Is it an offence to open mail addressed to another person?

[XANDERxxxxx]

Moderator note: Split from

Penalty Services - penalty fares appeal company who acts incorrectly and spreads misinformation

It has been brought to my attention that the following company is providing misinformation regarding Penalty Fares: https://www.penaltyservices.co.uk/ 12 Deben Mill Business Centre Old Maltngs Approach Woodbridge IP12 1BL...

www.railforums.co.uk

@

In their FAQ they claim opening someone else mail is illegal. So it appears they have little grasp of the law.
View attachment 153312
(Screenshot showing FAQ of website)

Can I suggest you look at the postal services act 2000


Cheers

 

[Darandio]

@

Can I suggest you look at the postal services act 2000


Cheers

Welcome. As you've joined simply to post that maybe you could look at it again? Specifically section 84.

 

[AlterEgo]

@

Can I suggest you look at the postal services act 2000


Cheers

Not the strongest debut post!

(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.


it's not an offence to simply open someone else's post that has arrived to your address. Penalty Services are wrong.

 

[XANDERxxxxx]

Welcome. As you've joined simply to post that maybe you could look at it again? Specifically section 84.

Hi no problem please the actual legislation.

There is no AND

Open the mail and the offence is complete
Cheers

Not the strongest debut post!

(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.


it's not an offence to simply open someone else's post that has arrived to your address. Penalty Services are wrong.

I made a polite comment and straight away get attacked not the poiltest if welcomes

 

[CarrotPie]

Hi no problem please the actual legislation.

There is no AND

Open the mail and the offence is complete
Cheers

Excuse my ignorance, but I don't follow that message.

 

[AlterEgo]

Hi no problem please the actual legislation.

There is no AND

Open the mail and the offence is complete

That's wrong, as the briefest look at the legislation confirms. You have to have both:

the intent to act to a person's detriment, and also
no reasonable excuse.

 

[XANDERxxxxx]

No problem I am flipping between the posts and legislation on my phone sorry

127.Section 84(1) provides for it to be an offence if persons intentionally delay or open postal packets without reasonable excuse. It amalgamates the content of offences previously included in the Post Office Act 1953.

The legii quoted makes the offence Completed after point 1 is met various legislation has

An AND after it because point 1 AND 2 must be met for an offence to be completed. The precious poster commented on point 3. The legislation does not include an AND so point 3 does not need to be considered for the offence hope that clears it up.

Thanks

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it doesn't. A letter isn't "in the course of its transmission by post" if it has been shoved through your door. Its transmission has ceased at the point that it entered the letterbox.

If you, for example, hooked a letter out of a postbox and opened it then, that would be an offence, yes. But that's not what has happened here.

 

[XANDERxxxxx]

(5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both

Section 5 sums it up 1or 3

 

[AlterEgo]

No problem I am flipping between the posts and legislation on my phone sorry

127.Section 84(1) provides for it to be an offence if persons intentionally delay or open postal packets without reasonable excuse. It amalgamates the content of offences previously included in the Post Office Act 1953.

The legii quoted makes the offence Completed after point 1 is met various legislation has

An AND after it because point 1 AND 2 must be met for an offence to be completed. The precious poster commented on point 3. The legislation does not include an AND so point 3 does not need to be considered for the offence hope that clears it up.

Thanks

As @Bletchleyite says this is not correct - the whole point about there being separate sections of legislation, one dealing with "in transmission" and the other about post "mistakenly delivered to you" is that the two are completely different. Post which has been delivered to you by accident, you may open, as long as you do not intend to act to the (recipient's) detriment by doing so.

But we are now well on a tangent.

(5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both

Section 5 sums it up 1or 3

That is merely describing the penalty for those subsections. Best to stop digging and further derailing the thread.

 

[SteveM70]

Section 5 sums it up 1or 3

Indeed.

But 1 is post in transit and 3 is post once delivered

It really isn't complicated

 

[XANDERxxxxx]

Indeed.

But 1 is post in transit and 3 is post once delivered

It really isn't complicated

Unfortunately I appear to not be able to comment further for fear of derailing the thread. But I would appreciate if you can show me where in transit and delivered is mentioned in relation to this?

Thanks

 

[Bletchleyite]

As @Bletchleyite says this is not correct - the whole point about there being separate sections of legislation, one dealing with "in transmission" and the other about post "mistakenly delivered to you" is that the two are completely different. Post which has been delivered to you by accident, you may open, as long as you do not intend to act to the (recipient's) detriment by doing so.

Indeed it may be to their benefit if you're opening it in order to find out the return address should there not be one on the envelope. Or you might just open all mail that's put through your door without looking at the address panel, which is what I suspect most people do, then there can't be any intent.

Unfortunately I appear to not be able to comment further for fear of derailing the thread. But I would appreciate if you can show me where in transit and delivered is mentioned in relation to this?

It's literally written in the law you shared a link to - simply read it!

 

[SteveM70]

Unfortunately I appear to not be able to comment further for fear of derailing the thread. But I would appreciate if you can show me where in transit and delivered is mentioned in relation to this?

Thanks

1a mentions "in the course of its transmission" (ie before delivery) and 1b refers to "a mail-bag" (ie what is used to transport bundles of letters / packets, so again something that only happens prior to delivery)

Section 3 then requires both intent and lack of reasonable excuse but clearly states "that has been delivered to him" (ie after delivery)

What's so difficult?

 

[XANDERxxxxx]

Indeed it may be to their benefit if you're opening it in order to find out the return address should there not be one on the envelope. Or you might just open all mail that's put through your door without looking at the address panel, which is what I suspect most people do, then there can't be any intent.



It's literally written in the law you shared a link to - simply read it

Appologies I miss read the legislation

 

[sprunt]

Whether there's an and or not is irrelevant anyway. The question in the previous thread related to post that was delivered to people who didn't live at the address. If you get a letter at your house, with your address on but the name of someone who doesn't live there it hasn't been incorrectly delivered to you, so the whole clause is ruled out.