ChatterBank1 min ago
Someone else opening my private mail
Unbeknown to me, my landlord opened a private letter addressed to me, without my knowledge or consent. Is there any recourse that I can take and what is the law regarding this? Thank you
Answers
The law is he's not allowed to open it.
As a once off accident any compalint to the authorities will be laughed off.
If it's regular it will probably take you an expensive legal case to do anything about it - unless he's stealing from you
As a once off accident any compalint to the authorities will be laughed off.
If it's regular it will probably take you an expensive legal case to do anything about it - unless he's stealing from you
16:06 Tue 15th Dec 2009
-- answer removed --
To ahmskunnirt and fredpuli47.
I suppose I did go over the top in how serious it is but it is a indictable offence and always has been. Whilst it is no where near as serious an offence as it used to be it is still a serious offence as offences go (as I said it always used to be a automatic custodial sentence).
You quoted s 84(3) of the Postal Services Act 2000. IWhilst this may apply if I were to act as then landlords lawyer I woul;d argue that it doesnot. As you pinted out its difficult to argue that the landlord is intending to act to a person's detriment. And also, the mail was not "incorrectly delivered to him". The mail was delivered to the correct address, and the landlord picked it up. Not much of a distinction I know, but enough for a lawyer.
What is appropriate here (I've seen someone been found guilty of it in court) is s1(2) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This act deals with powers of the Security Services and s1 covers "Unlawful interception". This covers post and "interception" covers the opening of said post.
I must admit that the sentence is not as severe as I thought (2 years max), s1(7)(A). But I still hold my point that it is (or at least was) a serious offence. I'll try and find the pre-2000 law on the matter as I'm pretty sure that it used to be a much more severe sentence.
I suppose I did go over the top in how serious it is but it is a indictable offence and always has been. Whilst it is no where near as serious an offence as it used to be it is still a serious offence as offences go (as I said it always used to be a automatic custodial sentence).
You quoted s 84(3) of the Postal Services Act 2000. IWhilst this may apply if I were to act as then landlords lawyer I woul;d argue that it doesnot. As you pinted out its difficult to argue that the landlord is intending to act to a person's detriment. And also, the mail was not "incorrectly delivered to him". The mail was delivered to the correct address, and the landlord picked it up. Not much of a distinction I know, but enough for a lawyer.
What is appropriate here (I've seen someone been found guilty of it in court) is s1(2) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This act deals with powers of the Security Services and s1 covers "Unlawful interception". This covers post and "interception" covers the opening of said post.
I must admit that the sentence is not as severe as I thought (2 years max), s1(7)(A). But I still hold my point that it is (or at least was) a serious offence. I'll try and find the pre-2000 law on the matter as I'm pretty sure that it used to be a much more severe sentence.
Under s8(4) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 [still in force], I think its an offence for a 'government contractor' (ie Royal Mail employee) to open / keep mail address to another ("fail to comply with an official direction for the return or disposal of the document or article"). Although the wording is quite different I think this is the offence that Royal Mail employees have been charged with
I also keep finding other discussion forums ith people saying that once the post is posted it becomes the property / goes into the custody of the Queen (and that interfering with Her Majesty's mail is a form of treason). But I can't find anything definate or any statute. I am sure, though, that once you put mail in the post you can't get it back - it has to be delivered to the address on the post.
I also keep finding other discussion forums ith people saying that once the post is posted it becomes the property / goes into the custody of the Queen (and that interfering with Her Majesty's mail is a form of treason). But I can't find anything definate or any statute. I am sure, though, that once you put mail in the post you can't get it back - it has to be delivered to the address on the post.
Ramsbottom :The old law was in the Post Office Act 1953.The equivalent offence for the public (not postmen and the like) was punishable with £50 fine and 6 months imprisonment [s56: 'any person who unlawfully and maliciously with intent to injure any other person opens a postal packet. or does anything whereby delivery is impeded' ] The punishment for postal workers who stole packets was up to life imprisonment (now punishable as ordinary theft, but always severely, as a breach of trust) and for those who opened mail bags, delayed packets etc unlawfully was 14 years (now 2 years)
I would like to thank Ramsbottom, dzug, ahmskunnirt,fredpuli47,barmaid and hc4361 for all your input. This certainly has been a revelation to me and all your information has been most welcome. I have since written a very carefully worded letter to him and I expect a reply in the new year. thank you all once again and may I wish you all a happy christmas and all the very best for the new year.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.