Proof of postage
Discussion
- StreakyChrispy Porker said:
I think this might go missing so I'll ask for proof of posting. Again. All very odd.
Which is presumably why "Ch Supt Neil Adamson, of Northumbria Police, said: "The Crown Prosecution Service took this decision based on the explanation provided by Mr Duff. "I wonder how many others go astray on their return. Presumably there must be thousands of people who get asked again and again for the information if the Police are quite so good at losing paperwork that they lose his twice.
On another note I wonder how many blank pieces of paper they receive in evelopes, or birthday cards for the CC. Suppose they have to start keeping all the envelopes with a list of contents now.
Must remember to become good friends with the local post office so that I can get proof of posting after which the letter gets thrown away. No one will ever find out.
Interesting that cases of law can be decided upon the performance of an independent private company.
Also - I am sure you get a reminder letter that you have not nominated a driver?
Interesting that cases of law can be decided upon the performance of an independent private company.
Also - I am sure you get a reminder letter that you have not nominated a driver?
Edited by EU_Foreigner on Wednesday 6th February 09:22
RichBurley said:
EU_Foreigner said:
True.
Although as someone said earlier, what is there to stop you sending an empty envelope with proof of posting?
Erm. good question. Anyone?Although as someone said earlier, what is there to stop you sending an empty envelope with proof of posting?
Interesting legal getaround. I am thinking that a specialist has come up with this one as it is deviously simple. However I am not sure of the morals of this as of course the solicitor would have to tell the client to do this...!
Of course the CPS will never be able to argue that the 'Central Office' has not lost, misplaced, or misadministrated it, as they dont know 'for sure'. Yet the defendant can supply documentary proof that something was posted...
RichBurley said:
EU_Foreigner said:
True.
Although as someone said earlier, what is there to stop you sending an empty envelope with proof of posting?
Erm. good question. Anyone?Although as someone said earlier, what is there to stop you sending an empty envelope with proof of posting?
Mind you presumably if you provide a Proof of Postage knowing it relates to an empty envelope or certainly not to a NIP, and then state in Court it is proof you send a NIP, if found out you'd be guilty of Perjury?
Chrisgr31 said:
RichBurley said:
EU_Foreigner said:
True.
Although as someone said earlier, what is there to stop you sending an empty envelope with proof of posting?
Erm. good question. Anyone?Although as someone said earlier, what is there to stop you sending an empty envelope with proof of posting?
Mind you presumably if you provide a Proof of Postage knowing it relates to an empty envelope or certainly not to a NIP, and then state in Court it is proof you send a NIP, if found out you'd be guilty of Perjury?
Piglet said:
...and how on earth could someone prove that an empty envelope matched a proof of posting?
By sending the empty envelope via this:http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/jump2?catId=400...
An interesting point may be is that we are being presumptious that it was an empty envelope that was sent.
He may have responded by form of a letter which did not incriminate himself to fulfill the S172 but not in the 'form' that was sent to them. Their 'system' may be that the SCP simply ignore these and press on with prosecution rather than deal with each case individually.
It is the same SCP. Perhaps the after he sent the first letter and they ignored it, and they lost the case, he sent the same letter the second time!?
He may have responded by form of a letter which did not incriminate himself to fulfill the S172 but not in the 'form' that was sent to them. Their 'system' may be that the SCP simply ignore these and press on with prosecution rather than deal with each case individually.
It is the same SCP. Perhaps the after he sent the first letter and they ignored it, and they lost the case, he sent the same letter the second time!?
RichBurley said:
Piglet said:
...and how on earth could someone prove that an empty envelope matched a proof of posting?
By sending the empty envelope via this:http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/jump2?catId=400...
clearly if something is sent special delivery it is tracked (or at least trackable). My comment was an add on to the suggestions that the CPS etc. would be able to keep empty envelopes (that may have been sent to get a proof of postage) to tie up against claims by MOP that they had submitted docs and had the POP to prove it (but had really sent empty envelopes). My point being that I don't see how they could tie up a POP with an empty envelope other than the same postmark.
Presumably this is just an extension of the postal rule for contracts etc. All the sender can do is send, it has no further control than that?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff