answer is obviously because you know it has not been correctly delivered to you, your the wrong person. The same in my opinion applies to letters I know it's not been correctly delivered to me because it has someone else's name on it, it's for them not me. 

Oh dear.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

Grizebeck

So much pie in the sky stuff here

housebuyer143

I open mail that comes to the old owner here. Got a few bank statements with £0 in them etc. People really should change their addresses as my husband had his identity stolen like this. Good thing I'm honest and it just went in the bin...