Wrong address - bank this time!

[ErikaPNP]

Hi, wee problem here!

 

My youngest has a nasty little habit of opening my mail before I get near it (she's 2). Anyway twice now there has been a letter for a well known bank, the first thanking a person for "opening an account online" the second was thanking him for changing his address.

 

This person does not live here, and is the same person I get threatening debt collectors appearing at the door for. He's also claimed benefits using my address. The first time the letter came from the bank, I rang the helpline number and asked them to remove my address from their system. they refused because I am not the account holder. But surely this is fraud? What can I do?

 

Should I write a letter to head office if I can find a head office address? And will I be prosecuted for my daughter opening the mail?

 

Thank you.

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Why not put the letters in an envolope with a covering letter explaining that the particular individual does not live at your address.

[legalpickle]

Hi, wee problem here!

 

My youngest has a nasty little habit of opening my mail before I get near it (she's 2). Anyway twice now there has been a letter for a well known bank, the first thanking a person for "opening an account online" the second was thanking him for changing his address.

 

This person does not live here, and is the same person I get threatening debt collectors appearing at the door for. He's also claimed benefits using my address. The first time the letter came from the bank, I rang the helpline number and asked them to remove my address from their system. they refused because I am not the account holder. But surely this is fraud? What can I do?

 

Should I write a letter to head office if I can find a head office address? And will I be prosecuted for my daughter opening the mail?

 

Thank you.

 

 

Why not put the letters in an envolope with a covering letter explaining that the particular individual does not live at your address.

 

No need or no to all questions.

 

Firstly, to the OP, keep your daughter away from the mail anyway!

 

Secondly, you can scribble across the address and write on the envelope "Not Resident At This Address. Please Return To Sender". Because the postie's don't necessarily need to have been to school, I also write "P.T.O" if the return address is on the back, and circle the return address wherever it is.

 

I'm rather surprised this isn't obvious, as it says on most letters that if the addressee doesn't live at the address it should be returned to a certain address.

[patdavies]

There's no problem with the post being opened once it is delivered.

 

Why not send the letters back to the Bank concerned, pointing out the the person does not and has not lived there and invite them to review their anti-fraud procedures?

[legalpickle]

There's no problem with the post being opened once it is delivered.

If it was done in error, you're right. If not, then there is. The OP can return the items to sender and doesn't need to open them. If there's no return address, then I normally bin them, then maybe you'd be right.

 

Why not send the letters back to the Bank concerned, pointing out the the person does not and has not lived there and invite them to review their anti-fraud procedures?

Because that would mean the OP opened the letters, most likely deliberately which would most likely result in threats from the people involved. Return to sender is the best option.

 

Why should the OP incur costs in postage? Return to sender is free, just write it on, scribbling over the address label and pop in the letterbox.

[patdavies]

If it was done in error, you're right. If not, then there is.

 

Perhaps you could expand on why you think there is a problem if not opened accidentally?

[legalpickle]

Perhaps you could expand on why you think there is a problem if not opened accidentally?

You deliberately open somebody else's post - that's nothing less than breach of every rule in the book. It's not addressed to you, you aren't allowed to open it, whether or not it has your address on it.

 

If there is no return address on it, then you could argue you wanted to let the company know, but if there is, you can easily return it without opening it or if you really want to waste postage put it in a larger envelope with a cover letter saying that this person doesn't reside at your address.

 

But deliberately opening somebody else's post without their express permission is definitely not allowed, by any standards.

[MrShed]

It is illegal to open post not addressed to you - agree with LP here.

[patdavies]

It is illegal to open post not addressed to you - agree with LP here.

 

No, it's not.

 

Could you or Legalpickle point to any legislation that makes it so.

 

Any secretary who opens her bosses mail, or post room that opens all mail not marked confidential would, in your scenario be breaking the law.

 

If someone is (recently) deceased, can their mail not be opened?

[MrShed]

Certainly.

 

Interfering with mail - Postal Services Act 2000 Section 84

 

Trialable via magistrates court, maximum punishment 6 months imprisonment and/or fine.

 

A person commits an offence if they without reasonable excuse intentionally delay or open a postal packet in the course of transmission by post or intentionally opens a mail bag.

