Mystery of 'Reminder of unpaid fine' letter
Terry Casey
demanding payment of an unpaid fine of £236.25 within 14 days - or else ...
The letter is dated 18 December (with 20 December appearing in the footer!)
The letter is correctly addressed and includes her middle name which would not normally
be known; her car registration number appears alongside which might be a pointer but she
is not aware of committing a driving offence of any kind.
She has no knowledge of any fine and Googling "London South West and West Courts"
(including the inverted commas) brings up one result:
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/03007909901
which seems to feature a number of people who have received such mystery letters from
courts all over the country.
The only contact address is a PO Box number in SW1, there is a number for automated
payments - 0300 790 9901 and a website: www.direct.gov.uk/payacourtfine which appears
genuine but offers no way of finding out the history.
A 24/7 information line 0845 940 0111 is no use either. Despite the weblink
www.cao.latestinfo.co.uk promising that 'Our specialists advisers are available to help
you ...' the complex menu system leads to a dead end ...
Anybody got any idea of what is going on?
And what she ought to do about it?
(I've already told her to write a recorded delivery letter to the PO Box number so that
she has proof of attempting to resolve the matter within the 14 day period)
How can someone get a letter like this without any knowledge of any offence being
committed, let alone of a court hearing and fine?
--
Terry
Terry Casey
Steve Walker
> She has no knowledge of any fine and Googling "London South West
> and West Courts" (including the inverted commas) brings up one result:
>
> http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/03007909901
>
> which seems to feature a number of people who have received such
> mystery letters from > courts all over the country.
It's probably an administrative unit for mass-processing of traffic fines
etc. I think that writing back politely to say that this is the first
she's heard of any problem is 100% right.
Paul - xxx
Have a look at
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Diol1/DoItOnline/DoItOnlineByCategory/DG_171
309
and check the letter you have has the required information, ie "You can
pay your fine by phoning 0300 790 9901 (in England) or 0300 790 9980
(for Wales). You will need to have the following information ready -
the division and the fine account number These are both in the top
right-hand corner of your Fine Notice letter."
I suggest that they won't be there and that this might be a scam letter.
A quick google gives a few results saying exactly as you say with
variations, some of which seem real, but most of which appear fake, so
very hard to say.
Personally I'd ignore it.
--
Paul - xxx
Terry Casey
Yes, it does have that information you mention - I didn't quote the Welsh 'phone number
in my post because it isn't relevant.
Also, if you follow the link I gave: www.direct.gov.uk/payacourtfine you will see that it
redirects to the same page you quoted.
So, the 'phone number is right; the web address is right; the PO Box No appears to be
right (we've also found a slightly different address with the last digits of the box
number changed as well as the last letter of the PostCode but it isn't unknown for one
large building to have multiple PostCodes for different departments)
The 0845 number on the letter which goes with www.cao.latestinfo.co.uk is unlikely to be
a scam as there is no reason to give out an alternative web address and then set up a
mind blowing automated menu system. For a scammer it would be an unnecessary diversion
from the money collecting number.
I favour incompetence in setting the system up for the terible menu - and it does, at
some stage near the end dish out one of the SW1 addresses.
In view of the threats for non-payment - bailiffs, arrest, etc., - ignoring the thing is
not an option at the moment.
--
Terry
Periander
news:MPG.2785d26fb...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> In view of the threats for non-payment - bailiffs, arrest, etc., -
> ignoring the thing is not an option at the moment.
Exactly correct.
Your recorded delivery letter idea is a good way of starting as the letter
is not necessarily a scam ...
"0300" numbers are now in use by many large organisations with large
private switchboards ... for instance Kings Collage Hosp in Camberwell ...
the Metropolitan Police and so forth ... all charged at standard rates.
Centralised payment locations are becoming very common - there is a
supposed saving in costs and efficiency gains (there tends not to be but
that's a different story).
Go with the recorded delivery letter, be polite and factual, your daughter
has had no previous notice etc etc etc and see what comes back.
--
Regards,
Periander
Paul - xxx
> In view of the threats for non-payment - bailiffs, arrest, etc., -
> ignoring the thing is not an option at the moment.
No worries. Recorded letter, as suggested in another reply, does look
like a good start .. ;)
--
Paul - xxx
fred
news:Xns9E5EF2E8A67...@69.16.176.253:
>
> Go with the recorded delivery letter, be polite and factual, your
> daughter has had no previous notice etc etc etc and see what comes
> back.
