Opening Post Addressed to Someone Else

[Malaxa]

Moderator Note:

Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/penalty-fare-letter-not-my-name-though.252842/

I suppose that technically the correct response would have been not to open the letter but to put it back in the post saying "not known at this address" on the envelope.

However, since that might have led to escalation by the railway company - including a court case you never knew about - it is perhaps best to try to nip it in the bud now. (Though of course any fine etc from a court wouldn't ultimately affect you since it wouldn't be in your name ... but there still might be bailiffs turning up if court officials don't check who lives at an address before sending out enforcement people.)

Sometimes the "correct" approach isn't always the on which leads to the easiest resolution. Especially since organisations often don't act on returned "not known" post.

Why has the letter even been opened? Are you saying that any mail to one's address but bearing another name should be opened just in case it leads to escalation of whatever might be inside it?

 

[jfollows]

I always open mail addressed to me but with a different name (unless I know it's for one of my immediate neighbours, and even then if it's something formal I will return it to the sender very clearly marked), it could be because of a genuine mistake, it could be because of incompetence or it may be an indication of identity theft or some other illegal activity. I would advise anyone else to do the same. I try and spot letters with the incorrect name and address which have been delivered by mistake, in which case I either deliver them myself to the correct address or put them in the post box for redelivery. Indeed, why would anyone not open mail correctly addressed but with the wrong name (and I don't care about the "legality" or otherwise of this)?
Very occasionally I have opened mail for a neighbour with their correct address but delivered to me incorrectly. I try and avoid that but of course I apologise to the recipient in that case.
In this particular case, it seems fortunate that the letter was opened, because it will be easier to deal with the process having done so.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I know everyone does it, but you shouldn’t really open post not addressed to you. Mark it “not known at this address” and send it back. I wouldn’t enter into any further correspondence.

However, since that might have led to escalation by the railway company - including a court case you never knew about - it is perhaps best to try to nip it in the bud now.

My experience is that this does not always work. I have seen it before where someone, in good faith, writes to say this isn’t them. Lo and behold, the company corrects the error by changing the addressee and not the address (this is a utility company speciality).

Court cases are brought against people not property. You can return court papers as “not at this address”. I wouldn’t enter into correspondence.

 

[spyinthesky]

It is completely legitimate to open the letter, just respond with the facts without the need to supply excuses.
As @Tetchtyke says above

 

[Haywain]

I always open mail addressed to me but with a different name

If it has somebody else's name on it, it isn't addressed to you.

it may be an indication of identity theft or some other illegal activity.

It would be an extremely poor attempt at identity theft.

In this particular case, it seems fortunate that the letter was opened, because it will be easier to deal with the process having done so.

The easiest thing to do would be to mark the envelope "Return to sender - not known at this address" and pop it back in a post box.

 

[greyman42]

However, since that might have led to escalation by the railway company - including a court case you never knew about

As the court case would not involve the OP, the OP has nothing to worry about.

 

[skyhigh]

As the court case would not involve the OP, the OP has nothing to worry about.

However if the court fine goes unpaid, it could cause difficulties if/when bailiffs turn up at the OP's address looking for payment.

 

[Haywain]

However if the court fine goes unpaid, it could cause difficulties if/when bailiffs turn up at the OP's address looking for payment.

At worst, you open the door to them and tell them that the person they're asking for doesn't live there and never has. They would be court bailiffs, not fly-by-night debt collectors. Job done.

 

[Krokodil]

At worst, you open the door to them and tell them that the person they're asking for doesn't live there and never has. They would be court bailiffs, not fly-by-night debt collectors. Job done.

I can still see the advantage of sending "not known at this address" rather than ignoring it (as he'd be within his rights to do), just for the sake of a quiet life.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can still see the advantage of sending "not known at this address" rather than ignoring it (as he'd be within his rights to do), just for the sake of a quiet life.

TBH I'd probably do that rather than bother contacting them properly.

Put it all back in, tape it up, cross out the window, write "Not known at this address - return to sender - opened in error" on the outside and lob in a post box. I've generally done that on the occasions I've opened misdelivered mail by accident. Any future ones just do that without opening it.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

TBH I'd probably do that rather than bother contacting them properly.

Put it all back in, tape it up, cross out the window, write "Not known at this address - return to sender - opened in error" on the outside and lob in a post box. I've generally done that on the occasions I've opened misdelivered mail by accident. Any future ones just do that without opening it.

It all really comes down to one's appetite for telling bailiffs to go away some months down the line when the matter (in the absence of any meaningful response) has gone to court and a conviction has followed in the absence of a defendant.

Personally, I would rather invest a few minutes of time and a postage stamp in letting the railway know that they don't want me or anyone at my address, and stop the whole problem at an early stage.

 

[Gloster]

Section 84 (3) of the Postal Services Act 2000 says:

‘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.’

The question is whether it is a ‘reasonable excuse’ to open a packet in order to better discover where it should have been delivered to or where to return it to.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Section 84 (3) of the Postal Services Act 2000 says:

‘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.’

The question is whether it is a ‘reasonable excuse’ to open a packet in order to better discover where it should have been delivered to or where to return it to.

