Ignoring recorded letters! Please help!

[Dave777]

I understand that this thread should belong in the landlord and tenant section but some posts there are rarely answered and I need some urgent advice and quick.

 

Basically my freeholder has been ignoring my requests for information now for six weeks. I have sent four letters in total (three of them recorded). The three I sent recorded were not signed for, nor were they collected from the post office. The freeholder knows I am trying to contact him but is deliberately ignoring my letters.

 

Could someone advise me on what sort of (legal?)action to take.

Many Thanks.

[poppynurse]

What are you trying to contact him about?

[Rob S]

If his office is not far from where you live have you considered going round there and serving them on him in person?

[rosiecotton]

If you send letters with a proof of posting slip from the Post Office counter rather than recorded delivery (and keep a copy), this would be enough in a court for a judge to rule that the letter had been received.

 

Recorded delivery isn't as great as you think, as many people will refuse to sign for letters that they know can only contain what they don't want to read or acknowledge.

[dw190]

If you send letters with a proof of posting slip from the Post Office counter rather than recorded delivery (and keep a copy), this would be enough in a court for a judge to rule that the letter had been received.

 

Recorded delivery isn't as great as you think, as many people will refuse to sign for letters that they know can only contain what they don't want to read or acknowledge.

 

The letter would be deemed to have been received unless evidence to the contrary is proved. I.E. Oral testimony under oath stating that it had not been received would be sufficient proof that it had not been received.

[rosiecotton]

The letter would be deemed to have been received unless evidence to the contrary is proved. I.E. Oral testimony under oath stating that it had not been received would be sufficient proof that it had not been received.

 

Not heard of any cases where an oral statement would counteract physical evidence, though would be interested to see them.

 

If this were true it would open the way for people to lie through their teeth that letters had not been received despite evidence that they had been despatched, and have the judge believe them.

 

As I said, I am not aware of any cases like this one where this has been the outcome, and all professional training states that proof of posting would equal proof of delivery when it comes to sending letters to traders. But if this is wrong and there have been cases where a verbal statement has won through, I'd be interested to know.

 

NB, when it comes to delivery of goods via distance means, of course the Sale of Goods Act states that delivery to carrier is not delivery to consumer, that's a different matter entirely.

[buzby]

I suppose it all depends on what you are trying to do - if you are wanting to serve an eviction notice if the RD version keeps coming back, then clearly it isn;t properly served. You could instruct Bailiffs to serve the notice in person, and their confirmation of this to you in their report is all that is required. With landlord disputes (in Scotland, at least) the courts are quick to process those actions if the tenant hasn't paid rent).

[patdavies]

Not heard of any cases where an oral statement would counteract physical evidence, though would be interested to see them.

 

If this were true it would open the way for people to lie through their teeth that letters had not been received despite evidence that they had been despatched, and have the judge believe them.

 

As I said, I am not aware of any cases like this one where this has been the outcome, and all professional training states that proof of posting would equal proof of delivery when it comes to sending letters to traders. But if this is wrong and there have been cases where a verbal statement has won through, I'd be interested to know.

 

NB, when it comes to delivery of goods via distance means, of course the Sale of Goods Act states that delivery to carrier is not delivery to consumer, that's a different matter entirely.

 

I think I see where the confusion arises. In the criminal court, system delivery by first class post is a rebuttable presumption. Proof of posting is seen as proof of delivery unless rebutted by statement under oath. It is not possible to rebut recorded or registered delivery - even if the delivery is not signed for.

 

All comes down to the credibility of the witness in front of the magistrates

[rosiecotton]

Ah that would explain it. I'm used to dealing with mainly civil matters

[Dave777]

Thanks for all the great advice. The letter was a statutory demand for information regarding collective enfranchisement action.

 

He has 28 days to comply with this demand.

 

Another letter wasn't signed for today due to him being absent. I will wait to see if he collects this one. I think I will try and send further letters with a proof of postage slip as advised.

 

I do know the solicitors that act on his behalf. Would it be a good idea to lodge copies of my letters with them?? I could send them e-mails outlining my problem and attach the letter as a pdf.

 

I am very grateful for all the advice.

[Dave777]

If you send letters with a proof of posting slip from the Post Office counter rather than recorded delivery (and keep a copy), this would be enough in a court for a judge to rule that the letter had been received.