>
Given the tendancy for recorded delivery letters to sometimes not have
their delivery recorded when delivered to large oganisations I'd suggest
sending 2 copies of the letter. First with simple proof of posting from the
post office and the second marked 'copy' by recorded delivery. Then if the
delivery of the second is not recorded then the o/p can still fall back on
the proof of posting copy.
--
fred
GP Hardy
> Given the tendancy for recorded delivery letters to sometimes not have
> their delivery recorded when delivered to large oganisations I'd suggest
> sending 2 copies of the letter. First with simple proof of posting from
> the post office and the second marked 'copy' by recorded delivery. Then if
> the delivery of the second is not recorded then the o/p can still fall
> back on the proof of posting copy.
Doesn't the use of recorded delivery imply proof of posting? Recorded
delivery is no extra guarantee that it will be delivered - or indeed that it
will arrive with the intended recipient.
David McNeish
> Doesn't the use of recorded delivery imply proof of posting?
Yes, you get proof of posting automatically with Recorded Delivery.
Sending a duplicate by ordinary post is however useful for the purpose
of letting the recipient know what the RD letter said, in case they
don't sign for it and then fail to collect it from the sorting office.
David
fred
news:7D2To.1124$Zo4...@newsfe14.ams2:
If it was in court and you presented a Recorded Delivery slip as proof of
posting without a proof of delivery I could see a negative inference being
drawn on the lack of PoD. If you have separate proof of posting on the
other letter then you could rely on the courts' normal assumption that post
is considered delivered 2 days after it is posted first class and no-one
needs to hear about the Recorded Del letter with failed PoD.
If the Recorded Delivery letter gets PoD then all is good, I just like to
be careful.
--
fred
Terry Casey
Proof of posting is provided for Recorded Delivery items together with a reference that
can be tracked on-line.
If Royal Mail's website says it has been delivered it is up to the Court and RM to argue
it out between themselves if there is any dispute ...
--
Terry
fred
The issue arises when RM has no record of delivery, whether by the
commonly reported occurrence of delivery without signature or by a wary
recipient refusing delivery of all RD mail (although the latter should be
unlikely in your case).
The sending of an additional copy on simple proof of posting is a better
than nothing backup.
--
fred
GP Hardy
>"fred" <n...@for.mail> wrote in message news:4bfsn5....@news.alt.net...
>> The issue arises when RM has no record of delivery, whether by the
>> commonly reported occurrence of delivery without signature
> I'm astonished..!
> I have never, ever, had a recorded delivery letter left without a
> signature....
I've had a recorded delivery package left at my front door, without a card
and without a signature.
GP Hardy
> If it was in court and you presented a Recorded Delivery slip as proof of
> posting without a proof of delivery I could see a negative inference being
> drawn on the lack of PoD. If you have separate proof of posting on the
> other letter then you could rely on the courts' normal assumption that
> post is considered delivered 2 days after it is posted first class and
> no-one needs to hear about the Recorded Del letter with failed PoD.
So what you're basically saying is that you shouldn't use recorded delivery
for documents whose receipt you may later have to refer to in court -
because the court assumes that items arrive two days after posting, unless
it's a RD item which can be proven one way or the other?
Doesn't always work. When I was (successfully) defending a county court
claim, the judge accepted that the claimant had not received my information
pack outlining my defence
Dave
No, recorded delivery tells you that the post was received. What's the
chances that a normal delivery will get lost in the system? It's
happened to me many times both ways.
Dave
Dave
It can happen. Our son put a RD letter to a breakers yard and it was
returned marked refused.
Dave
John Briggs
In the circumstances, I rather think that a court would accept that it
had been received!
--
John Briggs
Stuart A. Bronstein
>> Sending a duplicate by ordinary post is however useful for the
>> purpose of letting the recipient know what the RD letter said,
>> in case they don't sign for it and then fail to collect it from
>> the sorting office.
>
> No, recorded delivery tells you that the post was received.
> What's the chances that a normal delivery will get lost in the
> system? It's happened to me many times both ways.
The problem is if the recipient refuses to take the post delivered by
recorded delivery, you won't have any proof it was delivered. You
will have the original back, possibly with some message saying that
it was undelivered.
John Briggs
And as I say elsewhere, surely a court will accept that it was
delivered? It is the equivalent of an ordinary letter being delivered
and the recipient refusing to read it. Surely a court wouldn't accept
that as an excuse?
