Electronic/Email Communication
Discussion
Eight months ago a tenant vacated my rental flat, all in order, rental Deposit monies refunded.
Since vacating the flat, the now ex tenant has purchased a new car, registering the car with DVLA at his former/my above flat’s address.
I have recently received mail for the ex-tenant, the same both from the local council’s parking services (penalty driving in bus lane), HM Court Services (concerning PCN) and DVLA (vehicle tax refund cheque).
All of the above mail I have opened, and then resealed enclosing a covering letter, returning the same marked “Returned to Sender”.
I have not forwarded any of the mail to the ex-tenant’s present/new address, since I am both suspicious of why the vehicle was registered in a “former”, my flat’s address, and would the ex- tenant take the required appropriate action, both with the Courts and with correcting the vehicle’s keeper’s new address.
My communication to my former tenant has always been via email, that is until today when my email with attachments “bounced” back to me.
I use email communications through both simplicity, speed and for future reference record etc. etc., so presuming the intended recipient of my above email has put a “block” on any future emails I might send, is there any way around a person from receiving and/or blocking electronic mail, and what is the legal position on a person not accepting both electronic and postal mail.
Since vacating the flat, the now ex tenant has purchased a new car, registering the car with DVLA at his former/my above flat’s address.
I have recently received mail for the ex-tenant, the same both from the local council’s parking services (penalty driving in bus lane), HM Court Services (concerning PCN) and DVLA (vehicle tax refund cheque).
All of the above mail I have opened, and then resealed enclosing a covering letter, returning the same marked “Returned to Sender”.
I have not forwarded any of the mail to the ex-tenant’s present/new address, since I am both suspicious of why the vehicle was registered in a “former”, my flat’s address, and would the ex- tenant take the required appropriate action, both with the Courts and with correcting the vehicle’s keeper’s new address.
My communication to my former tenant has always been via email, that is until today when my email with attachments “bounced” back to me.
I use email communications through both simplicity, speed and for future reference record etc. etc., so presuming the intended recipient of my above email has put a “block” on any future emails I might send, is there any way around a person from receiving and/or blocking electronic mail, and what is the legal position on a person not accepting both electronic and postal mail.
Wings said:
I have not forwarded any of the mail to the ex-tenant’s present/new address
Then just return it to the sender, without opening it.Wings said:
My communication to my former tenant has always been via email, that is until today when my email with attachments “bounced” back to me.
I use email communications through both simplicity, speed and for future reference record etc. etc., so presuming the intended recipient of my above email has put a “block” on any future emails I might send, is there any way around a person from receiving and/or blocking electronic mail, and what is the legal position on a person not accepting both electronic and postal mail.
How do you know he's not "accepting" postal mail? You haven't tried to post him anything - you haven't even forwarded the post he's received.I use email communications through both simplicity, speed and for future reference record etc. etc., so presuming the intended recipient of my above email has put a “block” on any future emails I might send, is there any way around a person from receiving and/or blocking electronic mail, and what is the legal position on a person not accepting both electronic and postal mail.
What does the delivery failure message say about why delivery failed? Has he just changed his email address and closed that one? But, very simply, no - there's absolutely no way to force somebody to read an email they don't want to. They can set up a filter, or they can just manually ignore or delete it based on the sender.
ttish.Alucidnation said:
Why did you open the letters?
They should have been put back in the letterbox with 'no longer at this address' written across the front.
No reason why he should not open the mail. It has been delivered and he is not attempting to stop delivery to the correct person so no laws broken at all.They should have been put back in the letterbox with 'no longer at this address' written across the front.
KevinCamaroSS said:
Alucidnation said:
Why did you open the letters?
They should have been put back in the letterbox with 'no longer at this address' written across the front.
No reason why he should not open the mail. It has been delivered and he is not attempting to stop delivery to the correct person so no laws broken at all.They should have been put back in the letterbox with 'no longer at this address' written across the front.
Riley Blue said:
KevinCamaroSS said:
Alucidnation said:
Why did you open the letters?
They should have been put back in the letterbox with 'no longer at this address' written across the front.
No reason why he should not open the mail. It has been delivered and he is not attempting to stop delivery to the correct person so no laws broken at all.They should have been put back in the letterbox with 'no longer at this address' written across the front.
One of my neighbours accidently set up a mobile phone account to my address, they quickly got it sorted. It was just a typo.
covboy said:
Alucidnation said:
Why did you open the letters?
They should have been put back in the letterbox with 'no longer at this address' written across the front.
This . Left yourself open a bit there I thinkThey should have been put back in the letterbox with 'no longer at this address' written across the front.
