Proof of posting / receipt / acceptance

[ianal]

I've received a letter from a DCA that says "We believe that this letter fulfils this requirement even if it is not actually read by you"

 

Given that it was sent via normal (un-signed for) snail mail and that the Royal Mail admit to losing millions of letters every year how can anybody say "we posted, it so therefore you must have received / read it"

 

If a financial institution was to send me new T&Cs that i didn't like, can I write back and say that I reject them and I will continue to operate under the original / signed for T&Cs and that I'm presuming they've accepted my request even if they've never received it.

 

Because banks now appear to be able to reconstruct T&Cs to meet CCA legislation could I say that as I didn't receive them I'd like the bank to send me details of the dates they were posted to me and how they presume that I'd read / accepted them.

 

Thanks in antici.....pation of somebody acknowledging that they've read this :-?

[renegotiation]

You need to have this thread moved over to the DCA forums. I have put in a request that it is moved for you. Furthermore, I would suggest you need to be more specific about this letter and your situation.

[sea-sidelady]

Thread moved

[cashins]

I've received a letter from a DCA that says "We believe that this letter fulfils this requirement even if it is not actually read by you"

 

Given that it was sent via normal (un-signed for) snail mail and that the Royal Mail admit to losing millions of letters every year how can anybody say "we posted, it so therefore you must have received / read it"

It's one of the DCA's dafter statements - file under bullsh*t

 

If a financial institution was to send me new T&Cs that i didn't like, can I write back and say that I reject them and I will continue to operate under the original / signed for T&Cs and that I'm presuming they've accepted my request even if they've never received it.

If there is a clause in the contract that says they have the right to vary the terms - yes they can but only within the confines of the CCA 1974.

Because banks now appear to be able to reconstruct T&Cs to meet CCA legislation could I say that as I didn't receive them I'd like the bank to send me details of the dates they were posted to me and how they presume that I'd read / accepted them.

They would ignore you. If you want details of your data and how it's been handled, you would need to send a SAR along with £10.

 

Thanks in antici.....pation of somebody acknowledging that they've read this

 

David

[themagician]

I've received a letter from a DCA that says "We believe that this letter fulfils this requirement even if it is not actually read by you"

 

Given that it was sent via normal (un-signed for) snail mail and that the Royal Mail admit to losing millions of letters every year how can anybody say "we posted, it so therefore you must have received / read it"

 

If a financial institution was to send me new T&Cs that i didn't like, can I write back and say that I reject them and I will continue to operate under the original / signed for T&Cs and that I'm presuming they've accepted my request even if they've never received it.

 

Because banks now appear to be able to reconstruct T&Cs to meet CCA legislation could I say that as I didn't receive them I'd like the bank to send me details of the dates they were posted to me and how they presume that I'd read / accepted them.

 

Thanks in antici.....pation of somebody acknowledging that they've read this :-?

just remember any correspondance at all with dca,s oc,s or courts need to be sent re-corded delivery because if you ever get to court you will have to prove to the judge that you sent the relevent documentation on the dates stated .

you also need to keep copies and originals of all correspondance complete with envelopes as these can be used in evidence against the low lifes.

[247orbital]

This one annoys me over proof of posting etc, County Courts post very important documents relating to CCJ's etc by normal post not even recorded. And yet if the documents are not returned they are considered served. We send letter to DCA's CRA's banks etc and even when posted recorded delivery there is often dispute on proof of delivery.

[ianal]

Oops - sorry for posting in the wrong section - there are so many areas that appear to be dealing with similar subjects - i'll try to do better next time

 

The letter was from Moorcroft DR - pre-court division

 

i've got a whole collection of letters from DCAs for various banks / cards / loans (messy divorce and change to low paid job blew a hole in ability to pay) but that was the first time i'd seen any of them say i've been informed even if i've not read it

 

i've asked for the CCA on this account and not received it - just that nice letter

 

i always send letters by recorded / signed for delivery as i know they lose millions every year

 

i've often checked the tracking number online (weeks later) and found that it hasn't been signed for - even though i've had a reply from the compnay i sent it to

 

is there anything in law that says that if you can prove a letter has been sent, then it must be presumed that it has been delivered?

[cashins]

The letter was from Moorcroft DR - pre-court division

 

 

That means you have Home Collection Division and Midas Legal to go yet, before they give up and burger orf.

 

David

[palomino]

is there anything in law that says that if you can prove a letter has been sent, then it must be presumed that it has been delivered?

 

This might be what you are thinking of -

7. 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.

- from the Interpretation Act 1978

[ianal]

then it seems very odd to me then that the Royal Mail offer registered post and insurance for lost items

 

the only things i could find appear to be about the Mailbox_rule on Wikipedia

 

Posting rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

and they seem to be based on something that happend nearly 200 years ago Adams v Lindsell ( 1818 )

 

>>>

The posting rule (or "mailbox rule", "postal rule" or "deposited acceptance rule") is an exception to the general rule of contract law in common law countries that acceptance takes place when communicated. The posting rule states, by contrast, that acceptance takes effect when a letter is posted.

 

One rationale given for the rule is that the offeror nominates the post office as implied agent and thus receipt of the acceptance by the post office is regarded as that of the offeree. The main effect of the posting rule is that the risk of acceptance being delivered late or lost in the post is placed upon the offeror. If the offeror is reluctant to accept this risk, he can always require actual receipt before being legally bound.