 

A person commits an offence if they open a postal packet which they know or suspect to have been delivered incorrectly.

[Rob S]

You missed a bit out Mr Shed:-

 

"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."

 

Postal Services Act 2000 (c. 26)

 

The missed out part puts a totally different complexion on it.

[MrShed]

Fair comment - that wasnt on the bit I found.

 

I stand corrected

[legalpickle]

No, it's not.

 

Could you or Legalpickle point to any legislation that makes it so.

 

Any secretary who opens her bosses mail, or post room that opens all mail not marked confidential would, in your scenario be breaking the law.

 

If someone is (recently) deceased, can their mail not be opened?

 

MrShed has pointed out the answer quicker than I could get to it. However this doesn't apply in the circumstances you are stating above.

 

I made it clear in my posts - without permission. An employee would have the right to open the post for their boss. A trustee of an estate would have the legal right to deal with all affairs of the deceased, as would a spouse or the executor of a will.

 

Where no express or automatic legal permission is granted to open somebody else's post, it is illegal to deliberately open that post. The OP hasn't been contacted by person to whom the post is addressed and having post arriving at your address isn't an automatic right, so deliberately opening that post would be illegal.

 

If there's no return address and the post keeps coming with no return address, then I would consider it sufficient good reason to open the envelope to get a return address. However, if the OP wants to err on the side of caution, the OP should dispose of all post without a return address and return to sender all post with a return address.

 

You missed a bit out Mr Shed:-

 

"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."

 

Postal Services Act 2000 (c. 26)

 

The missed out part puts a totally different complexion on it.

I repeat err on the side of caution. Would the OP really want the banks reporting the OP to the police and having to get into more trouble?

 

Why go through the hassle? Return to sender what can be returned to sender and dispose of the rest.

Edited September 19, 2008 by legalpickle
additional post

[patdavies]

Certainly.

 

Ok, so far so good.

 

Now go back to the same Act and find the definition for "in the course of transmission" in the interpretation section.

[patdavies]

You missed a bit out Mr Shed:-

 

"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."

 

Postal Services Act 2000 (c. 26)

 

The missed out part puts a totally different complexion on it.

 

Where's the evidence of detriment.

 

There is also the little matter of proving intent

 

It is detriment and without reasonable excuse. Unless detriment and intent can be proven, there is no offence.

[Rob S]

Pat,

 

I only highlighted that part to show the difference between what is in the legislation and what Mr Shed posted. I wasn't suggesting that the OP had acted illegally.

[patdavies]

Sorry Rob, not aimed at you. It was just easier to quote your post as it had the full detail.

[legalpickle]

Where's the evidence of detriment.

 

There is also the little matter of proving intent

 

It is detriment and without reasonable excuse. Unless detriment and intent can be proven, there is no offence.

Pat: Read my post of 2:04 and MrShed's post of 2:03.

[patdavies]

Pat: Read my post of 2:04 and MrShed's post of 2:03.

 

Sorry. And?

[legalpickle]

Sorry. And?

Even if opening the post in this situation is not technically illegal, it is better to err on the side of caution.

[ErikaPNP]

Secondly, you can scribble across the address and write on the envelope "Not Resident At This Address. Please Return To Sender". Because the postie's don't necessarily need to have been to school, I also write "P.T.O" if the return address is on the back, and circle the return address wherever it is.

 

I'm rather surprised this isn't obvious, as it says on most letters that if the addressee doesn't live at the address it should be returned to a certain address.

 

Thank you for your "obvious" answer. Perhaps I should have expanded. I have on many occasions returned post to the sender when receiving mail for this man. It doesn't stop it, I have been returning mail for him since I moved in here 5 years ago. I am also listed with the mail preference service and have asked for this man's details to be removed from my address, I have also asked the post man not to deliver mail for him as he does not live here, but return to the sorting office.

 

All to no avail. After 5 years of debt collectors and letters addressed "To the occupier" asking for details of this person which I have replied to stating he is not known here, I am sick and tired of it.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

You deliberately open somebody else's post - that's nothing less than breach of every rule in the book. It's not addressed to you, you aren't allowed to open it, whether or not it has your address on it.

