Wrong address - bank this time!

[Weird Al Yankovic]

As for opening up your parents mail while living at home then common decency shows you shouldn't.

 

However, Mr Smith may open up a letter addressed to Mr Smith, yet there may be 2, 3, 4 + Mr Smiths living at that address! Hence why RM deliver to an address only.

 

The offence of interfering with mail is actually aimed at postal workers and only very rarely has this crime been used against the general public.

 

And it would be a non-starter for somebody to be charged with this offence when the letter is actually delivered to the correct address anyway, as in this thread!

[legalpickle]

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.

 

Royal Mail's site is not the Law!

 

As was quoted above, deliberately opening mail - where there is an intent to cause damage - is illegal and a criminal offence.

 

According to your taking everything on Royal Mail's site at face value, when I lived by my parents I could open and use their mail.

 

I don't think the banks are breaching the Data Protection Act the first time they send the letters. They have that address on file as the correct address. Maybe a couple of returns could have been in error. Beyond that I agree that they are breaching the DPA up to a degree.

 

However, Wierd Al, you have to learn not to take what these big companies say at face value. If you do, then bank charges are entirely legal. Most of what they say is rubbish.

 

If you can quote me a legal basis that opening mail sent to your address - even if to another addressee at the address - is fine, whatever the case, then I'll apologize and stand corrected, but I find that impossible to believe.

 

As for opening up your parents mail while living at home then common decency shows you shouldn't.

Accepted, but you have said it's fine to do so!

 

However, Mr Smith may open up a letter addressed to Mr Smith, yet there may be 2, 3, 4 + Mr Smiths living at that address! Hence why RM deliver to an address only.

No, hence why the letters would be addressed to Mr. A., B., & C. Smith!

 

The offence of interfering with mail is actually aimed at postal workers and only very rarely has this crime been used against the general public.

You say, very rarely, that would mean it has. It's still an offence!

 

And it would be a non-starter for somebody to be charged with this offence when the letter is actually delivered to the correct address anyway, as in this thread!

Not if they were to use the information maliciously.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Royal Mail's site is not the Law!

Yes it is. Their T&C's as quoted on their website are enacted within the Postal Services Act.

 

As was quoted above, deliberately opening mail - where there is an intent to cause damage - is illegal and a criminal offence.

 

But that is different to simply opening up mail addressed to you but with a different addressee, which isn't illegal.

 

You are tagging on other possible offences too!

 

 

According to your taking everything on Royal Mail's site at face value, when I lived by my parents I could open and use their mail.

 

If you have no respect then yes, go ahead, except it isn't what I stated. And where did the notion that it was 'ok to use' their mail come from??

 

I don't think the banks are breaching the Data Protection Act the first time they send the letters. They have that address on file as the correct address. Maybe a couple of returns could have been in error. Beyond that I agree that they are breaching the Data Protection Act up to a degree.

 

However, Wierd Al, you have to learn not to take what these big companies say at face value. If you do, then bank charges are entirely legal. Most of what they say is rubbish.

 

Banks are not Royal Mail who have a unique legal position in the UK.

 

 

If you can quote me a legal basis that opening mail sent to your address - even if to another addressee at the address - is fine, whatever the case, then I'll apologize and stand corrected, but I find that impossible to believe.

 

Then why not show me a case where somebody has been convicted for opening up a letter that was correctly addressed to them but with a different addressee used?

 

 

 

Accepted, but you have said it's fine to do so!

 

No I never!

I stated it is not an offence, which it isn't. And I also said it wouldn't be decent.

 

 

No, hence why the letters would be addressed to Mr. A., B., & C. Smith!

 

Not necessarily. What if Mr R Smith contained a household of a father, Roy, who has two sons, Robert and Richard? All Mr R Smith!

 

 

You say, very rarely, that would mean it has. It's still an offence!

 

What I have stated is that general members of the public have been convicted of the offence of interfering with mail. Interfering with their neighbour's mail, for example.

 

However, this is not the same as somebody opening up mail addressed to their actual address but meant for somebody else!

 

 

 

 

Not if they were to use the information maliciously.

 

But that would then involve another crime, surely?

 

This is not being discussed on this thread with regard to the OP.

 

It's like saying somebody bought a baseball bat and it is illegal!

 

But only because they used it to batter someone!

 

 

 

...

[legalpickle]

Royal Mail's site is not the Law!

Yes it is. Their T&C's as quoted on their website are enacted within the Postal Services Act.

