Legality or otherwise of opening post for someone not at your address

[Puffing Devil]

Mod note: Split from: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/keep-getting-letters.196871/

Legally, you're not allowed to open mail arriving at your address for another person. You should simply put it back in the post marked "Not Know at This Address". The Royal Mail will return it to the train company who should update their records accordingly. They may seek further information from you by writing to "The occupier" at your address.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Legally, you're not allowed to open mail arriving at your address for another person.

Yes you are. The mail is considered correctly delivered, and can be opened, if the address is correct. The name need not be.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Yes you are. The mail is considered correctly delivered, and can be opened, if the address is correct. The name need not be.

S84 of the Postal Services Act (2000) disagrees with you, as does the Royal Mail. You cannot claim that opening a letter is not to the detriment of the intended recipient, or sender, as there is a standard procedure to return it unopened, rendering any opening unnecessary.

 

[Bletchleyite]

S84 of the Postal Services Act (2000) disagrees with you, as does the Royal Mail.

The latter simply outlines a procedure by which you may return mail free of charge. It carries no other meaning.

The former relies on the definition of "incorrectly delivered". It remains my understanding that an item delivered to the correct address as per the envelope is not "incorrectly delivered". Something "incorrectly delivered" would be if a letter with next-door's address was put through my door (as has happened by accident once or twice).

You cannot claim that opening a letter is not to the detriment of the intended recipient, or sender, as there is a standard procedure to return it unopened, rendering any opening unnecessary.

Your opinion - do you have any references to legal precedent that confirm that rather strict interpretation, which I wholly disagree with?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

My understanding if the Post Office delivers to the address shown on the envelope/package; it will have been "delivered correctly". The post office can't be expected to know if the addressee is correct however, unless a redirection is in place

I would not have opened mail addressed to someone else in any case, as its none of my business but the OP has now (unfortunately) made it his business by opening the mail and caused himself more stress by contacting the companies concerned. How do they know he is telling the truth? I could easily phone up and say I am not Joe Bloggs (i.e. the addressee) to get out of paying fines

 

[jimbo99]

Legally, you're not allowed to open mail arriving at your address for another person.

Mail is delivered to an address, not to a person. So whilst it is an offence if, say, you opened a letter with your neighbour's address on it, it is not a specific offence to open something with your address on it, even if somebody else's name.

Of course there might be other offences involved depending on your intention in opening it, eg fraud, theft, even criminal damage to the envelope. But no specific postal service offence in opening post once correctly delivered to the address on the envelope.

 

[jimbo99]

The latter simply outlines a procedure by which you may return mail free of charge. It carries no other meaning.

The former relies on the definition of "incorrectly delivered". It remains my understanding that an item delivered to the correct address as per the envelope is not "incorrectly delivered". Something "incorrectly delivered" would be if a letter with next-door's address was put through my door (as has happened by accident once or twice).

I agree. Referring to the Postal Services Act 2000, as posted before, s84(1) creates an offence, when to somebody who opens post "in the course of transmission".

Interpretation is given in S125:
S125(3)(a) "a postal packet shall be taken to be in course of transmission by post from the time of its being delivered to any post office or post office letter box to the time of its being delivered to the addressee"

But s125(3)(c) "the delivery of a postal packet—(i)at the premises to which it is addressed or redirected, unless they are a post office from which it is to be collected,...shall be a delivery to the addressee."

So a letter delivered to the correct address but with somebody else's name on it is no longer in the course of transmission.

 

[Puffing Devil]

The latter simply outlines a procedure by which you may return mail free of charge. It carries no other meaning.

The former relies on the definition of "incorrectly delivered". It remains my understanding that an item delivered to the correct address as per the envelope is not "incorrectly delivered". Something "incorrectly delivered" would be if a letter with next-door's address was put through my door (as has happened by accident once or twice).



Your opinion - do you have any references to legal precedent that confirm that rather strict interpretation, which I wholly disagree with?