 

Recorded delivery isn't as great as you think, as many people will refuse to sign for letters that they know can only contain what they don't want to read or acknowledge.

 

Surely refusing to accept a letter would be very damaging on an individual's defence, should they try to dispute legal action brought against them??

[buzby]

Providing the solicitor is still acting for him, it wouldn't cost you that much more to serve the notive on them, for their client - as it would be very difficult for him to get them to agree they never received it! Unless they write back and reject it, you'd be home and dry.

[nickyp99]

Nail it to his door along with a rotting sheeps head for good measure.

 

Do you know what is at the address? For example, it could be serviced offices or an empty building. I would visit the property, knock on the door under a pretext and put it in his hands.

[blueskies]

Nail it to his door along with a rotting sheeps head for good measure.

 

Do you know what is at the address? For example, it could be serviced offices or an empty building. I would visit the property, knock on the door under a pretext and put it in his hands.

 

If you take it to the address personally and serve the letter yourself (even if it means posting it through the letterbox you can then provide a witness statement to this effect which will have the same power as any proof of posting.

 

I would leave the sheep's head behind though

[dw190]

From the Civil Procedure Rules relating to Judgement Service:

Where the judgment creditor or his solicitor gives a certificate for postal service in respect of a debtor residing or carrying on business within the district of the court, the judgment summons shall, unless the district judge otherwise directs, be served on that debtor by an officer of the court sending it to him by first-class post at the address stated in the request for the judgment summons and, unless the contrary is shown, the date of service shall be deemed to be the seventh day after the date on which the judgment summons was sent to the debtor.

 

From the Interpretation Act:

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expression "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

 

I understand the document sent was a Statutory Demand.

[Dave777]

From the Civil Procedure Rules relating to Judgement Service:

 

 

From the Interpretation Act:

 

 

I understand the document sent was a Statutory Demand.

 

Thanks for that dw. Would this apply though as I have sent recorded delivery? The freeholder has not actually received the letter. He can prove that he hasn't received it. I can only claim that the postman would have put slips through his door saying that the delivery couldn't be signed for and therefore it needs to be collected from the post office.

[dw190]

Thanks for that dw. Would this apply though as I have sent recorded delivery? The freeholder has not actually received the letter. He can prove that he hasn't received it. I can only claim that the postman would have put slips through his door saying that the delivery couldn't be signed for and therefore it needs to be collected from the post office.

 

I am not sure with regards to civil matters other than other than by ordinary post is deemed served/received unless the contrary is proved. As I said oral testamony under oath even in a civil court.

 

The following is from the Road Traffic Offenders Act relating to Motoring offences (Criminal)

 

1.—(1) Subject to section 2 of this Act, where a person is prosecuted for an offence to which this section applies, he is not to be convicted unless—

• (a) he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration, or

• (b) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or

• © within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—
  • (i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,
  • (ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.

(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)© above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.

 

(3) The requirement of subsection (1) above shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved.

 

(4) Schedule 1 to this Act shows the offences to which this section applies

With Criminal Road Traffic matters the following applies from the Road Traffic Offenders Act:

 

the red above is my own enphasis

 

IMO.

 

If you used Special Delivery to an address that can be proved to be correct a DJ would clearly see acceptance of the letter had been refused as it would be documented by the postie.

[Movingon]

As stated above - serve the documents on the Solicitors either by post or by hand - and in the covering letter, give the date upon which your original demand was POSTED to the freeholder. They will be VERY angry with their client for putting them in this position, I have absolutely no doubt; particularly if the deadline is approaching from the first demand.

[Dave777]

Thanks loads for all your great advice. FAB site!!

[Dave777]

The freeholder has now defaulted from the statutory demand I served upon him. It was under section 11 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Generation Act 1993. It was an order to provide me with a copy of a survey that he had done in October 2006.

 

Can anyone please advise me on what action I can now take on this individual.

 

Many Thanks.

[Movingon]

Did you serve on his solicitor as advised? Was this subsequent to the default? I would contact your local Trading Standards department via Consumer Direct; hopefully they will know what to do. I don't think it's something that you would take him to court for unfortunately. To be honest I'm surprised that his solicitor hasn't acted.