I think this needs some clarity. Royal Mail's T&C's are what they do! They do not pass the obligations over to every individual. So whilst, Royal Mail - and any delivery/courier company - can only be expected to deliver stuff to the address on the package, that doesn't mean anybody at that address has the right to open it.

These are two completely different things!

 

As was quoted above, deliberately opening mail - where there is an intent to cause damage - is illegal and a criminal offence.

 

But that is different to simply opening up mail addressed to you but with a different addressee, which isn't illegal.

 

You are tagging on other possible offences too!

But it isn't addressed to me! It's addressed to my address, not to me! Just because Royal Mail deliver it to my address does not mean it's addressed to me!

 

 

According to your taking everything on Royal Mail's site at face value, when I lived by my parents I could open and use their mail.

 

If you have no respect then yes, go ahead, except it isn't what I stated. And where did the notion that it was 'ok to use' their mail come from??

 

I don't think the banks are breaching the Data Protection Act the first time they send the letters. They have that address on file as the correct address. Maybe a couple of returns could have been in error. Beyond that I agree that they are breaching the Data Protection Act up to a degree.

 

However, Wierd Al, you have to learn not to take what these big companies say at face value. If you do, then bank charges are entirely legal. Most of what they say is rubbish.

 

Banks are not Royal Mail who have a unique legal position in the UK.

If I can open the mail, then I can do what I like with it. The permission to have the mail addressed to me - which is what you are claiming is implied from the Royal Mail T&C's - means I can do what I want with it.

 

There is a big difference between having the mail delivered to the address - as according to any delivery company's T&C's - as calling me as one of the people at the address the "addressee".

 

 

If you can quote me a legal basis that opening mail sent to your address - even if to another addressee at the address - is fine, whatever the case, then I'll apologize and stand corrected, but I find that impossible to believe.

 

Then why not show me a case where somebody has been convicted for opening up a letter that was correctly addressed to them but with a different addressee used?

Backtracking here. Firstly, you have said 'rarely' which means there would have been such cases. Secondly, even if there were no criminal proceedings does not mean somebody has never been through civil court for damages or been thrown out of their parents house for it!

 

Accepted, but you have said it's fine to do so!

 

No I never!

I stated it is not an offence, which it isn't. And I also said it wouldn't be decent.

Semantics. You stated it's not decent after being confronted about the lack of logic in your statements.

 

No, hence why the letters would be addressed to Mr. A., B., & C. Smith!

 

Not necessarily. What if Mr R Smith contained a household of a father, Roy, who has two sons, Robert and Richard? All Mr R Smith!

Then obviously they would all be "addresse's" and one could open it to check who it is actually meant for, and give it to that person. This does not change the basic fact that you can't just open somebody's post without permission or a damned good reason!

 

You say, very rarely, that would mean it has. It's still an offence!

 

What I have stated is that general members of the public have been convicted of the offence of interfering with mail. Interfering with their neighbour's mail, for example.

Nope. What you actually stated is:

The offence of interfering with mail is actually aimed at postal workers and only very rarely has this crime been used against the general public.

That was in response to posts specifically about people opening mail addressed to others sent to their address.

 

However, this is not the same as somebody opening up mail addressed to their actual address but meant for somebody else!

Rob S put it best:

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

If something is addressed to me then nobody else at my address - if I lived with others - would be allowed to open my post. I find it extremely difficult to believe that anybody in the world would automatically allow everybody else at their address to open their post! It just doesn't make sense!

 

Not if they were to use the information maliciously.

 

But that would then involve another crime, surely?

 

This is not being discussed on this thread with regard to the OP.

 

It's like saying somebody bought a baseball bat and it is illegal!

 

But only because they used it to batter someone!

You have deviated from the topic. Bottom line is unless there is a good reason to open somebody else's post, you can't. The OP has a good reason - even though as I have said, it would be useless.

 

If the world went according to Weird Al, then it would be a lot worse off! People would have no respect for privacy and open everybody else's stuff left right and centre.

 

The bottom line and how this was reached is that Royal Mail's T&C's do not apply to the people residing at an address. That T&C is reasonable, in such that Royal Mail cannot reasonably be expected to deliver post to the addressee, but only somebody at the address.

 

However, even Royal Mail are reasonable enough to say that if you are picking up a Recorded or Special item, you must either be the exact addressee or have evidence of having the addressee's permission. This proves my point.

 

Weird Al is taking the T&C's at face value as translating the address as the addressee. Just because I post a letter to you at your address, doesn't mean your son or wife can open it!

[Rob S]

The offence of interfering with mail is actually aimed at postal workers and only very rarely has this crime been used against the general public.

 

 

Does it say in the actual legislation that this is the case?

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Does it say in the actual legislation that this is the case?

 

 

Interference with mail - Postal Services Act 2000 Sections 83 and 84

 

The Postal Services Act 2000 sections 83 and 84, see Stones 8-24243 and 8-24244, create offences of interfering with mail. Section 83 is aimed at persons engaged in the business of a postal operator and creates an either way offence. Section 84 covers any person and creates a summary only imprisonable offence. Both sections cover intentional delaying or opening of a postal packet and intentional opening of a mail bag.

 

 

Section 84, for any other person, has rarely been used other than in cases where, for example, a person in a block of flats intentionally opens mail meant for somebody and then commits a further crime resulting from that, as in removing a credit card from the letter and using it.

 

Section 83 is by far the most used part of the legislation as Royal Mail will always prosecute a postie tampering with mail.

 

Section 83, as it is now, has always appeared in the various Acts concerning Royal Mail from as far back as 1660 but S84 has not.

 

So yes, my post is accurate.

[Rob S]

So section 83 is aimed at postal operators and section 84 at everyone else.

 

Do you have any evidence to show that section 84 is rarely used?

[Weird Al Yankovic]

I think this needs some clarity. Royal Mail's T&C's are what they do! They do not pass the obligations over to every individual. So whilst, Royal Mail - and any delivery/courier company - can only be expected to deliver stuff to the address on the package, that doesn't mean anybody at that address has the right to open it.

These are two completely different things!

 

Please, try and read what I actually post.

I have not stated 'anyone has a right to open the mail' I am simply informing you that should you reside at an address and open a letter that is correctly addressed, regardless of addressee, then no offence is committed.

That is not inferring a right but, rather, pointing out that no offence is committed should one do so.

Put it this way, phone up the police and inform them that you received a letter with your name on it but your son opened it and you want to press charges! See what happens!

 

 

But it isn't addressed to me! It's addressed to my address, not to me! Just because Royal Mail deliver it to my address does not mean it's addressed to me!

 

Agreed. Which is why, as I have stated, the sender is the only one at fault in this circumstance.

However, the point I have made where you were originally inaccurate, is that it would not be an offence to open up that item of mail.

You reside at your address and you have received a letter at your address, regardless of who the actual addressee is.

You commit no offence by opening up that mail.

 

 

 

 

 

If I can open the mail, then I can do what I like with it.

 

Again, where did I state this?

Should you open up a letter that has your correct address but a different addressee then no offence is committed should you open it. That is what I have stated.

'To do what you like with it' is just something you have thrown into the pot to argue your side.

If I share a flat with somebody and open their mail, and do nothing other than tell my flatmate I opened their mail, then not much can be done, it's just not nice.

However, if I open my flatmate's mail, see £100 in cash and take it, then of course I have done wrong and would be charged with theft and, possibly, interfering with mail (as I did more than just open the mail, which is not an offence).

 

 

The permission to have the mail addressed to me - which is what you are claiming is implied from the Royal Mail T&C's - means I can do what I want with it.

 

No, it is how you are interpreting it. And I find this part confusing, I can't understand your point here.

 

However, yes, if I give somebody permission to write to me and they do then of course I can do as I wish with that letter.

 

Only the OP has not given the bank in this thread permission to write to her.

 

 

There is a big difference between having the mail delivered to the address - as according to any delivery company's T&C's - as calling me as one of the people at the address the "addressee".

 

 

 

Backtracking here. Firstly, you have said 'rarely' which means there would have been such cases. Secondly, even if there were no criminal proceedings does not mean somebody has never been through civil court for damages or been thrown out of their parents house for it!

 

Again, can't grasp your point/s here.

 

 

Semantics. You stated it's not decent after being confronted about the lack of logic in your statements.

 

And again!

 

 

Then obviously they would all be "addresse's" and one could open it to check who it is actually meant for, and give it to that person. This does not change the basic fact that you can't just open somebody's post without permission or a damned good reason!

 

 

Nope. What you actually stated is:

That was in response to posts specifically about people opening mail addressed to others sent to their address.

 

 

Rob S put it best:

 

If something is addressed to me then nobody else at my address - if I lived with others - would be allowed to open my post. I find it extremely difficult to believe that anybody in the world would automatically allow everybody else at their address to open their post! It just doesn't make sense!

 

 

You have deviated from the topic. Bottom line is unless there is a good reason to open somebody else's post, you can't. The OP has a good reason - even though as I have said, it would be useless.

 

If the world went according to Weird Al, then it would be a lot worse off! People would have no respect for privacy and open everybody else's stuff left right and centre.

 

The bottom line and how this was reached is that Royal Mail's T&C's do not apply to the people residing at an address. That T&C is reasonable, in such that Royal Mail cannot reasonably be expected to deliver post to the addressee, but only somebody at the address.

 

 

However, even Royal Mail are reasonable enough to say that if you are picking up a Recorded or Special item, you must either be the exact addressee or have evidence of having the addressee's permission. This proves my point.

 

No it doesn't, these are acceptable forms of id-

 

What Proof of ID do I need?

You’ll need to take proof of your identity to the Post Office® or Delivery Office when you collect your item. If someone’s collecting on your behalf, they’ll need to provide proof of your identity. You can use any of the following to prove your identity:

• Full Driving Licence
  
• Paid Utility Bill or (Not older than 6 months)
  
• Building Society /National Saving Book
  
• Cheque Guarantee/Credit/Debit Card
  
• Cheque Book
  
• Credit Card Statement (Not older than 6 months)
  
• Council Tax Payment book
  
• Birth/Marriage Certificate
  
• Passport
  
• Military ID
  
• Trade Union Card
  
• A Standard Acknowledgment Letter (SAL) issued by The Home Office for Asylum Seekers.
  

 

 

 

Can I send somebody else to pick up my item?

Yes, you can send somebody else. They will need to bring the original ‘Sorry you were out’ card and provide proof of your ID.

 

There is no specific requirement that the addressee of the letter has to collect the letter, or even to give permission to another householder to collect the item.

Somebody's son could just take the 'sorry you were out' card and their father's cheque book and receive the item of mail from the delivery office without any permission.

Hence, somebody from the address has received the letter.

 

Weird Al is taking the T&C's at face value as translating the address as the addressee. Just because I post a letter to you at your address, doesn't mean your son or wife can open it!

 

And it doesn't mean they cannot as there is no offence in doing so!

As I have previously stated, it is not nice but it depends how one is brought up. I was told not to open other family members mail when living at home.

Put it this way, call the police and say your son opened a letter addressed to you as the addressee and you want to press charges!

See how far you get!

And by your logic the police would be round your place to cuff your son in an instant!

 

 

 

 

...

[Weird Al Yankovic]

So section 83 is aimed at postal operators and section 84 at everyone else.

 

Do you have any evidence to show that section 84 is rarely used?

 

For you personally, as an individual? I doubt it very much as I could post anything and everything and you would still not be satisfied.

 

You are doubting my accuracy so why don't you post up an abundance of cases involving S84 and the general public to prove me wrong?

 

I can't find any. But a simple google of posties being charged with S83 does.

[legalpickle]

I think this needs some clarity. Royal Mail's T&C's are what they do! They do not pass the obligations over to every individual. So whilst, Royal Mail - and any delivery/courier company - can only be expected to deliver stuff to the address on the package, that doesn't mean anybody at that address has the right to open it.

These are two completely different things!

 

Please, try and read what I actually post.

 

I have not stated 'anyone has a right to open the mail' I am simply informing you that should you reside at an address and open a letter that is correctly addressed, regardless of addressee, then no offence is committed.

 

That is not inferring a right but, rather, pointing out that no offence is committed should one do so.

 

Put it this way, phone up the police and inform them that you received a letter with your name on it but your son opened it and you want to press charges! See what happens!

 

 

But it isn't addressed to me! It's addressed to my address, not to me! Just because Royal Mail deliver it to my address does not mean it's addressed to me!

 

Agreed. Which is why, as I have stated, the sender is the only one at fault in this circumstance.

 

However, the point I have made where you were originally inaccurate, is that it would not be an offence to open up that item of mail.

 

You reside at your address and you have received a letter at your address, regardless of who the actual addressee is.

 

You commit no offence by opening up that mail.

 

 

 

 

 

If I can open the mail, then I can do what I like with it.

 

Again, where did I state this?

 

Should you open up a letter that has your correct address but a different addressee then no offence is committed should you open it. That is what I have stated.

 

'To do what you like with it' is just something you have thrown into the pot to argue your side.

 

If I share a flat with somebody and open their mail, and do nothing other than tell my flatmate I opened their mail, then not much can be done, it's just not nice.

 

However, if I open my flatmate's mail, see £100 in cash and take it, then of course I have done wrong and would be charged with theft and, possibly, interfering with mail (as I did more than just open the mail, which is not an offence).

 

 

 

 

The permission to have the mail addressed to me - which is what you are claiming is implied from the Royal Mail T&C's - means I can do what I want with it.

 

No, it is how you are interpreting it. And I find this part confusing, I can't understand your point here.

 

However, yes, if I give somebody permission to write to me and they do then of course I can do as I wish with that letter.

 

Only the OP has not given the bank in this thread permission to write to her.

 

 

There is a big difference between having the mail delivered to the address - as according to any delivery company's T&C's - as calling me as one of the people at the address the "addressee".

 

 

 

Backtracking here. Firstly, you have said 'rarely' which means there would have been such cases. Secondly, even if there were no criminal proceedings does not mean somebody has never been through civil court for damages or been thrown out of their parents house for it!

 

Again, can't grasp your point/s here.

 

 

Semantics. You stated it's not decent after being confronted about the lack of logic in your statements.

 

And again!

 

 

Then obviously they would all be "addresse's" and one could open it to check who it is actually meant for, and give it to that person. This does not change the basic fact that you can't just open somebody's post without permission or a damned good reason!

 

 

Nope. What you actually stated is:

That was in response to posts specifically about people opening mail addressed to others sent to their address.

 

 

Rob S put it best:

 

If something is addressed to me then nobody else at my address - if I lived with others - would be allowed to open my post. I find it extremely difficult to believe that anybody in the world would automatically allow everybody else at their address to open their post! It just doesn't make sense!

 

 

You have deviated from the topic. Bottom line is unless there is a good reason to open somebody else's post, you can't. The OP has a good reason - even though as I have said, it would be useless.

 

If the world went according to Weird Al, then it would be a lot worse off! People would have no respect for privacy and open everybody else's stuff left right and centre.

 

The bottom line and how this was reached is that Royal Mail's T&C's do not apply to the people residing at an address. That T&C is reasonable, in such that Royal Mail cannot reasonably be expected to deliver post to the addressee, but only somebody at the address.

 

 

However, even Royal Mail are reasonable enough to say that if you are picking up a Recorded or Special item, you must either be the exact addressee or have evidence of having the addressee's permission. This proves my point.

 

No it doesn't, these are acceptable forms of id-

 

What Proof of ID do I need?

You’ll need to take proof of your identity to the Post Office® or Delivery Office when you collect your item. If someone’s collecting on your behalf, they’ll need to provide proof of your identity. You can use any of the following to prove your identity:

• Full Driving Licence
  
• Paid Utility Bill or (Not older than 6 months)
  
• Building Society /National Saving Book
  
• Cheque Guarantee/Credit/Debit Card
  
• Cheque Book
  
• Credit Card Statement (Not older than 6 months)
  
• Council Tax Payment book
  
• Birth/Marriage Certificate
  
• Passport
  
• Military ID
  
• Trade Union Card
  
• A Standard Acknowledgment Letter (SAL) issued by The Home Office for Asylum Seekers.
  

 

 

 

Can I send somebody else to pick up my item?

Yes, you can send somebody else. They will need to bring the original ‘Sorry you were out’ card and provide proof of your ID.

 

There is no specific requirement that the addressee of the letter has to collect the letter, or even to give permission to another householder to collect the item.

 

Somebody's son could just take the 'sorry you were out' card and their father's cheque book and receive the item of mail from the delivery office without any permission.

 

Hence, somebody from the address has received the letter.

 

Weird Al is taking the T&C's at face value as translating the address as the addressee. Just because I post a letter to you at your address, doesn't mean your son or wife can open it!

 

And it doesn't mean they cannot as there is no offence in doing so!

 

As I have previously stated, it is not nice but it depends how one is brought up. I was told not to open other family members mail when living at home.

 

Put it this way, call the police and say your son opened a letter addressed to you as the addressee and you want to press charges!

 

See how far you get!:grin:

 

And by your logic the police would be round your place to cuff your son in an instant!:grin:

 

 

Firstly, what actually happens and is written are completely different things. I have been to 6 delivery offices in Greater Manchester and none have accepted a chequebook or cheque guarantee card to pick up recorded or special items. I have colleagues and friends in many cities in the UK that have encountered the same problems - going with a chequebook or cheque guarantee card or even just a utility bill and being refused the item.

 

DHL, UPS & FedEx also. I send and receive stuff through those three at least once a week, and if I send somebody to pick up the item because I wasn't in, they refuse unless he has photo ID of mine.

 

At the back of RM delivery cards, it clearly says photo ID must be brought, and on some delivery cards even has a space for the addressee to sign permission to somebody else.

 

Secondly, it is an offence to open somebody else's post without permission or a damned good reason. If you know the addressee would not want you to open the letter than that is breaching privacy.

