Delivering letter before action to defendant?

[Bob]

I have recently sent a letter before action to an individual that owes
us money for services provided.

We have already had a call some time ago after the initial invoice was
issued stating he was not going to take any notice of any order against
him in court. We got the impression knows the system.

Our LBA was sent Royal Mail recorded, however in our area some post men
seem to deliver without signature and have done for some time. It would
seem when a letter is delivered in this way the online tracker shows the
item on its way and not delivered.

So there is the problem, our LBA shows as "on its way" and has done for
some time.

What would be acceptable to the court at this stage as proof of
delivery? A duplicate posted and certified by the Post Office in the
normal way or hand delivered with a witness present, possibly filmed, or
both?

Any thoughts?

[Percy Picacity]

It is actually normally better to send it by ordinary first class post,
as there is no record of any refusal to accept delivery (unless it is
returned to the sender) and it can be presumed to have been delivered.
However, this presumption could be overcome by him being believed when
he stands up in court and lies about receiving it. So in this case a
hand delivered letter to his address would be better, if you are fairly
sure the address is correct.

--

Percy Picacity

[Jake]

"Bob" <b...@invalid.com> wrote in message news:lm2n1o$rkv$1...@dont-email.me...

I always thought that letters of that nature were deemed by the courts to
have been duly served if you had proof of posting...

[Rob Morley]

On Tue, 27 May 2014 19:54:49 +0100
Bob <b...@invalid.com> wrote:

> Our LBA was sent Royal Mail recorded, however in our area some post
> men seem to deliver without signature and have done for some time. It
> would seem when a letter is delivered in this way the online tracker
> shows the item on its way and not delivered.
>

I wonder why you didn't use the Special Delivery service, which
guarantees delivery.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <lm2n1o$rkv$1...@dont-email.me>, b...@invalid.com (Bob) wrote:

> What would be acceptable to the court at this stage as proof of
> delivery? A duplicate posted and certified by the Post Office in
> the normal way or hand delivered with a witness present, possibly
> filmed, or both?

A notice sent by recorded delivery is served on the day of posting, not
on the day it would ordinarily be received in the post.

This is the case even if they claim to have never received it.

In Railtrack Plc v Gojra [1998], Wilson J commented that:

� if it is proved� that a notice was sent by recorded delivery, it does
not matter that that recorded-delivery letter may not have been received
by the intended recipient. It does not matter, even if it were to be
clearly established that it had gone astray in the post�

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

[Robin]

> In Railtrack Plc v Gojra [1998], Wilson J commented that:
>

> . if it is proved. that a notice was sent by recorded delivery, it

> does not matter that that recorded-delivery letter may not have been
> received by the intended recipient. It does not matter, even if it

> were to be clearly established that it had gone astray in the post.

Does that apply in circumstances which are *not* governed by statutory
provisions such as the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 and the Law of
Property Act 1925 which attract the Recorded Delivery Act 1962?

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Percy Picacity" wrote in message news:7hvmk9....@news.alt.net...

Agreed. It doesn't actually matter if it isn't received, so long as you have
sent it. Service of the claim form is far more important, but in general do
not use recorded delivery for legal notifications - all they guarantee is
proof that the other party did not receive them, and they can be delayed for
a long time if the recipient is out. Proof of posting can be useful.
--
Chris R

[The Todal]

A letter before action should be sent by ordinary first class post.
There is no point in using recorded delivery or registered post. It is
counterproductive to do so, because it could be argued that unless there
is proof that the letter was signed for, the assumption must be that it
wasn't delivered.

The court will assume that it was delivered, but obviously you improve
your position if you send at least one reminder (with a copy of the
previous letter) and if you send it by email as well.

If the person is within easy distance you could hand-deliver the letter.

Whatever happens, the recipient could argue that he never got the letter
or that he was away from his normal residence.

When you have given him a reasonable period of time to respond to your
letter and your reminder, you should feel free to go ahead and issue
county court proceedings, assuming your case is reasonably strong.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <lm43ma$ps7$1...@dont-email.me>, rb...@hotmail.com (Robin) wrote:

> Does that apply in circumstances which are *not* governed by
> statutory provisions such as the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 and
> the Law of Property Act 1925 which attract the Recorded Delivery
> Act 1962?

IN a recent parking case (county court), a Recorded Delivery appeal
letter was deemed served even after being returned by the postman.

[Robin]

>> Does that apply in circumstances which are *not* governed by
>> statutory provisions such as the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 and
>> the Law of Property Act 1925 which attract the Recorded Delivery
>> Act 1962?
>
> IN a recent parking case (county court), a Recorded Delivery appeal
> letter was deemed served even after being returned by the postman.

