Is It Illegal To Open Someone Else's Post?

[CJRebus]

Is it illegal to open post sent to your address that has an unknown addressee, and no return address on the back?
CJR

[mikey4444]

I wouldn't have thought so....terribly bad manners though.

[MargoTester]

I would just write unknown at this address and put it in a postbox.

[Jackdaw33]

Opening it might be the only way to ascertain a return address, though.

[hc4361]

No, it's not illegal.

[Peter Pedant]

senders get terribly jacked up about this

the difficulty is that if new tenants ignore old CCJs then they get the bailiffs round

a lot of my tenants have liddle children and they are liddle terrors for opening things that we wouldnt
and if they dont their frenz do

so I process a lot of letters that have been opened by the little terrors and they all seem to be about debts - funny that

The Post Office ( or whatever it has become) are not interested if the mail had been delivered to the right address

The police ( interception of mail or something) arenever interested so I dont know the proper name of the law involved - since they wont do anything

and then I write to the debt company

There SHOULD be a return address on the back
and you SHOULD RTS it ( return to sender) w/o opening
and the returned ( hahahah listen to this) SHOULD have a dept where they process it and make sure you dont get bothered again

that just about covers all the important cases

I opened a neighbours bank statement once ( by mistake)
and I did a tom-and-jerry eye pop when I saw I was 15k in the red
I wasnt he was
I threw it away, shredded.....

[cassa333]

Don't know the law but I would open it in case someone is trying to get credit at your address.

[HansUrbancka]

With all the rubbish which nowadays comes through the letterbox, I think it would be difficult to prove that a communication was Not opened in error.

Although having said that, I would go along the lines of Margo Tester and leave matters to the Post Office; whom I believe are legally authorised to open all mail if deemed necessary.

Hans.

Hans.

[MargoTester]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3687109.stm

Lots of information here CJ

[Arksided]

I have in the past inadvertently opened post not addressed to me (I live alone) and funny enough it were for an appointment at specsavers.

I sealed it back up and wrote 'return to sender, not known at this address.' I never heard from them again so must have being ok.

[Peter Pedant]

I fear hc has overlooked
s.84 of the postal services act 1984
here
Postal Services Act

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/26/part/V/crossheading/offences-of-interfering-with-the-mail

s 84

but I think it would be relatively easy to skirt around on the grounds on lack of criminal intent.

[Peter Pedant]

// Don't know the law but I would open it in case someone is trying to get credit at your address.//

yeah I open everything - those hot liddle liddle hands of my little helpers do - as I have been cloned twice and it isnt much fun TBH

[woofgang]

I have opened mail addressed to previous tenants of my house from a building society after returning to sender numerous times. I phoned the building society and explained the situation and said that I was concerned that the previous tenant might be trying to arrange a mortgage or loan against my house...there had been an article in the paper around the same time where this had happened. The lady at the BS was very helpful and explained that the person had no other address on his account other than mine and that they were legally bound to write to him at that address, I forget about what. Anyway it put a final stop to the letters. I think its one of those circs where the principle is fine but in real life doesn’t always work.

[woofgang]

link to the stolen house
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3356929/The-thieves-stole-wife-s-house-sold-1-3million.html

[hc4361]

PP, nothing in the Act applies to the householder.

S.83 applies to postal service employees and s.84 refers to intentionally opening a mail bag or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post.

Once the letter has been delivered to the address on the envelope it is not in the course of its transmission by post.

[hellywelly4]

PeterP - 'a lot of my tenants' - does that mean you are extremely rich and own numerous properties??? My daughter keeps telling me to meet someone rich.....................................................

[Peter Pedant]

oh that is why s 84 says
interfering with the mail - general

and s83 specifies postal operators ...

yeah OK I am told

[Peter Pedant]

hellywelly how kind of you to read my posts

my turn over is quite high ( not every year like students )
and I go thro it each time with the new ones

I am more interested in fact that the new tenant does not say
'yeah I am liable ' and then give me the bill ....
one naught naughty new tenant got credit cards in the name of the old one ( oo-er mrs !) [ and we only knew after I had done some opening]

another tenant said I would be liable for non payment
and basically sadded off in rent arrears
and the debt company tried it on .....
where's my signature ?
oh we dont have it ....
then I am not liable am I altho you have said I am....

it is a bit of a sharkpool out there
( esp debt companies ....)

[CJRebus]

Many thanks one and all.

CJR

[New Judge]

"s.84 refers to intentionally opening a mail bag or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post. "

I don’t think it does, hc. Section 84 (3) deals specifically with items that have been delivered (and are thus no longer in the course of transmission by post):

84 Interfering with the mail: general.

(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.

So he has to know or reasonably suspect it has been incorrectly delivered to him (fairly easy if his name is not on the outside) but he also has to intend to do so “to the detriment” of the addressee (or the sender) and without reasonable excuse.

So, if you receive a packet addressed to somebody else and you know it contains something valuable and you nick it I think you are banged to rights. If you open a packet to see who it is from (to either protect your own interests or the sender’s or the rightful addressee’s) you have a reasonable excuse.

[Peter Pedant]

yeah I got copy and paste fatigue NJ

but I dont know of any convictions under this section
do you ?