 

You have claimed it's not an offence on the basis of Royal Mail's T&C's, but these aren't relevant. This T&C is nothing less than obvious, you can't expect them to deliver it to the exact addressee, but the bottom line is that just because Royal Mail deliver the letter to an address, does not give anybody else at the address the right to open it.

 

You have deviated from this matter and used Royal Mail's T&C's as the Law covering individuals. It is not. Firstly, the whole T&C's themselves are not built into the Act regulating Royal Mail. Secondly, Royal Mail's T&C's cannot bind a recipient of a non-signed for item.

 

Terms & Conditions and contracts can only bind those who sign the contract or implicitly accept it. A sender would be accepting it by sending the item. A recipient would be accepting it if they had to sign for it or specifically took the mail from a postal worker, but not if it was dropped in their letterbox. There is no acceptance in such a case and therefore it cannot be binding on the person to whom the letter was addressed.

 

Either way, I seriously doubt Royal Mail or any other courier company expects people to accept a term - if there was such a term - that would allow everybody else in their house to open their post.

 

So to get back to the point:

 

For the OP: It is not an offence for you to open the post, as you have a good reason to do so, but I doubt you'll have much success dealing with all those at banks and DCA's.

 

For Weird Al and all others: It is an offence to open post not directly addressed to you without a damned good reason as it is a breach of privacy and thus covered by the many other laws covering privacy.

 

Royal Mail's T&C's do not give permission for people to open post that arrives to their address, all it says is that they are not responsible for making sure it reaches the addressee, but the address.

 

Examples of good reasons to open the post not addressed to you:

1. The OP's case.

2. Weird Al's scenario: Several people at the same address with the same initial so one opens it to check who it is meant for and gives it to that person.

3. Express permission. This could be 2 above, or allowing a colleague, family member or employee to open your mail.

 

Other than that it is a breach of privacy and therefore you cannot open somebody else's post. No Law gives you permission to do so, especially not Royal Mail's T&C's. Anybody who thinks that those T&C's allow you to open somebody else's post at the same address and that Royal Mail has the right to give such authorization, is definitely weird!

[MrShed]

This discussion seems to have gotten very overcomplicated to me. Here it is as I see it.

 

- Al, you are almost certainly correct that S84 is rarely used. But it IS there in law, so the frequency of use is somewhat irrelevant.

- I appreciate your comments regarding Mr R Smith, but that is a specific example and a different one from the situation we are discussing here. Opening a letter addressed to Mr R Smith, when you are Mr R Smith, but a different one as it TRANSPIRES AFTER OPENING, is not an offence, because it has not been done with malicious intent. This is clearly a different situation from when it is address to a different name. If I opened a letter addressed to Mrs MrShed, knowing that it wasnt for me, and doing so with malicious intent, is clearly an offence under S84.

- The reason RMs terms state that they are only responsible for delivery to the property not the person is that that is all they CAN reasonably do, and moreover is what S83 which binds ROYAL MAIL requires. This does not mean that this also applies to individuals, who are binded by S84, and clearly the name comes into effect with this section.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

 

You have claimed it's not an offence on the basis of Royal Mail's T&C's, but these aren't relevant.

 

But they are relevant, this is the whole point.

Read Royal Mail's T&C on their website and then read through The Postal Services Act 2000.

You will find all that is mentioned within their T&C's are included within the Act.

You cannot just decide to ignore this fact.

 

You have deviated from this matter and used Royal Mail's T&C's as the Law covering individuals. It is not. Firstly, the whole T&C's themselves are not built into the Act regulating Royal Mail.

 

As above! Read them both!

 

Terms & Conditions and contracts can only bind those who sign the contract or implicitly accept it. A sender would be accepting it by sending the item.

 

There is no contract created between an individual and Royal Mail!

 

For Weird Al and all others: It is an offence to open post not directly addressed to you

 

What do you mean by 'post not directly addressed to you?'

Do you mean with a different address to what one resides in?

Or, addressed to the correct address but with a different addressee?

 

Royal Mail's T&C's do not give permission for people to open post that arrives to their address, all it says is that they are not responsible for making sure it reaches the addressee, but the address.

 

Huh?

But this is at the very basis of what you are unable to grasp.

I cannot put it more simply than this-

A letter is addressed to your home, it has everything correct including house number, street name & postcode.

 

However, the letter's addressee is Mr Smith rather than Mr Legalpickle.

You commit no offence whatsoever by opening that mail! Period!

