ChatterBank2 mins ago
Status of a mailed letter
Once a letter is dropped into a post box who does it legally belong to; the sender, the addressee, or the Royal mail?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Ownership of the copyright of the text of a letter will remain with the sender and his heirs until 70 years after the end of the year in which he dies. (That, of course, assumes that the sender owned the copyright in the first place)
By posting the letter the sender has indicated his intention to transfer 'title' (of the envelope and its contents) to the recipient. At no point does the Royal Mail ever acquire title to the letter (unless it is undeliverable, and is not claimed within 4 months).
I doubt that a court has ever been asked to rule upon the exact point at which title is actually transferred between the sender and the recipient, but I suspect that any such ruling would favour transfer at the point of posting. That assumption is based upon the fact that the sender loses all rights to have the letter returned to him as soon as it's posted, whereas the recipient has the right to demand that Royal Mail search for a missing letter from that point onwards.
Chris
By posting the letter the sender has indicated his intention to transfer 'title' (of the envelope and its contents) to the recipient. At no point does the Royal Mail ever acquire title to the letter (unless it is undeliverable, and is not claimed within 4 months).
I doubt that a court has ever been asked to rule upon the exact point at which title is actually transferred between the sender and the recipient, but I suspect that any such ruling would favour transfer at the point of posting. That assumption is based upon the fact that the sender loses all rights to have the letter returned to him as soon as it's posted, whereas the recipient has the right to demand that Royal Mail search for a missing letter from that point onwards.
Chris
Eddie's post wasn't there when I started typing.
The Theft Act 1968 states that (for the purposes of defining 'Theft' under criminal law) "property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it".
While that would explain a charge of 'theft from the Post Office' or of 'theft from Royal Mail' it does not seem to imply that title to property is ever transferred under civil law while it is in transit. (An analogy would be 'theft from a Lost Property office'. While property is within that Office, title to it still belongs to the owner, not to the Office).
Chris
The Theft Act 1968 states that (for the purposes of defining 'Theft' under criminal law) "property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it".
While that would explain a charge of 'theft from the Post Office' or of 'theft from Royal Mail' it does not seem to imply that title to property is ever transferred under civil law while it is in transit. (An analogy would be 'theft from a Lost Property office'. While property is within that Office, title to it still belongs to the owner, not to the Office).
Chris
J-J:
Quote:
"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"
[Section 84(3), Postal Services Act 2000]
So, simply opening someone else's mail is not necessarily an offence. (It must be 'to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse').
'Reasonable excuse' could probably be something as simple as saying "I opened the letter on the assumption that it was for me. It was only after that I'd opened it that I saw that it was addressed to someone else".
So it's unlikely that simply opening the mail could result in you being convicted of an offence. (I open and read them all. Then I just write 'opened in error' on the envelope!)
However retaining the mail could possibly render you liable to prosecution under the Theft Act 1968. If it's for a neighbour, the simplest thing to do is to put it through their letterbox. Otherwise put in a post box marked "Not known at 23 Acacia Avenue, Blogsville" or "Delivered in error to 23 Acacia Avenue, Blogsville", as appropriate.
Chris
Quote:
"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"
[Section 84(3), Postal Services Act 2000]
So, simply opening someone else's mail is not necessarily an offence. (It must be 'to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse').
'Reasonable excuse' could probably be something as simple as saying "I opened the letter on the assumption that it was for me. It was only after that I'd opened it that I saw that it was addressed to someone else".
So it's unlikely that simply opening the mail could result in you being convicted of an offence. (I open and read them all. Then I just write 'opened in error' on the envelope!)
However retaining the mail could possibly render you liable to prosecution under the Theft Act 1968. If it's for a neighbour, the simplest thing to do is to put it through their letterbox. Otherwise put in a post box marked "Not known at 23 Acacia Avenue, Blogsville" or "Delivered in error to 23 Acacia Avenue, Blogsville", as appropriate.
Chris
JJ Interesting question. It is an offence to deliberately open mail when you know it has been misdelivered only if you are acting to the detriment of the intended recipient and do not have a reasonable excuse.
It is not an offence to just bin it.
http://www.legislatio...ga/2000/26/section/84
It is not an offence to just bin it.
http://www.legislatio...ga/2000/26/section/84
JJ, excellent post by NazNomad, February 2011.