Mail is delivered to an address, not to a person. So whilst it is an offence if, say, you opened a letter with your neighbour's address on it, it is not a specific offence to open something with your address on it, even if somebody else's name.

Of course there might be other offences involved depending on your intention in opening it, eg fraud, theft, even criminal damage to the envelope. But no specific postal service offence in opening post once correctly delivered to the address on the envelope.

I agree. Referring to the Postal Services Act 2000, as posted before, s84(1) creates an offence, when to somebody who opens post "in the course of transmission".

Interpretation is given in S125:
S125(3)(a) "a postal packet shall be taken to be in course of transmission by post from the time of its being delivered to any post office or post office letter box to the time of its being delivered to the addressee"

But s125(3)(c) "the delivery of a postal packet—(i)at the premises to which it is addressed or redirected, unless they are a post office from which it is to be collected,...shall be a delivery to the addressee."

So a letter delivered to the correct address but with somebody else's name on it is no longer in the course of transmission.

There is no published precedent and any case would hinge on the understanding of detriment. It would easily be argued that by reading private matters that are intended to be communicated to the recipient is to their detriment. We won't know until it reaches a court of record, which is most unlikely in this situation. Bizarrely, the only other reference from the Royal Mail is the in the Grantham Journal:

A Royal Mail spokesperson said: “Royal Mail’s duty is to deliver to the address written or printed on items of mail, or to an alternative address as agreed with a customer.

“The Postal Services Act is clear that a person is committing an offence if they deliberately open post which they know or suspect has been incorrectly delivered to them.

“If you receive mail intended for another person, such as a previous owner, it should be returned by marking the envelope ‘Return to Sender’ and placing it in any postbox.​

My advice still stands:

• Do not open the mail
• Put it back in the post "Not Know at this address

Keeping a record or photos of the items may be useful.

 

[some bloke]

s84(1) creates an offence, when to somebody who opens post "in the course of transmission".

...a letter delivered to the correct address but with somebody else's name on it is no longer in the course of transmission.

The offence discussed earlier is under s.84(3), which concerns opening mail in the knowledge or reasonable suspicion that it has been "incorrectly delivered to him", rather than mail "in the course of transmission".

the only other reference from the Royal Mail is the in the Grantham Journal:

That statement from the Royal Mail is incorrect, as the offence is to open the mail "intending to act to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse", not just opening it deliberately.

 

[Puffing Devil]

The offence discussed earlier is under s.84(3), which concerns opening mail in the knowledge or reasonable suspicion that it has been "incorrectly delivered to him", rather than mail "in the course of transmission".

That statement from the Royal Mail is incorrect, as the offence is to open the mail "intending to act to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse", not just opening it deliberately.

As I said, to the detriment of the person may be construed as discovering personal information in the communication, which you, as a third party, should not be aware of.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I said, to the detriment of the person may be construed as discovering personal information in the communication, which you, as a third party, should not be aware of.

If your intention is not to cause detriment, though, that fails.

 

[Puffing Devil]

If your intention is not to cause detriment, though, that fails.

That, as far as I know, has not been tested in court. The Royal Mail certainly view it one way, even though some may disagree.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That, as far as I know, has not been tested in court. The Royal Mail certainly view it one way, even though some may disagree.

I don't think they do. The passages you quote as saying that don't say it at all.

 

[DaleCooper]

I have lived at my present address for more than 20 years. In that time I must have received many hundreds of letters of which, as far as I can remember, I opened three which weren't addressed to me. Is it surprising that I don't check the addressee of every one of those hundreds of letters, as far as I'm concerned I have reasonable grounds to initially believe that a letter that comes through my door is intended for me.

Of those I opened two were from places from which I could reasonably expect to receive mail, a company from which I get a pension and Virgin Media who are my broadband provider; the third was about a congestion charge for which someone had provided a false address and when I phoned the sender they were pleased I had told them that their information was wrong. In the other two cases it was the postman's mistake and I delivered them myself and explained why they were opened.