The letter has been correctly delivered, as it is the address that is only of concern to Royal Mail, and it has been correctly received and opened by you, as the address is correctly yours, regardless of who the addressee is!

That is it, nothing more or less.

 

As Royal Mail are not concerned with who the addressee is, only the address, then please explain to me what legislation specifically prohibits anybody in my household opening a letter with myself as the addressee?

As an offence I would be entitled to complain to the police and the police would be duty bound to investigate.

As I have previously stated, phone the police right now and tell them your son opened your letter yesterday and you want to press charges.

What charge will they bring?

 

 

...

[MrShed]

s Royal Mail are not concerned with who the addressee is, only the address, then please explain to me what legislation specifically prohibits anybody in my household opening a letter with myself as the addressee?

 

SECTION 84! Not Section 83 as you are discussing.

[legalpickle]

SECTION 84! Not Section 83 as you are discussing.

Privacy laws!

[MrShed]

Actually Al...having read and re-read the Act, I MAY (partially) be coming round to your way of thinking.

 

(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.

 

The big problem, and when I can find the answer will put this to bed once and for all, is that the Act doesnt seem to define "delivered".

 

However, if you take it on the RMs definition, which is delivery to an address, NOT a person, then Al would be right...

 

Problem being that RMs terms are not statute, hence the confusion...

[legalpickle]

Actually Al...having read and re-read the Act, I MAY (partially) be coming round to your way of thinking.

 

 

 

The big problem, and when I can find the answer will put this to bed once and for all, is that the Act doesnt seem to define "delivered".

 

However, if you take it on the RMs definition, which is delivery to an address, NOT a person, then Al would be right...

 

Problem being that RMs terms are not statute, hence the confusion...

Reread my post.

 

Privacy laws apply though.

 

Obviously RM aren't liable to deliver the letter to the addressee only to the address. However if you open somebody else's post at your address without a good reason it's a breach of privacy laws.

 

The OP has good reason. The R Smith scenario is good reason. Permission given to an employee is good reason. Just opening post is not.

 

This is nothing to do with the Postal Services Act. If I drop a letter into your letterbox, I'm not covered by the Act and definitely don't need a licence to hand deliver a letter from my company! If your wife opens it when it's addressed to you then it's a breach of privacy, unless she has your permission.

 

I fail to understand what is so hard for people to grasp!

[MrShed]

Privacy laws are a whole other kettle of fish. The question thus far here is whether the Postal Services Act explicitly prevents the opening of mail at the same address for a different recipient.

 

Having trawled the act, I think it is.

 

he delivery of a postal packet—

(i)at the premises to which it is addressed or redirected, unless they are a post office from which it is to be collected,

(ii)to any box or receptacle to which the occupier of those premises has agreed that postal packets addressed to persons at those premises may be delivered, or

(iii)to the addressee’s agent or to any other person considered to be authorised to receive the packet,shall be a delivery to the addressee.

 

The entire act refers indirectly to delivery being to a person, not an address.

 

Therefore:

 

(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

 

combined with the (albeit not unequivocal) definition of delivery in the Act, means that to open another person's mail that has been sent to the correct ADDRESS, with malicious intent, IS an explicit crime.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

This discussion seems to have gotten very overcomplicated to me. Here it is as I see it.

 

- Al, you are almost certainly correct that S84 is rarely used. But it IS there in law, so the frequency of use is somewhat irrelevant.

 

No, frequency is very relevant because there would be probably millions of prosecutions each year if it was an offence to simply open mail correctly delivered to you but with a different addressee.

This is the point-it is not an offence.

However, to use malicious intent whilst openng that mail is a different scenario to just opening mail in this situation.

 

 

 

- I appreciate your comments regarding Mr R Smith, but that is a specific example and a different one from the situation we are discussing here. Opening a letter addressed to Mr R Smith, when you are Mr R Smith, but a different one as it TRANSPIRES AFTER OPENING, is not an offence, because it has not been done with malicious intent. This is clearly a different situation from when it is address to a different name. If I opened a letter addressed to Mrs MrShed, knowing that it wasnt for me, and doing so with malicious intent, is clearly an offence under S84.

Section 84 of the Act-

 

(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.

 

This is specific, it is clear, one has to have malicious intent in order to commit an offence in the first place.

Simply opening a letter that has been correctly addressed to you, but with a different addressee, and without any intention to detriment, is not an offence!

They are two very different actions.

...

[MrShed]

Al - we have been talking about the intent the entire thread...?

 

 

I wholly agree that opening a letter that has been correctly addressed to you, with a different addressee, and without intent, is not an offence! What I am saying is that in the exact same situation, except that there IS intent to detriment, IS an offence.