Once delivery to the address has been made it is only an offence if you open it intending to act to a person's detriment : per sub-section (3).
xjay1337 said:
...him registering a car to your property has virtually no risk to you.
I beg to differ. It could easily end up in causing unwanted issues (e.g. visits from bailiffs) for a future tenant.Where, as in this case, the landlord is aware of the problem it could give rise to a breach of the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment.
Wings said:
My communication to my former tenant has always been via email, that is until today when my email with attachments “bounced” back to me.
I use email communications through both simplicity, speed and for future reference record etc. etc., so presuming the intended recipient of my above email has put a “block” on any future emails I might send, is there any way around a person from receiving and/or blocking electronic mail, and what is the legal position on a person not accepting both electronic and postal mail.
Some email servers automatically block attachments over a certain size. I use email communications through both simplicity, speed and for future reference record etc. etc., so presuming the intended recipient of my above email has put a “block” on any future emails I might send, is there any way around a person from receiving and/or blocking electronic mail, and what is the legal position on a person not accepting both electronic and postal mail.
If you got a bounce back, then its highly likely to be a policy restriction, such as maxiumum size, or a technical error.
If your email was being blocked or filtered, you wouldn't know about it.
Red Devil said:
No. A lot of people fail to understand what constitutes interference with (snail) mail. See Section 84 of the Postal Services Act 2000.
Once delivery to the address has been made it is only an offence if you open it intending to act to a person's detriment : per sub-section (3)
So you can vouch for the OP then?Once delivery to the address has been made it is only an offence if you open it intending to act to a person's detriment : per sub-section (3)
Allow me to quote the whole part....
"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".
So, personally, I would not be opening anyones incorrectly delivered mail as this could easily be turned back on me if i did.
Edited by Alucidnation on Monday 13th March 14:52
Alucidnation said:
So you can vouch for the OP then?
Allow me to quote the whole part....
"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".
So, personally, I would not be opening anyones incorrectly delivered mail as this could easily be turned back on me if i did.
Resonable excuse.......registering a car at the OPS address, running up parking fines/speeding fines etc, risk of Bailiffs etcAllow me to quote the whole part....
"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".
So, personally, I would not be opening anyones incorrectly delivered mail as this could easily be turned back on me if i did.
Edited by Alucidnation on Monday 13th March 14:52
Perfectly reasonable to open it and perfectly legal
M-SportMatt said:
Alucidnation said:
So you can vouch for the OP then?
Allow me to quote the whole part....
"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".
So, personally, I would not be opening anyones incorrectly delivered mail as this could easily be turned back on me if i did.
Resonable excuse.......registering a car at the OPS address, running up parking fines/speeding fines etc, risk of Bailiffs etcAllow me to quote the whole part....
"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".
So, personally, I would not be opening anyones incorrectly delivered mail as this could easily be turned back on me if i did.
Edited by Alucidnation on Monday 13th March 14:52
Perfectly reasonable to open it and perfectly legal
covboy said:
How did he know that without opening it ?
Which is why its reasonable to open it.........Been through this myself with a 'geezer' in my village, registered his car at my house then ran up parking and speeding fines, I ended up with bailifs at the property despite me opening the letters and intervening well before that stage.
Ended up going to court and was told my opening the mail was entirely correct as i wasn't acting towards the detriment of the geezer simply protecting my own interest
M-SportMatt said:
covboy said:
How did he know that without opening it ?
Which is why its reasonable to open it.........Been through this myself with a 'geezer' in my village, registered his car at my house then ran up parking and speeding fines, I ended up with bailifs at the property despite me opening the letters and intervening well before that stage.
Ended up going to court and was told my opening the mail was entirely correct as i wasn't acting towards the detriment of the geezer simply protecting my own interest
Did you have a forwarding address?
covboy said:
How did he know that without opening it ?
I open all “interesting” mail, the same either addressed to former tenants, or mail addressed to names that I do not recognise. “Interesting” mail, the same indicated very often by the “return to sender address”, and may include DVLA, HM Court Services, Local Council’s Parking Services, Mail Order Catalogue companies, Debt Collecting companies and Bailiffs etc. etc.
The UK Postal Services Act states, and I quote “A person commits an offence if they without reasonable excuse intentionally delay or open a postal packet in the course of transmission by post or intentionally opens a mail bag.” end
The mail I opened is not in transmission, having arrived at the intended address, as per the stated address on the envelope or parcel.
The UK Postal Services Act states, and I quote “A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse” end.
The above would be extremely difficult to prove, particularly for an ex tenant who has registered with DVLA a newly purchased vehicle, using their former address.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff