Wrong address - bank this time!

[Weird Al Yankovic]

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.

 

Ahh, yes, but we are all subject to S84 of the Postal Services Act where simply opening a letter delivered correctly to your address, but with a different addressee, is not an offence with no intent to deprive.

 

Privacy Law cannot override this.

[MrShed]

So Al, just for absolute clarification.

 

Are you saying that if a letter is sent to Mrs MrShed at my address, and I open it with intent to deprive, that IS an offence??

[caro]

Can we keep the legal semantics off this thread please. If you wish to discuss it further start a thread in the Legalities forum and keep the OPs thread on topic.

[MrShed]

The legal semantics are directly relevant to the OPs situation.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Can we keep the legal semantics off this thread please. If you wish to discuss it further start a thread in the Legalities forum and keep the OPs thread on topic.

 

From the OP's initial post-

And will I be prosecuted for my daughter opening the mail?

 

Surely the input has to be of a legal basis to help the OP?

[MrShed]

This must be the only time I ever agree with you Al

[caro]

The OP clearly has no intent to deprive anyone and is clealy an innocent victim of any wrong-doings by anyone.

 

If you can concisely advise of any likely consequences for the OP then please do so, but IMO much of this discussion is not specifically relevant. She simply want to know what she can do to resolve her problem.

[legalpickle]

So Al, just for absolute clarification.

 

Are you saying that if a letter is sent to Mrs MrShed at my address, and I open it with intent to deprive, that IS an offence??

Obviously. Weird Al hasn't disputed that.

 

 

Weird Al - At no point did I state that Royal Mail was part of the case at hand. I included them with all other courier companies as this issue does not relate implicitly to Royal Mail. The first section does, but the next relates to everybody else.

 

It is not in dispute that if the letters are used for fraudulent purposes then an offence would be committed.

 

You opening your son's post does not come under Royal Mail's case and I fail to see how RM would be sued by your son or prosecuted by the police. They have delivered the letter to the address and that's all they - or any other courier company - is liable to do.

 

However, what is relevant is what happens beyond that time. If you open your son's post without good reason, even where there is no malicious intent you are breaching Privacy laws. The Postal Services Act cannot and does not cover this issue in full because it's a completely different ball game.

 

RM's T&C's are also irrelevant.

 

What you are saying does not make sense. What you are saying is that everybody who would reside at my address would have an automatic right to look at all my mail - however confidential it is. I can't fathom anybody with any sense agreeing with that conclusion.

 

If you take the Postal Services Act at face value then fine, but no Act, Regulation or Directive is complete on its own. There are always other laws that cover the scenario more directly that must be taken into consideration.

 

Bottom line is that it is an offence to open somebody else's correspondence - of any sort - without a good reason, which can be any of the scenario's detailed above.

 

 

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.

You can report benefit fraud DWP - Targeting Benefit Thieves

 

Somebody being at an address cannot directly affect people's credit records anymore unless a link has been requested. It is worth a check, but unlikely.

[caro]

From the OP's initial post-

 

And will I be prosecuted for my daughter opening the mail?

 

Surely the input has to be of a legal basis to help the OP?

 

I seriously doubt that anyone would take the OP to court because her daughter has opened letters that have been sent to an address that has been erroneously used by them. Let's get this into perspective.

[MrShed]

Obviously. Weird Al hasn't disputed that.

 

 

He has actually - hence the talk about delivery being to the property and not the person. In any event he didnt make it clear, never mind.

 

Caro, the issue with the potential offence is that only the person who opens knows their intent. Hence by opening such a letter, irrespective of the actual reason, they leave themselves POTENTIALLY open to a claim of unlawful interference with mail, as they could attempt to claim intent to deprive.

 

In addition, as threads are here for two purposes - the initial answer of a question, and also as a reference for potential future posters - I think it is short sighted to try and prevent discussion around the topic.

[MrShed]

I seriously doubt that anyone would take the OP to court because her daughter has opened letters that have been sent to an address that has been erroneously used by them. Let's get this into perspective.

 

We all doubt it too, but it is clearly a potential consequence, so clearly on topic to discuss.

[caro]

Well let's wait for the OP to come back and see if she requires any more information. If she wants more so that she can make an informed decision then fine, but otherwise let's wait and see if she has enough to be going on with.

 

She can always ask if she has any further questions.

[caro]

Erika, I have moved some posts to a discussion thread if you or anyone else wants to follow or contribute to it. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/160948-privacy-issues-post.html#post1724192

[Weird Al Yankovic]

 

What you are saying does not make sense. What you are saying is that everybody who would reside at my address would have an automatic right to look at all my mail - however confidential it is. I can't fathom anybody with any sense agreeing with that conclusion.

 

I'm sorry legalpickle but I have to conclude you are refusing to acknowledge what I have posted but you are instead commenting on what you wished I had said for your point of view.

I have to again remind you, I have not stated that people at your address have the right to open your mail but, rather, they commit no offence if they do open your mail, provided they don't do so with intent.

This is now becoming just a rehash of what I have once before pointed out to you and which you are obviously refusing to accept.

 

If you take the Postal Services Act at face value then fine, but no Act, Regulation or Directive is complete on its own. There are always other laws that cover the scenario more directly that must be taken into consideration.