[legalpickle]

Privacy laws are a whole other kettle of fish. The question thus far here is whether the Postal Services Act explicitly prevents the opening of mail at the same address for a different recipient.

No it isn't. The OP specifically asked if her child opening the post in error or her opening the post to respond to the sender and tell them once and for all that the person they are writing to doesn't reside there was an offence.

 

The former case - opening in error - is definitely not a problem. The second case I thought was, but accept that if there is a good reason to do so is not a problem, but doubt the chances of it's success.

 

The OP didn't mention the Postal Services Act. The OP went into whether or not one can open others post. The answer is that under Privacy Laws, unless there's a damned good reason, NO!

 

Others brought up the Postal Services Act. It wasn't brought up by the OP.

 

...

I repeat Privacy Laws!!!

 

Al - we have been talking about the intent the entire thread...?

 

 

I wholly agree that opening a letter that has been correctly addressed to you, with a different addressee, and without intent, is not an offence! What I am saying is that in the exact same situation, except that there IS intent to detriment, IS an offence.

I am saying even if there isn't an intent to cause detriment there must be an intent to help or it will be classed as an offence under Privacy Laws!

 

Obviously where there is an intent to cause detriment it goes without saying that it's an offence.

 

What's so difficult to understand? This has nothing to do with Royal Mail but all letters sent to an address, that don't have to go via Royal Mail and thus aren't necessarily covered by the Postal Services Act.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Reread my post.

 

Privacy laws apply though.

 

You have to understand that Royal Mail are unique within UK law.

Contract law does not apply to them when sending mail under the universal service they provide, for example.

 

Obviously RM aren't liable to deliver the letter to the addressee only to the address. However if you open somebody else's post at your address without a good reason it's a breach of privacy laws.

 

No, an Act of other legislation cannot apply to Royal Mail when their own specific legislation shows that this is not an offence.

Royal Mail retain immunity. Again, read the Postal Services Act 2000.

 

The OP has good reason. The R Smith scenario is good reason. Permission given to an employee is good reason. Just opening post is not.

 

This is nothing to do with the Postal Services Act. If I drop a letter into your letterbox, I'm not covered by the Act and definitely don't need a licence to hand deliver a letter from my company!

 

If you charge a fee for delivery you would need a licence.

 

 

 

If your wife opens it when it's addressed to you then it's a breach of privacy, unless she has your permission.

 

Please provide past cases of this event.

 

I fail to understand what is so hard for people to grasp!

 

Me too!

 

 

...

[MrShed]

LP - sorry, just for clarification. I know NOTHING about privacy law, so I cannot comment on it. As a legal point more than anything else, I am attempting to establish(well, think I have above) whether the Postal Services Act has an explicit rule against opening post with intent to deprive.

 

However, although it would clearly make sense, I am not personally aware of an act that binds individuals from looking at other persons private material...? Can you quote the relevant legislation for the "privacy laws" you mention?

[MrShed]

You have to understand that Royal Mail are unique within UK law.

Contract law does not apply to them when sending mail under the universal service they provide, for exampl

 

Al, no-one is talking about Royal Mail's part/actions here, but in fact the actions of the opener of the letter. You are right, RM have immunity, but havent committed an offence anyway.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Al - we have been talking about the intent the entire thread...?

 

Not so MrShed, legalpickle stated it was an offence to open a letter at your own address in any event.

I just stated that is not in fact the case.

Read my first posts.

 

 

I wholly agree that opening a letter that has been correctly addressed to you, with a different addressee, and without intent, is not an offence! What I am saying is that in the exact same situation, except that there IS intent to detriment, IS an offence.

 

And which I have not disputed.

No intent when opening a letter addressed to you, regardless of addressee, is no offence.

 

 

 

 

 

...

[caro]

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.

 

2 year olds get into everything so I shouldn't worry one jot about that, lol.

 

I suggest that you check your own credit files as this person may be linked to you due to using your address and this could affect your own credit rating. If it is a problem file a form of disassociation with them, which you could also show any DCA's who turn up at the door. How much of a problem is this?

 

As for the letters, if you've returned them to sender on numerous occasions I'd be inclined to put them in the bin. I can't see anyone taking any action against you, and if they did, I'm sure you couldn't be held responsible for their own incompetence in not being able to track down the debtor.

 

As for the benefits issue, just report it to the benefits fraud people (if you haven't done so already), and then it's up to them to worry about it.

 

IMO your main concern should be that your own credit rating is not affected detrimentally.