Privacy issues with post

[KFC]

MOD NOTE

 

The first 4 posts have been moved to this new thread as they were more in-depth than was necessary to answer the OPs original post. That thread may be found here.http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/160591-wrong-address-bank-time.html#post1719800 for anyone wants to put this thread into context and see posts leading to this discussion.

 

Yes, but this is a discussion forum, and even though the initial question has been answered, it has opened up other questions for debate.

 

I'm sure that the original post is happy in knowing that they need'nt worry because it was just an accident.

 

But what about, in other circumstances, where it might be of concequence to anyone else ?

 

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude.

 

But I thought this site, was for open discussion, so why try to end the discussion (even though it's going on a bit), when there are still issues that need addressing ?

(no pun intended !)

 

 

I think that a letter etc is private, and if it opened by anyone else not bearing their name, without permission or authority, then they must commit an offence.

 

 

It's contents are confidential and private, and probably, (even if not marked Private and confidential), if you knowingly open it, then that must be intent to do something wrong ?

 

What if it is marked - For the Addressee Only - ?

 

There must be some laws protecting this, Privacy, Fraud, Human Rights Act. etc - if a business involved, then, Data protection Act. may be ?

 

 

But, proving intent would be difficult though, because they could claim, it was just opened by accident.

 

 

 

:wink:But what if it was signed for, and then opened by someone without permission of authority ?

 

 

How could they then, claim it was an accident, that must be intent surely.

 

 

I think some of this might be a grey area, but it needs to be cleared up, as MrShed said - 'it clearly a potential concequence'.

 

Any ideas anyone ?

Edited September 21, 2008 by caro
Add note in red explaining reason for thread

[legalpickle]

As I have said above, unless there is a good reason to open somebody else's correspondence - of whatever sort, however it was delivered - it is a breach of Privacy laws.

 

Opening in error [2yr old opening it], Opening because it's the millionth item addressed to that person coming to your address and you want to put a stop to it once and for all, Opening because there are more than one Mr. R. Smith's and you want to check which it is or finally Opening because you are employed or authorized to do so - are all good and valid reasons.

 

Reasons that are not valid amount to nothing less than breach of privacy and are an offence.

 

[For Weird Al: This is nothing to do with Royal Mail but all correspondence in delivered in any format.]

 

However the OP has nothing to worry about because she has a good reason, though in future I would just bin the letters to this addressee and also report him for benefit fraud, making clear to the benefit fraud team that he doesn't live at your address, preferably in writing rather than by telephone in case they make a mistake and break down your door!

[MrShed]

What privacy laws though legal? Not that I disagree but I am not aware of such a law that affects individuals.

[KFC]

Opened by accident or on purpose with intent etc, is difficult to prove, unless signed for.

 

Privacy is a Human Rights issue I think.

 

Still, it's not good for anyone to be opening your mail, I think everyone will agree, and should be protected by law, however difficult it is to prove.

 

 

Maybe, should start new thread on this.

Edited September 21, 2008 by KFC

[caro]

 

 

Yes, but this is a discussion forum, and even though the initial question has been answered, it has opened up other questions for debate.

 

 

I'm sure that the original post is happy in knowing that they need'nt worry because it was just an accident.

 

But what about, in other circumstances, where it might be of concequence to anyone else ?

 

I have no intention of curtailing discussion or debate which is why I have moved these posts to a new thread, with a link back to the original thread, which also carries a link to this one.

Edited September 21, 2008 by caro

[KFC]

Sorry, caro, please accept my apologies !

 

I did'nt realise it had gone so far off the original topic, I'm still a bit of a newbie !

[caro]

No probs KFC.

[patdavies]

Privacy is a Human Rights issue I think.

 

It may well be, but HR legislation refers to the relationship between an individual and the state; not between private individuals.

[legalpickle]

It may well be, but HR legislation refers to the relationship between an individual and the state; not between private individuals.

Privacy law is extremely complex, however has been ruled by Mr. Justice Eady in several cases that provides evidence that it exists between all entities, not only the state.

 

Bottom line is that it is a breach of privacy looking into somebody else's correspondence and even more so due to the complexity of that area of law, this should be avoided at any cost.