Does anyone seriously think I have done wrong?

 

[EM2]

As I said, to the detriment of the person may be construed as discovering personal information in the communication, which you, as a third party, should not be aware of.

I had similar issues to the OP in the original thread. The envelopes were clearly marked as from financial institutions such as building societies and insurance companies.
Unsure what to do, I took a pile of them to the local police station and asked the desk officer what I should do.
Without more ado, they opened two of the envelopes.
I said 'Would I be allowed to do that?'
'Don't see why not', was the reply.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Surely the point of the law about not opening is to deter unauthorized Royal Mail staff from opening letters? And while it's by no means clear from the discussion here whether the restriction extends to people legitimately at the address shown on an envelope (n.b. address rather than addressee) for a prosecution to take place, two factors would have to be in place

1) For a potential prosecutor to find out that a letter had been opened
2) For that prosecutor to decide that it would be sensible to start a prosecution.

It strikes me as overwhelmingly unlikely that (1) would happen. But in that tiny fraction of cases where it did, what's the chance that any prosecutor would decide that (2) was met?

Taken together, I think we can be certain that anyone opening someone else's post by mistake will only have to cope with the embarrassment that may cause, and not fear a criminal record.


TL/DR: don't be silly. No one's going to prosecute you for opening a letter by accident.

 

[jimbo99]

The offence discussed earlier is under s.84(3), which concerns opening mail in the knowledge or reasonable suspicion that it has been "incorrectly delivered to him", rather than mail "in the course of transmission".

In the case of S84(3), I think there is still no offence because the item is "correctly delivered" if it has been delivered to the correct address regardless of whether the addressee lives there. Royal Mail delivers to addresses not people. Note S125(3)

S125 (3)For the purposes of this Act—(c)the delivery of a postal packet—(i)at the premises to which it is addressed or redirected, ...,shall be a delivery to the addressee.

I believe the S84(3) would have been worded differently (eg "incorrectly addressed to him") if the intention was to create an offence as you suggest. But on reflection, I accept that it could be argued either way.

 

[some bloke]

In the case of S84(3), I think there is still no offence because the item is "correctly delivered" if it has been delivered to the correct address regardless of whether the addressee lives there. Royal Mail delivers to addresses not people. Note S125(3)

S125 (3)For the purposes of this Act—(c)the delivery of a postal packet—(i)at the premises to which it is addressed or redirected, ...,shall be a delivery to the addressee.

I believe the S84(3) would have been worded differently (eg "incorrectly addressed to him") if the intention was to create an offence as you suggest. But on reflection, I accept that it could be argued either way.

Section 125 (1) says "unless the context otherwise requires".

We might ask what the law was intended to be. Did Parliament mean that someone "intending to act to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse" should not be guilty of any offence if the mail went to the address written, even if they knew the address was not correct for the person named?

 

[Deafdoggie]

Most of the postal services act is aimed at Royal Mail workers. Only those working at the Returned Letter Centre, for example, can open post, and then only to try and establish an address to get it to. Post ends up there when either the address is incomplete/unclear/doesn’t exist or it’s been returned to sender and there is no clear return address on the outside. Those who sort post via MDEC have three seconds to sort each piece of mail, after that you are deemed to be holding up the Mail, another offence. Although you’re likely to get a rollicking rather than arrested! As an aside, if you ever think you have a boring job, work for Royal Mail on MDEC. Mind-numbing doesn’t even begin to describe it!
Royal Mail consider the job done if there is an address on it and it’s delivered to that address, the name on the post is of no relevance. Indeed postmen will often have to post something through a door knowing full well that the person doesn’t live there, but they have to deliver as addressed.
Obviously, they are only human, sometimes it gets misdelivered. You can call Royal Mail to complain, the postman will be spoken to (it’s a serious offence) which is why they will need the date it was delivered. You may even get a book of stamps by way of apology-but that’s less likely now, certainly for a first failure, than it was.
If you return an item, cross through the address, write “RTS” on it, and if it’s unopened it’s free. If you have opened it, in theory at least, you need to put a stamp on it. Of course, if it’s a simple misdelivery either pop it through the correct door or back in a postbox if unopened.
Certainly, if an item of mail is delivered to your address and that is the address on it, you’re not committing an offence by opening it, only if having opened it you use any information contained in it for nefarious purposes are you breaking the law.