 

Not so. Royal Mail deliver to an address not the person.

 

And in this case Royal Mail must have used the OP's correct address as she obviously received it.

 

It is a matter for the sender to correctly address a letter. The OP is simply the recipient (at their own address) and Royal Mail just delivered it.

[Rob S]

So if a letter is sent to an address rather than a person, why bother putting a persons name on it?

[legalpickle]

Thank you for your "obvious" answer. Perhaps I should have expanded. I have on many occasions returned post to the sender when receiving mail for this man. It doesn't stop it, I have been returning mail for him since I moved in here 5 years ago. I am also listed with the mail preference service and have asked for this man's details to be removed from my address, I have also asked the post man not to deliver mail for him as he does not live here, but return to the sorting office.

 

All to no avail. After 5 years of debt collectors and letters addressed "To the occupier" asking for details of this person which I have replied to stating he is not known here, I am sick and tired of it.

Erika: I sympathize with what you are going through. At my previous address I got mail to every Tom, Dick & Harry and returned them all to sender. Because I anyway do loads of post every week, it wasn't too much hassle for me. But, I can see how for somebody getting even more mail over a period of 5 years it would be.

 

I assume you have crossed this invisible person off from the electoral roll registration forms or more recently he doesn't even show up on them.

 

Frankly, there is not much you can do. I seriously doubt that your letters will be taken into consideration. At my previous address the only people I called when I got a 'The Occupier' was the tax man, in less than 3 minutes they thanked me and promised no more post would arrive for the previous [4 before me] tenant - and none did.

 

Most will ignore this and keep sending you letters because there is nothing else they can do if the person doesn't come up in a trace. So what will most likely happen is one DCA will get fed up and two months later another DCA will take it on - all the time. I personally think the guy's done a runner overseas. Either that or he's keeping nicely off the radar. Because I know that DCA's can trace people if they are on the radar.

 

I would just bin the letters. Getting into correspondence or hours on the phones with all these idiots will cause you more aggravation than binning the letters in my humble opinion. From what you say, it isn't one institution but several - if it were one or two, I would recommend contacting their registered offices by special delivery, but spending £4.60 on each company - possibly several times, would be a serious waste of hard-earned cash!

 

Not so. Royal Mail deliver to an address not the person.

 

And in this case Royal Mail must have used the OP's correct address as she obviously received it.

 

It is a matter for the sender to correctly address a letter. The OP is simply the recipient (at their own address) and Royal Mail just delivered it.

As Rob S responds:

So if a letter is sent to an address rather than a person, why bother putting a persons name on it?

 

Wierd Al: Your answer is definitely wierd! I accept other peoples posts that it is not illegal if there is no bad intention - i.e. no fraud is committed - but according to your "logic", when I lived with my parents I could open all their mail, or vice versa! That doesn't make sense, and I can't fathom that any logical human being would agree with that. And the Law agrees with me!

[Weird Al Yankovic]

 

 

Wierd Al: Your answer is definitely wierd! I accept other peoples posts that it is not illegal if there is no bad intention - i.e. no fraud is committed - but according to your "logic", when I lived with my parents I could open all their mail, or vice versa! That doesn't make sense, and I can't fathom that any logical human being would agree with that. And the Law agrees with me!

 

From Royal Mail's own website regarding their terms of service-

 

 

ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rm/Royal_Mail_general_ts&cs_29_October_2007web.pdf

 

 

3.10 Our duty is to deliver items to the address and not the person whose name is written or printed on the item.

 

This is what you posted and which I highlighted as incorrect-

 

Legalpickle-It's not addressed to you, you aren't allowed to open it, whether or not it has your address on it.

 

Again, if a letter is addressed to your actual address then no offence is committed if you, the addressee, open that letter, regardless of who it is addressed to. One may actually need to open the letter to discover who it is from should there be no return address on the envelope.

 

And Royal Mail are not in the wrong either as they are only doing what they are duty bound to do-ie delivering a letter to an address as written.

 

The only one at fault are the sender for using an incorrect address, as in this thread. And as a bank I'd suggest they may be breaching the Data Protection Act as they are clearly using the wrong address.