--
John Briggs
NotMe
> > The issue arises when RM has no record of delivery, whether by the
> > commonly reported occurrence of delivery without signature
>
> I'm astonished..!
> I have never, ever, had a recorded delivery letter left without a
> signature.... if I were not at home, then a card was left informing me there
> was such an item to be collected from the local sorting office [where a
> signature..and ID were required]
> Do RM actually leave these letters without a signature...?
> If so, whatever happened to 'Registered Envelopes/Parcels' ...? that DO
> require a signature for delivery...
I once sent 3 copies of the same letter recorded to three different
addresses. 2 of them received the letter, the third was popped through
my letter box, 2 days after being sent, with a proof of delivery
appearing on the RM website. RM had used the return address on the
back of the envelope, and I presume the postman had signed it. Luckily
the one I got back was to a less important address, and the recipients
shared copies anyway.
Simon Finnigan
X-No-Archive:Yes
"fred" <n...@for.mail> wrote in message news:4bfsn5....@news.alt.net...
> Terry Casey <kt...@example.invalid> wrote in
> news:MPG.27871d4b3...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> In article <7D2To.1124$Zo4...@newsfe14.ams2>,
>> gareth...@ntlwrold.com says...
>>>
>>> "fred" wrote in message news:4bejr0....@news.alt.net...
>>>
>>> > Given the tendancy for recorded delivery letters to sometimes not
>>> > have their delivery recorded when delivered to large oganisations
>>> > I'd suggest sending 2 copies of the letter. First with simple proof
>>> > of posting from the post office and the second marked 'copy' by
>>> > recorded delivery. Then if the delivery of the second is not
>>> > recorded then the o/p can still fall back on the proof of posting
>>> > copy.
>>>
>>> Doesn't the use of recorded delivery imply proof of posting? Recorded
>>> delivery is no extra guarantee that it will be delivered - or indeed
>>> that it will arrive with the intended recipient.
>>
>> Proof of posting is provided for Recorded Delivery items together with
>> a reference that can be tracked on-line.
>>
>> If Royal Mail's website says it has been delivered it is up to the
>> Court and RM to argue it out between themselves if there is any
>> dispute ...
> The issue arises when RM has no record of delivery, whether by the
> commonly reported occurrence of delivery without signature
I'm astonished..!
I have never, ever, had a recorded delivery letter left without a
signature.... if I were not at home, then a card was left informing me there
was such an item to be collected from the local sorting office [where a
signature..and ID were required]
Do RM actually leave these letters without a signature...?
If so, whatever happened to 'Registered Envelopes/Parcels' ...? that DO
require a signature for delivery...
----------
I can`t remember the last time I signed for an item marked "signed for". No
idea who is signing for them, but I`ve given up complaining about my poor
postal service. I just keep reporting things missing (lots of stuff does go
missing, when they leave valuable looking boxes on the doorstep they tend to
vanish), and the RM keep paying out to the senders.
Roland Perry
Dec 2010, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>> The problem is if the recipient refuses to take the post delivered by
>> recorded delivery, you won't have any proof it was delivered. You
>> will have the original back, possibly with some message saying that
>> it was undelivered.
>
>And as I say elsewhere, surely a court will accept that it was
>delivered? It is the equivalent of an ordinary letter being delivered
>and the recipient refusing to read it. Surely a court wouldn't accept
>that as an excuse?
How do you prove it as the recipient who refused it, rather than someone
acting as their employee or agent?
Of course, if delivery to a person's employee or agent is deemed by a
court as good enough, we have a recursion issue.
But it seems a little "arms length" to propose that (say) a firm's
Managing Director has received a letter (and thereby put on notice and
capable of acting upon the contents) if his postroom has been instructed
to reject all incoming 'Signed for' mail, and he isn't even aware of
individual instances of the policy being out into action.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2010, Simon Finnigan <SimonF...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>I can`t remember the last time I signed for an item marked "signed
>for".
It's unusual for such items to be sent to individuals - much more
likely an individual sending it to an organisation they want to hold
accountable.
What I get quite a lot of is the other (and much more expensive) service
that used to be called "Registered Post" and was subsumed into "Special
Delivery" a few years ago.