 

[some bloke]

Certainly, if an item of mail is delivered to your address and that is the address on it, you’re not committing an offence by opening it, only if having opened it you use any information contained in it for nefarious purposes are you breaking the law.

Or (in theory at least) if you intend to cause detriment without reasonable excuse, but fail!

 

[island]

As I said, to the detriment of the person may be construed as discovering personal information in the communication, which you, as a third party, should not be aware of.

May be, and also may not be. There are plenty of reasonable excuses to open mail delivered to your premises addressed to someone else which are not acting to someone’s detriment. Not everything is absolute.

 

[talltim]

Or (in theory at least) if you intend to cause detriment without reasonable excuse, but fail!

What about causing detriment with a reasonable excuse?

 

[some bloke]

Yes. I was about to post this:

The law says,

"A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse...".

So it's lawful to intend acting to a person's detriment when you open mail incorrectly delivered to you, if you have a reasonable excuse.

Makes sense.

"I'm going to stop that stolen money going to the addressee".

...............

Edit 12.53: At least, the above was the draft.

 

[island]

Indeed.

A case where you would not have reasonable excuse for opening such mail but would not be intending to act to someone’s detriment would for example be if you opened a pile of mail on auto-pilot without noticing one of the items was addressed to somebody else.

 

[some bloke]

A case where you would not have reasonable excuse for opening such mail but would not be intending to act to someone’s detriment would for example be if you opened a pile of mail on auto-pilot without noticing one of the items was addressed to somebody else.

I think you wouldn't be convicted for that anyway, because you have to know or reasonably suspect it's been incorrectly delivered to you.

 

[njamescouk]

No idea if it's legal, but you should definitely open it.

Got a weird letter from the water co when I'd moved in about how the billing address had changed and addressed to someone else, not me or previous owner. Told water co, thought no more about it. Then threatening letters turned up. It transpired matey had been visiting the house when empty and for sale and told water co to send bills for his house to this address, then coming here and picking them up. The estate agent had left the visitors log behind and there was a *lot* of coming and going.

The utility bill with this address on was good enough for him to borrow money off the provvy, who started threatening plagues of locusts etc, finally offering to settle for half the amount! I stuck a notice by the front door giving his name and address and telling any debt collectors to shove off.

Then the gas and electric people started getting funny and I was able to spill the beans and get everybody off my back.

 

[paddington]

I'm getting mail for people who haven't lived here for 3 or more years. Returning everything to sender for 6 months hasn't stopped some of them so they just go into the recycling now.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I never introduced it in my role before retiring, but latterly have often thought that all of this 'debate' about opening someone else's post could easily be resolved if all formal communications were sent in envelopes bearing the printed legend:

'Confidential - To be opened by addressee only'

 

[35B]

I never introduced it in my role before retiring, but latterly have often thought that all of this 'debate' about opening someone else's post could easily be resolved if all formal communications were sent in envelopes bearing the printed legend:

'Confidential - To be opened by addressee only'

Which begs the question of whether some of these senders might actually want the letter opened if the intended recipient isn’t there, to improve the intelligence coming back?

 

[island]

I never introduced it in my role before retiring, but latterly have often thought that all of this 'debate' about opening someone else's post could easily be resolved if all formal communications were sent in envelopes bearing the printed legend:

'Confidential - To be opened by addressee only'

The only letters with that legend I’ve seen in the recent past have been to business addresses, containing sales and marketing material that was not in any way confidential, merely so addressed in the hope of reaching the addressee, usually an MD or senior manager, rather than being opened and discarded by a secretary.