I feel like it's also easier to go on the "intending to act to a person's detriment" which in this case they were not, especially since there is we don't know, and will probably never know, who the letter was actually for.

 

[Huntergreed]

Section 84 (3) of the Postal Services Act 2000 says:

‘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.’

What does “detriment” mean in this context? The legislation as worded suggests that an offence has only been committed if an individual opens a letter/package without reasonable excuse and with intent to harm/deprive another individual.

Opening a letter addressed to someone you don’t know with no intent to cause harm isn’t technically an offence if this is the only legislation.

 

[AlterEgo]

Please God, not the opening post debate again. Yes, you can open post as long as you aren’t intending to cause harm to the intended recipient.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please God, not the opening post debate again. Yes, you can open post as long as you aren’t intending to cause harm to the intended recipient.

And even if you couldn't, the railway has no interest whatsoever in privately prosecuting people for postal offences.

 

[Haywain]

It all really comes down to one's appetite for telling bailiffs to go away some months down the line when the matter (in the absence of any meaningful response) has gone to court and a conviction has followed in the absence of a defendant.

But there will be, I'm guessing, at least 3 items of post* in the wrong name before bailiffs would be turning up. You've got to serially ignore this before you're dealing with bailiffs.

*The letter from the train company, the summons and a notification of sentence.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

But there will be, I'm guessing, at least 3 items of post* in the wrong name before bailiffs would be turning up. You've got to serially ignore this before you're dealing with bailiffs.

*The letter from the train company, the summons and a notification of sentence.

So why not cut to the chase and reply briefly and courteously to the first, explaining that you're not the person they're looking for? Rather as most of the early posters on this thread suggested before we collectively started getting worked up about our right not to be involved.

 

[Haywain]

So why not cut to the chase and reply briefly and courteously to the first, explaining that you're not the person they're looking for? Rather as most of the early posters on this thread suggested before we collectively started getting worked up about our right not to be involved.

Absolutely, as I stated in post #16.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Why has the letter even been opened? Are you saying that any mail to one's address but bearing another name should be opened just in case it leads to escalation of whatever might be inside it?

No - not necessarily - I was simply suggesting that since the letter had been opened in this instance, and it was what it was, it might make sense to write back to explicitly point out the error to the railway company.

 

[Adam Williams]

And even if you couldn't, the railway has no interest whatsoever in privately prosecuting people for postal offences.

Don't give them ideas

 

[gray1404]

I personally would not open the letter and write "return to sender addressee unknown" putting a line through your address and stick it back in a post box.

In this case I would reseal it and write the above plus "opened in error"

 

[fandroid]

But there will be, I'm guessing, at least 3 items of post* in the wrong name before bailiffs would be turning up. You've got to serially ignore this before you're dealing with bailiffs.

*The letter from the train company, the summons and a notification of sentence.

Assuming the summons turns up. That letter can be returned unopened to the court with "not known at this address" on the envelope. Then the court can ask the railway company to sort it out before proceeding with the prosecution.

 

[Haywain]

That letter can be returned unopened to the court with "not known at this address" on the envelope.

Yes, as I've said before, if post is addressed to someone other who is not resident at your address don't open it, just do exactly that. You can even use fewer words - "RTS, Not known here" would be enough.

 

[greyman42]

Would this letter have information in it regarding a telephone number you could call to speak to someone? If not and it involves letter writing, who is going to bother with that in this day and age?

 

[londonbridge]

Five minutes after coming home my neighbour knocked and handed me a parcel saying “this came whilst you were out”. Wasn’t expecting anything and when I looked it was my address but completely the wrong name. No obvious clue or sender details on the outside so I opened it up. Turned out to be a pair of shoes ordered from a website. Found the returns label, wrote a letter saying I was not the person who’d ordered them and no one by that name lived at my address Popped it inside, went down to the post office, sent them back, never heard anything more about it. Unfortunately the shoes were not my size, if they had have been I would probably have contacted the company giving them X days to arrange the collection of unsolicited goods or else I would assume ownership of them.

 

[contrex]

Please God, not the opening post debate again. Yes, you can open post as long as you aren’t intending to cause harm to the intended recipient.

This is like those 'Is my husband being unfaithful?' threads on Mumsnet (which I confess to being addicted to). There is invariably a 'pile-on' of 'leave the b*****d' responses.

 

[Benjwri]

Yes, as I've said before, if post is addressed to someone other who is not resident at your address don't open it, just do exactly that. You can even use fewer words - "RTS, Not known here" would be enough.

It should also be made clear this isn’t an option once you’ve opened the letter. If it looks opened Royal Mail will probably try to charge the sender, which they won’t like, or send it back to you.

If you open the letter you’re opening yourself up to the liability of what’s in it at worst, and at best you then have to pay for a stamp to send it back to the sender.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're not under any circumstances accepting any liability by opening it. Nor do I care if a TOC has to pay for the return.

 

[Roger1973]

I do tend to check the name / address before opening things - my current home and one previous address had been 'buy to let' at some stage so there were quite a few previous residents, so I did the 'not at this address - return to sender' thing.

It's a while since I had to do that, but I do occasionally get post that should have been delivered to next door, or number __ in another street, which I either take round or put 'delivered to wrong address' and put it back in the post box.