--
Roland Perry
Simon Finnigan
----------
You`ve not done much buying and selling on ebay then :-) A lot of sellers
pay the extra 65p as it makes it slightly easier to stop people claiming
goods didn`t exist, and makes it easier to get the RM to pay up if they get
it wrong. Lots of sites selling console games and the like also use
recorded to get a signature on delivery for the same reasons.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>
>But it seems a little "arms length" to propose that (say) a firm's
>Managing Director has received a letter (and thereby put on notice and
>capable of acting upon the contents) if his postroom has been instructed
>to reject all incoming 'Signed for' mail, and he isn't even aware of
>individual instances of the policy being out into action.
That depends on who the letter was actually sent to.
If you send, say, a letter before action to a company, and the company's
postroom staff fail to ensure that it reaches the appropriate department
(eg, the legal department, or senior management in a smaller firm), then
that is entirely their own problem - as far as both the sender and the
courts are concerned, the letter has been received by the addressee, which
is the company.
On the other hand, if you are sending a letter to an individual in their
private capacity, but send it via their workplace (maybe because that's the
only address you have for them), then it hasn't been delivered unless it
actually reaches their hands.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Dave
I wish that I had realised that at the time.
Thanks
Dave
David McNeish
> No, recorded delivery tells you that the post was received. What's the
> chances that a normal delivery will get lost in the system? It's
> happened to me many times both ways.
I'm not talking about gaining evidence that the letter was delivered,
but just the practical issue of letting the recipient know what the
mystery item they didn't sign for was. You may have a contract saying
that serving notice by RD is sufficient, irrespective of whether it is
actually delivered, but don't actually want the other party to remain
in the dark about what you were trying to communicate to them.
David McNeish
> Do RM actually leave these letters without a signature...?
Yes. They shouldn't, but frequently they do. (admittedly this is
sometimes helpful for the recipient as it saves them a visit to the
delivery office...)
> If so, whatever happened to 'Registered Envelopes/Parcels' ...? that DO
> require a signature for delivery...
Now called "Special Delivery", and seems to be treated with a bit more
respect by Royal Mail staff.
Roland Perry
2011, Simon Finnigan <SimonF...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>"Roland Perry" wrote in message news:ngyC85r9...@perry.co.uk...
>
>In message <8o77qr...@mid.individual.net>, at 23:40:02 on Fri, 31 Dec
>2010, Simon Finnigan <SimonF...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>
>>I can`t remember the last time I signed for an item marked "signed for".
>
>It's unusual for such items to be sent to individuals - much more
>likely an individual sending it to an organisation they want to hold
>accountable.
>
>What I get quite a lot of is the other (and much more expensive) service
>that used to be called "Registered Post" and was subsumed into "Special
>Delivery" a few years ago.
>
>----------
>
>You`ve not done much buying and selling on ebay then :-)
Those are many of the items I refer to, sent by "Special Delivery".
>A lot of sellers pay the extra 65p as it makes it slightly easier to
>stop people claiming goods didn`t exist, and makes it easier to get the
>RM to pay up if they get it wrong. Lots of sites selling console games
>and the like also use recorded to get a signature on delivery for the
>same reasons.
No, I find that they are either un-signed-for, or Special Delivery. The
cost of the latter is an unfortunate tax upon the honest buyer (I don't
generally need the items in a rush).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
<1acc4054-9d33-45f8...@v12g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, at
17:05:03 on Sat, 1 Jan 2011, David McNeish <davi...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>> If so, whatever happened to 'Registered Envelopes/Parcels' ...? that DO
>> require a signature for delivery...
>
>Now called "Special Delivery", and seems to be treated with a bit more
>respect by Royal Mail staff.
Around here they are genuinely delivered "specially". So the normal
postman never gets to handle them. In part that must be a symptom of the
way that ordinary mail is delivered ever later in the day[1], while
Special Delivery has certain targets to meet (eg "by 9am", which is
impossible for the regular postman).
Meanwhile, the conflation of "valuable" and "urgent" boosts the Royal
Mail's profits, but isn't necessarily for the majority of users.
[1] I remember when "first post" would arrive by 7.30am, today the "only
post" arrives about 11am.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
11:15:02 on Sat, 1 Jan 2011, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 09:35:02 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>>
>>But it seems a little "arms length" to propose that (say) a firm's
>>Managing Director has received a letter (and thereby put on notice and
>>capable of acting upon the contents) if his postroom has been instructed
>>to reject all incoming 'Signed for' mail, and he isn't even aware of
>>individual instances of the policy being out into action.
>
>That depends on who the letter was actually sent to.