I can well believe it. I was not saying that a recorded delivery letter
would never be accepted as served even if not signed for. In the case
you mention I have no idea what may have been argued - eg that the
recipient refused the letter knowing what it contained. I was only
asking what authority was to be taken from cases where there was
statutory provision for registered (now recorded) post to be treated as
good service for cases without such statutory provision.

[Roland Perry]

In message <lm4kak$cai$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:20:45 on Wed, 28 May
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:

>I was only asking what authority was to be taken from cases where there
>was statutory provision for registered (now recorded) post

Registered is now Special Delivery
Recorded is now Signed-for

(Both for quite a few years).
--
Roland Perry

[Lobster]

On 28 May 2014, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> grunted:

But the "guarantee" simply means "we'll refund your postage if we screw
up", it doesn't mean that you can stake your life on the item definitely,
absolutely, unequivocally being delivered.

Very often the fall-out costs which might be incurred as a result of a
letter *not* being delivered are likely to be vastly in excess of that
postage cost.

Notwithstanding the posts of others who reckon that a recorded delivery
letter can be deemed by the courts as having been delivered despite no
signature from the receipient, the fact remains that any signed-for item is
vulnerable to the recipient deliberately refusing delivery if he knows that
Something Bad is likely to be en route to him.

--
David

[Robin]

>> I was only asking what authority was to be taken from cases where
>> there was statutory provision for registered (now recorded) post
>
> Registered is now Special Delivery
> Recorded is now Signed-for
>

Yes in a general sort of way. But I am unclear how your comment relates
to the Statutes I mentioned which made specific provision for registered
post and to the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962. If you look at
those you will see that eg section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act
1927 provides for service by registered post. Similarly section 196 of
the Law of Property Act 1925 provides for service by hand or registered
post. The Recorded Delivery Act Service 1962 provides then that where
those and other enactments refer to registered post they are to be read
as referring also to the recorded delivery service. In short, for those
purposes recorded has been replaced by recorded. The case of Railtrack
Plc -v- Gojra and Gojra [1997] EWCA Civ 2863 which was cited concerned
the construction of s.23 LPA 1927 (which was applied by the Landlord and
Tennant Act 1954). So the judgment needs to be read in that context.
It doesn't by itself provide so far as I can see authority treating a
letter before action sent recorded delivery letter to be received even
if the letter was returned undelivered. The parking case Paul Cummins
mentioned later may do so but that is beyond my ken.

And FTAOD none of this contradicts the general advice already given to
use "ordinary post" so it's deemed, unless the contrary is proved, to
have been delivered.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <XnsA33BC55ECEA79d...@81.171.92.236>,

Lobster <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 28 May 2014, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> grunted:

>>I wonder why you didn't use the Special Delivery service, which
>>guarantees delivery.
>
>But the "guarantee" simply means "we'll refund your postage if we screw
>up", it doesn't mean that you can stake your life on the item definitely,
>absolutely, unequivocally being delivered.
>
>Very often the fall-out costs which might be incurred as a result of a
>letter *not* being delivered are likely to be vastly in excess of that
>postage cost.

I don't know if they still do it, but there used to be an option on
Special Delivery for consequential loss cover.

>Notwithstanding the posts of others who reckon that a recorded delivery
>letter can be deemed by the courts as having been delivered despite no
>signature from the receipient, the fact remains that any signed-for item is
>vulnerable to the recipient deliberately refusing delivery if he knows that
>Something Bad is likely to be en route to him.

Yes. Although this can work both ways. To a naive recipient, a
letter before legal action which they've had to sign for is more scary
than one they didn't. So maybe it will encourage them to pay up.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Roland Perry]

In message <lm5l3r$jn8$1...@dont-email.me>, at 22:40:27 on Wed, 28 May
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:

>>> I was only asking what authority was to be taken from cases where
>>> there was statutory provision for registered (now recorded) post
>>
>> Registered is now Special Delivery
>> Recorded is now Signed-for
>>
>Yes in a general sort of way.

No, those are the precise names used (before, and now) by Royal Mail.

>But I am unclear how your comment relates
>to the Statutes I mentioned which made specific provision for registered
>post and to the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962.

I was pointing out that "now recorded [post]" is obsolete terminology.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

> I was pointing out that "now recorded [post]" is obsolete terminology.

I fear we are dancing with the angels (quelle surprise). But FWIW it is
not obsolete in law.

I used the term "recorded delivery" because that was the term used by
Paul Cummins and in the case cited (IMO quite propery); and because it
is the term used in legislation. So far as I can see there is no
problem with this because the Postal Services Act 2000 provides for
references in legislation to "recorded delivery" to be read as "a postal
service which provides for the delivery of the document or other thing
by post to be recorded."

The term it is still used in new statutes, I think as it caters for RM
changing the name of their services; and also caters for postal services
provided other than by RM. The most recent seems to be the Bankruptcy
and Debt Advice (Scotland) Act 2014