I don't - and it's irrelevant.

 

The contract will state under which country's laws it is drawn up. The country of residence of the customer doesn't necessarily change this.

 

My company's customer contracts all state that the laws of England apply. The customers are all over UK and EU - that doesn't change the contract or the jurisdiction - any dispute must be heard in an English Court.

I do believe that the legislation quoted within this particular thread is the Consumer Credit Act and there are differing variations for England/Wales, Scotland, N.Ireland and maybe even the Isle of Man etc.

Therefore, the CCA for a N.Irish resident, for example, would refer to the N.Irish version and not English law (as heard in an English/Welsh court) as stated by you.

Bookworm's original statement was accurate although technically incorrect.

I very much doubt it.

 

Any such paragraph will refer to English law, not UK - there isn't really any such thing as UK law. Scotland and NI do their own thing.

How do you know the OP resides in England or Wales?

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.

All very well but why is there a distinction in this topic between one medium and another ie an African and Gypsy?

As far as I can see both seem to offer some kind of service, though both differing but similar I guess, yet one appears legal and the other should have the whack of TS put upon them.

I'm not getting that part!

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.

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.

 

 

...

 

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.

 

 

...

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?

"Gypsy rose Lee" probably isn't a Gypsy and no one really believes tea leaves tell the future.

 

The leaflet I saw brought to mind similar leaflets I saw in South Africa where killing for body parts or the looting of hospital mortuaries is not unknown....then there is the London case.

I see that but surely these are offences of another kind, such as murder.

What I can't see is why would an African peddling his wares be any different from a Gypsy peddling theirs, in the eyes of the law?

Why would TS be concerned about an African telling me I will become very rich one day yet seemingly allow a Gypsy to do the same?

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.

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.

 

 

 

 

...

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!

 

 

...

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.

...

 

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?

 

 

...

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.

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!

 

 

 

...

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.

This week my neighbourhood was leafleted by a person offering help in removing curses, combating black magic and evil spirits, bringing luck and success etc etc. He offered help in English and French.

 

I have lived and worked in Africa and this sort of thing is no joke. (I am assuming the "French" offer is due to a number of refugees etc from Zaire / Congo in the area)

 

I reported it to the consumer protection (??!!) office but I was wondering is there a national reporting centre / office who deal with this sort of thing?

 

As I said, this smacks of African muti and is a damn sight less cosy than Gypsey Rose Lee reading tea-leaves in a fairground tent.

But what would be the offence of the African be as opposed to the Gypsy, which I assume is legal?

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!

 

 

...

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!

 

 

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.

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.

Your postman is being a bit lazy to be honest. Or it may be a delivery office manager who has decided this but it will not be official RM policy.

Should a postie have no access to a vehicle then it would be a pain to carry around a parcel, or worse, parcels, of customers during their whole delivery if those customers are not in.

So, no doubt, your postie gambles that you and others will not be in or just make an excuse that they did knock but had no reply but in reality they never took out the parcel/s in the first place.

 

As for your comments wierd; if this was you i bet you would not just accept it. I have nothing to lose but my pride now and by fighting back whatever the outcome at least i will have defended that.

That's a little unfair.

I understand your issue of pride and I agree with that kind of attitude with most things.

However, I don't think you will get very far personally but I genuinely hope I am wrong.

Good luck for the future in whatever you do.

I am writing as I experienced a very unpleasant situation while shopping with my mother in the TkMax Hammersmith store.

I understand that my actions were slightly wrong but I would be grateful for your advice. I'm describing the situation below.

While shopping my mother saw a Marc Jacobs bag with a loose price tag inside (about 500 pounds). We took out the tag and I asked the sales associates for the price. They answered that the bag is worth 49 pounds (as other bags were worth a similar amount). I just took it to the till and paid.

When we were coming out of the store the security directed us to the interview room where we were made to admit "a dishonest appropriation” of the item. The security staff were almost aggressive while talking to us. I was so stressed that I just admitted it. However, I did not swap the tags(I dropped the tag on the floor) and I asked the sales assistants for the price which they quoted. I just paid the amount I was requested to pay.

I'm a law student and thats why I'm so angry.

I'm sorry but I think you knew exactly what you were doing and that was to try and get a very expensive item a lot cheaper by using an element of dishonesty.

Had you simply asked if the price tag inside was correct then fine but instead you used subterfuge in the hope to get a bargain as you, or your ma, appear to know who the designer Marc Jacobs is.

Not sure of the criminal element but I think a ban from the store is appropriate and which they are entitled to enforce.

However, the accusation of dishonest appropriation could well be accurate and no doubt they have your actions on camera which is why you were stopped.

As a law student surely you must recognise you were asking for trouble?