>
>If you send, say, a letter before action to a company, and the company's
>postroom staff fail to ensure that it reaches the appropriate department
>(eg, the legal department, or senior management in a smaller firm), then
>that is entirely their own problem - as far as both the sender and the
>courts are concerned, the letter has been received by the addressee, which
>is the company.
But the circumstances I was exploring are where the postroom rejects all
'signed for' mail. Has that been legally delivered, or not? (Mr Briggs
suggests perhaps it's been "delivered and refused to read" according to
a court).
>On the other hand, if you are sending a letter to an individual in their
>private capacity, but send it via their workplace (maybe because that's the
>only address you have for them), then it hasn't been delivered unless it
>actually reaches their hands.
What about letters addressed to a person, not a role, at the appropriate
business address? Especially when rejected by the postroom because it
requires a signature.
--
Roland Perry
Simon Finnigan
----------
You`re obviously buying a different type of item than I do on ebay - I don`t
buy anything valuable enough to require SD on ebay, and try to avoid selling
anything that valuable on ebay as well.
Roland Perry
>
>Those are many of the items I refer to, sent by "Special Delivery".
>
>>A lot of sellers pay the extra 65p as it makes it slightly easier to
>>stop people claiming goods didn`t exist, and makes it easier to get
>>the RM to pay up if they get it wrong. Lots of sites selling console
>>games and the like also use recorded to get a signature on delivery
>>for the same reasons.
>
>No, I find that they are either un-signed-for, or Special Delivery. The
>cost of the latter is an unfortunate tax upon the honest buyer (I don't
>generally need the items in a rush).
>
>----------
>
>You`re obviously buying a different type of item than I do on ebay - I
>don`t buy anything valuable enough to require SD on ebay
Only "many" of the SD items are from eBay, the rest are from elsewhere.
Of those SD items from eBay, most are arguably over-cautious sellers of
items costing maybe £50 (accessories for IT systems, mainly).
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
typed:
>In message <bj2uh6heciqrdkjvh...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>11:15:02 on Sat, 1 Jan 2011, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 09:35:02 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
>>typed:
>>>
>>>But it seems a little "arms length" to propose that (say) a firm's
>>>Managing Director has received a letter (and thereby put on notice and
>>>capable of acting upon the contents) if his postroom has been instructed
>>>to reject all incoming 'Signed for' mail, and he isn't even aware of
>>>individual instances of the policy being out into action.
>>
>>That depends on who the letter was actually sent to.
>>
>>If you send, say, a letter before action to a company, and the company's
>>postroom staff fail to ensure that it reaches the appropriate department
>>(eg, the legal department, or senior management in a smaller firm), then
>>that is entirely their own problem - as far as both the sender and the
>>courts are concerned, the letter has been received by the addressee, which
>>is the company.
>
>But the circumstances I was exploring are where the postroom rejects all
>'signed for' mail. Has that been legally delivered, or not? (Mr Briggs
>suggests perhaps it's been "delivered and refused to read" according to
>a court).
I would say that it hasn't been delivered. It may be that the refusal to
accept such mail may be a factor in any subsequent court case, but I can't
see how the court can consider it to have been delivered.
>>On the other hand, if you are sending a letter to an individual in their
>>private capacity, but send it via their workplace (maybe because that's the
>>only address you have for them), then it hasn't been delivered unless it
>>actually reaches their hands.
>
>What about letters addressed to a person, not a role, at the appropriate
>business address? Especially when rejected by the postroom because it
>requires a signature.
If the business itself is the subject of the letter (eg, a letter of
complaint about a limited company addressed to the Managing Director by
name rather than by role) then it has still been delivered when it is
accepted by the postroom, even if it doesn't reach the individual named on
the envelope. Otherwise, a company could manage to avoid being deemed to
have legally received any letter they want to ignore simply by ensuring
that it is only ever read by someone other than the named addressee.
Simon Finnigan
----------
£50 is more than most items I sell on ebay anyway - it`s the difficult
middle ground. If it goes "missing" in the post then you wont be covered
for the full value by RM on recorded delivery. As for over-cautious
sellers - with the way that ebay and paypal support the buyer almost 100%,
regardless of actual "facts", I can`t say I blame them for being safe.
S
wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 07:35:02 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>
>
>
>
> >11:15:02 on Sat, 1 Jan 2011, Mark Goodge
> ><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
> >>On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 09:35:02 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
> >>typed:
>
> >>>But it seems a little "arms length" to propose that (say) a firm's
> >>>Managing Director has received a letter (and thereby put on notice and
> >>>capable of acting upon the contents) if his postroom has been instructed
> >>>to reject all incoming 'Signed for' mail, and he isn't even aware of
> >>>individual instances of the policy being out into action.