The Postal Services Act 2000 is clear that an offence is created if anyone intentionally delays the post or intentionally opens a mail bag. The Act goes on to say: "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."
Which, as even non-lawyers will easily appreciate, is not the same thing as throwing away a letter because you can't be bothered to deliver it yourself. It could be argued, though, that putting mail in the bin counts as a "delay", albeit an indefinite one.
But the chances of being able to complain to the police about a negligent neighbour throwing away your letters is pretty slim, simply because of the difficulty of finding out about something you probably did not even know was on its way to you.
And even if there was evidence that someone had opened your letters, proving that they had done so intending to act to your detriment would be no easy task.
Incredibly rare
A Royal Mail spokesman admits it's unlikely prosecutions could be brought, simply because of the difficulty of getting evidence. Furthermore, he's not aware of anyone having been prosecuted for throwing misdelivered mail away.
The reported cases of prosecutions for tampering with the mail are incredibly rare, and involve rogue postmen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk.../magazine/3687109.stm
The Postal Services Act 2000 is clear that an offence is created if anyone intentionally delays the post or intentionally opens a mail bag. The Act goes on to say: "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."
Which, as even non-lawyers will easily appreciate, is not the same thing as throwing away a letter because you can't be bothered to deliver it yourself. It could be argued, though, that putting mail in the bin counts as a "delay", albeit an indefinite one.
But the chances of being able to complain to the police about a negligent neighbour throwing away your letters is pretty slim, simply because of the difficulty of finding out about something you probably did not even know was on its way to you.
And even if there was evidence that someone had opened your letters, proving that they had done so intending to act to your detriment would be no easy task.
Incredibly rare
A Royal Mail spokesman admits it's unlikely prosecutions could be brought, simply because of the difficulty of getting evidence. Furthermore, he's not aware of anyone having been prosecuted for throwing misdelivered mail away.
The reported cases of prosecutions for tampering with the mail are incredibly rare, and involve rogue postmen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk.../magazine/3687109.stm
Hc4361:
>>>It is not an offence to just bin it<<<
That might be for the courts to decide!
http://www.legislatio...g/definition-of-theft
(Binning junk mail is unlikely to cause any problems. Binning cheques or share certificates might be different!).
>>>It is not an offence to just bin it<<<
That might be for the courts to decide!
http://www.legislatio...g/definition-of-theft
(Binning junk mail is unlikely to cause any problems. Binning cheques or share certificates might be different!).
boxtops, as I see it, interfering with Royal Mail means tampering with it in the period between post box and letter box. Once it is through the letter box it is no longer 'Royal Mail'.
A householder cannot be responsible for misdelivered mail. He has no duty to either the Royal Mail nor the intended recipient. The mail has come through his letterbox on to private property uninvited, not through his own action.
If he opens the mail and uses the information for his own benefit or to the detriment of the recipient (eg uses bank information to get money from the recipient's account; or uses private information to blackmail the recipient) then obviously criminal offences have been committed.
If he opens the mail and sees that his neighbour is up to his eyeballs in debt he has not committed an offence if he does nothing with this information and bins the letter.
A householder cannot be responsible for misdelivered mail. He has no duty to either the Royal Mail nor the intended recipient. The mail has come through his letterbox on to private property uninvited, not through his own action.
If he opens the mail and uses the information for his own benefit or to the detriment of the recipient (eg uses bank information to get money from the recipient's account; or uses private information to blackmail the recipient) then obviously criminal offences have been committed.
If he opens the mail and sees that his neighbour is up to his eyeballs in debt he has not committed an offence if he does nothing with this information and bins the letter.
Thanks for replies everyone. I logged out just after posting ast night - I see you have been busy. I try to be neighbourly and see that wrongly addressed or delivered items go to the intended recipient. But, I am a little concerened that by doing this, I could be putting myself open to identity theft.
Thanks Chris & others for the comprehensive answers, it's a fascinating subject; it seems that you walk to the post box letter in hand, and it is obviously your property, you drop it in and it becomes something else. If you felt you would like to add something further to your letter, or indeed decide on second thoughts you don't wish to send it, you have rescinded ownership. Also, 'The Great train robbers', were stealing something from a body which didn't actually own it - though I guess that would be true also to stealing from a bank vault.
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Offers & Competitions4 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
Technology13 mins ago
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.