First Class Post: Deemed reciept
Mr X
deemed to have been received?
Thanks.
Lee Stutt
If it's sent pursuant to some legislation, then in the usual course of
post. If it's Court proceedings, then 2 days after it was posted.
Otherwise, no.
David McNeish
> deemed to have been received?
I very much doubt it.
Care to give us some context?
Old Codger
There certainly used to be but given the reliability of Royal Mail these
days even receipt is not ensured so I do hope there is no deemed receipt
time.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Mark Goodge
>Are there any regulations covering when an item sent by first class mail is
>deemed to have been received?
There is a rebuttable presumption of delivery when something is sent by
ordinary post. That is, if both parties are agreed that the item was, in
fact, posted, then it is assumed to have been delivered unless there is
good reason to believe it has not been.
http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Effective_service_of_documents
covers this in the context of criminal law, but the principle is the same
in civil disputes. Given the overall reliability of the postal service, a
court would have no hesitation in comcluding that, on the balance of
probabilities, something which was posted was delivered unless evidence can
be provided to support the assertion that it was not.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Dr Zoidberg
"Mr X" <M...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:8p1c7u...@mid.individual.net...
If it's an NIP sent by the police following a traffic offence, they seem to
work on the assumption that there will have been next day delivery
--
Alex
Mark
How would anyone support that assertion since it is difficult to prove
a negative?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
Roland Perry
Tue, 11 Jan 2011, Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> remarked:
>>Given the overall reliability of the postal service, a
>>court would have no hesitation in comcluding that, on the balance of
>>probabilities, something which was posted was delivered unless evidence can
>>be provided to support the assertion that it was not.
>
>How would anyone support that assertion since it is difficult to prove
>a negative?
Because it's based on the long term balance of probabilities, not a
forensic examination of one particular letter's journey.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:15:02 +0000, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 21:35:02 +0000, Mr X put finger to keyboard and typed:
>>
>>>Are there any regulations covering when an item sent by first class mail is
>>>deemed to have been received?
>>
>>There is a rebuttable presumption of delivery when something is sent by
>>ordinary post. That is, if both parties are agreed that the item was, in
>>fact, posted, then it is assumed to have been delivered unless there is
>>good reason to believe it has not been.
>>
>>http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Effective_service_of_documents
>>covers this in the context of criminal law, but the principle is the same
>>in civil disputes. Given the overall reliability of the postal service, a
>>court would have no hesitation in comcluding that, on the balance of
>>probabilities, something which was posted was delivered unless evidence can
>>be provided to support the assertion that it was not.
>
>How would anyone support that assertion since it is difficult to prove
>a negative?
Typically, by demonstrating that other deliveries are known not to have
been made, eg during periods of industrial action or bad weather.
A more fruitful approach for someone who wishes to claim that a letter was
not received is to dispute whether it was, in fact, posted.
Mr X
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ls5pi6lqhm202qbgc...@news.markshouse.net...
> A more fruitful approach for someone who wishes to claim that a letter was
> not received is to dispute whether it was, in fact, posted.
>
"found" my letter so it was a non-issue.
If I swore a statuatory decleration that I posted it, how could it be
rebutted?
Mark Goodge
By signing a statutory declaration that it was not received.
Mr X
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:55:02 +0000, Mr X put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>>
>>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:ls5pi6lqhm202qbgc...@news.markshouse.net...
>>> A more fruitful approach for someone who wishes to claim that a letter
>>> was
>>> not received is to dispute whether it was, in fact, posted.
>>>
>>That is what they were claiming. However, they backed down in the end and
>>"found" my letter so it was a non-issue.
>>If I swore a statuatory decleration that I posted it, how could it be
>>rebutted?
>
> By signing a statutory declaration that it was not received.
>
In this context, if they had continued to argue, there were a number of
points in my favour not least that the contract didn't require written
notice and I had given them verbal notice in good time.
I think they saw that I wasn't going to roll over and gave it up as a waste
of their time.