>
> >>That depends on who the letter was actually sent to.
>
> >>If you send, say, a letter before action to a company, and the company's
> >>postroom staff fail to ensure that it reaches the appropriate department
> >>(eg, the legal department, or senior management in a smaller firm), then
> >>that is entirely their own problem - as far as both the sender and the
> >>courts are concerned, the letter has been received by the addressee, which
> >>is the company.
>
> >But the circumstances I was exploring are where the postroom rejects all
> >'signed for' mail. Has that been legally delivered, or not? (Mr Briggs
> >suggests perhaps it's been "delivered and refused to read" according to
> >a court).
>
> I would say that it hasn't been delivered. It may be that the refusal to
> accept such mail may be a factor in any subsequent court case, but I can't
> see how the court can consider it to have been delivered.
I vaguely remember that at least in some circumstances documents sent
by recorded letter are considered to be properly served, even if the
recipient refused to accept them. Maybe others can fill in the
details.
Mark Goodge
>On Jan 2, 2:45 pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>
>> I would say that it hasn't been delivered. It may be that the refusal to
>> accept such mail may be a factor in any subsequent court case, but I can't
>> see how the court can consider it to have been delivered.
>
>I vaguely remember that at least in some circumstances documents sent
>by recorded letter are considered to be properly served, even if the
>recipient refused to accept them. Maybe others can fill in the
>details.
It's a bit complicated, because what constitutes "recorded delivery" has
changed over the years.
Once upon a time (up to a few years ago, I'm not sure when it changed),
Royal Mail had a service called "Recorded Delivery". What that meant was,
literally, that the delivery was recorded. It didn't mean that the delivery
was signed for by the recipient (although it was the policy to obtain such
a signature where possible) - if a signature couldn't be obtained, then the
delivery would be recorded by the postman and the item simply put through
the letterbox in the normal way.
The courts have always held that an item sent by Recorded Delivery and
recorded as delivered, even if not signed for by the recipient, was
delivered. In any case, given that Recorded Delivery items could be
delivered without the need for them to be accepted and signed for, it was
not possible for the recipient to refuse delivery.
If you actually needed a signature from the recipient, then an item needed
to be sent by Registered Post. This ensured a signature on receipt, and if
a signature was not possible then the item would be returned. If legal
documents were sent by Registered Post and were returned as undeliverable,
then they were not deemed to have been delivered. But there was no need to
use Registered Post, as Recorded Delivery would achieve the same ends and,
for legal documents, would actually be more useful.
However, sometime fairly recently Royal Mail changed their product line,
and replaced Recorded Delivery and Registered Post with Recorded Signed For
and Special Delivery respectively. As the name suggests, Recorded Signed
For does require a signature by the recipient, and the item will normally
be returned if a signature cannot be obtained (there are some exceptions,
but these are not such that they can be relied on to get a record of
delivery to a recipient who does not wish to be delivered to).
What this means is that previous case law relating to Recorded Delivery has
been rendered at least partly obsolete, since it is now no longer possible
(in theory) to send a document by post that can be recorded as delivered
without a recipient signature. I am not aware of any more recent
precedent-setting cases which take Royal mail's current product line into
account.
Chris R
------------------------------------------
Interesting - do you have the authority for that?
Chris R
Mark Goodge
typed:
>
>Interesting - do you have the authority for that?
For which part? The fact that the courts have, in the past considered
Recorded Delivery items to have been delivered even with no signature is
fairly well documented. For example, Wikicrime gives a fairly full
description, albeit with reference to criminal proceedings rather than
civil cases:
http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Effective_service_of_documents
(Although note that the presumption of delivery even if the documents are
returned is explicitly stated in the quoted legislation and does not apply
to civil cases)
On the other hand, the fact that Recorded Delivery as such no longer exists
is easily ascertainable from the Royal Mail website:
http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/jump1?catId=400023&mediaId=400028
So the non-rebuttable presumption of delivery by Recorded Delivery can no
longer apply.
Incidentally, as a counter-example, the Supreme Court has ruled that in at
least one case, a letter sent to an individual (in this case, an employee)
is only received when it is actually read, even if it is signed for prior
to that:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/35dtonu (scroll down to "Case law: Supreme Court
rules dismissal letter is only effective when read").