 

Bottom line is that it is an offence to open somebody else's correspondence - of any sort - without a good reason, which can be any of the scenario's detailed above.

 

I believe I have proved to you it is not but you choose to ignore it so it is pointless banging one's head against the wall.

 

 

...

[ErikaPNP]

Gee whiz!! 4 pages of arguing the rights or wrongs of opening mail!

 

For the record, I am perfectly aware that opening another's mail with criminal intent is an offence. What I ASKED was could I possibly be prosecuted for my 2 year old child opening the mail.

 

i.e what would the likelihood of that be, as I cannot prove she opened it, but as her parent I am reponsible - that's all I wanted to know.

 

4 pages of innane ramblings at each other and still my original query is no closer to being answered. I give up. Seriously.

[MrShed]

Somewhat unthankful - that question has CLEARLY been answered unequivocally in the thread.

[legalpickle]

Gee whiz!! 4 pages of arguing the rights or wrongs of opening mail!

 

For the record, I am perfectly aware that opening another's mail with criminal intent is an offence. What I ASKED was could I possibly be prosecuted for my 2 year old child opening the mail.

 

i.e what would the likelihood of that be, as I cannot prove she opened it, but as her parent I am reponsible - that's all I wanted to know.

 

4 pages of innane ramblings at each other and still my original query is no closer to being answered. I give up. Seriously.

I agree with MrShed.

 

The answer is - as has been answered - that yes, it is extremely remotely possible, but extremely unlikely bordering on impossible. Firstly, they would have to know, and care. Secondly, there would have to prove you wrong that your toddler opened them and there was negative intent or breach of privacy, i.e. there was no good reason.

 

So the bottom line is, nothing to worry about.

[Rob S]

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'd be surprised.

 

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'm not the one making the claims, you are. So if you want to make a claim be prepared to back it up when you get challenged. That's how it works in these forums.

 

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

 

In other words you can't substantiate your claim:rolleyes:

[Weird Al Yankovic]

You'd be surprised.

 

Yep, got that right.

 

 

 

I'm not the one making the claims, you are. So if you want to make a claim be prepared to back it up when you get challenged. That's how it works in these forums.

 

You are the one challenging my claims, so again, post up even one case of S84 involving the general public please? If you are not able to do so then it is quite clear you wish to dispute for the sake of disputing and to not add anything constructive to this thread whatsoever.

 

And it is how 'you' work on these forums.

 

 

 

In other words you can't substantiate your claim:rolleyes:

 

Postie ditched 30,000 letters (TS5 - Acklam & Linthorpe)

 

There we go, just for you! A S83 conviction.

 

Now you post up just one S84 conviction then I'll post up ten S83's in response. How's that?

 

Then you might,, just agree that S83 covictions are far more frequent as it is what the legislation intended in the first place from 1660 to present.

 

 

...

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Gee whiz!! 4 pages of arguing the rights or wrongs of opening mail!

 

For the record, I am perfectly aware that opening another's mail with criminal intent is an offence. What I ASKED was could I possibly be prosecuted for my 2 year old child opening the mail.

 

i.e what would the likelihood of that be, as I cannot prove she opened it, but as her parent I am reponsible - that's all I wanted to know.

 

4 pages of innane ramblings at each other and still my original query is no closer to being answered. I give up. Seriously.

 

Yes, as MrShed has put it, somewhat unthankful, but hey, who really cares?

 

For your info your subject matter quite clearly needed debate on the legal points your initial post contained.

 

If you believe that legal points raised and discussed in any situation can be quantified with a simple yes or no then you will find the reality very different.

 

However, my answers to your specific question regarding your toddler are-

 

No, there is not a chance that any charges whatsoever can be brought because-

 

1 Your toddler is not old enough to be considered legally responsible for a crime and you would not be held responsible in these particular circumstances anyway.

 

2 Opening mail with your correct address on it, despite a different addressee, is not an offence in any case.

 

3 Even if it were, (as per legalpickle), the likelihood of a successful prosecution would be hugely remote not least because the letters appear to contain very little info.

 

4 Any prosecution, even if it was possible, would not proceed as it would just be impossible to achieve a conviction with a lack of any real evidence whatsoever.

 

However, I would write to that bank and demand they investigate why your address is being used whilst also alerting the Information Commissioners Office of the bank's seemingly couldn't care less attitude.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

I do not intend to respond to both your abuses, Rob S & legalpickle, but report them instead.

 

It is quite clear this abuse stems from a simple desire to just ignore certain facts in order to be disruptive to a thread.

 

I'm not playing these games I'm afraid.

[dave_herts]

Can i sue dca's for harrasment, for continually sending letters addressed to someone who doesnt live here n i have never heard of (i've been here 15 years).I keep sending them back marked not known at this address, but still they come.

[ErikaPNP]

Awww, I'm sorry my posting came across as being ungrateful. Reading it back I can see why it would seem that way. It was actually meant as poking fun, but halfly serious at the dispute within the thread as it could potentially put new members off to see fellow members arguing back and forth.

 

I apologise for offending people. And I am grateful for the answer I have now received. Thank you.