I got stung with a parking fine that had tripled in price due to me “ignoring them” when the letters never turned up, they wouldn’t even discuss it on the telephone or entertain the idea that their mail hadn’t arrived, if first class post with no signature is considered 100% reliable from a legal standpoint that probably explains why
Admin charges for an unpaid invoice I didn't receive...?
- Thread starter Transform_IT
- Start date
I got stung with a parking fine that had tripled in price due to me “ignoring them” when the letters never turned up, they wouldn’t even discuss it on the telephone or entertain the idea that their mail hadn’t arrived, if first class post with no signature is considered 100% reliable from a legal standpoint that probably explains why
It's a very interesting legal position considering it seems like somewhere between 250k - 1m* letters go missing every year.
That particular legislation actually appears to have been in place since 1978 - wonder how (if) the number of lost items has changed since then - surely things like this should be reviewed every so often?
* very hard to find accurate numbers since obviously RM aren't exactly going to publish them!
I reckon you could fight it, plenty of proof out there that it isn't reliably next day or even same week, and like another poster evidence that some mail never gets there.
Legal documents should come by more reliable means or trackable at least.
If it can be shown it was properly addressed, prepaid and posted then it's deemed to be delivered.
Really? Anything that you want proof of arrival should go via a recorded means to, you know, have proof of delivery. I would side with someone who said that they had 3 proofs of postage but a single letter can easily go missing.
That's crazy, surely it can only be deemed to have been posted.
Then you have royal mail saying stuff is going missing and or very late, but why would you listen to them when the law insists it doesn't go missing and it's never late. You couldn't make it up.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,991
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
I don't believe that all post sent is automatically assumed to have been delivered, IIRC that applies to legal and government post, ie a "trusted source". Courts, DVLA, police forces etc
I believe if you went to court against say a letting agent then the facts would be far more open to likely hood rather than the presumption it must have been delivered.
1x RM letter I don't think they would assume has automatically been delivered, but a second sent from same place to same location I would assume they would believe one must have been delivered in 99.999999999% of cases
I believe if you went to court against say a letting agent then the facts would be far more open to likely hood rather than the presumption it must have been delivered.
1x RM letter I don't think they would assume has automatically been delivered, but a second sent from same place to same location I would assume they would believe one must have been delivered in 99.999999999% of cases
A deemed delivery provision is, for example, contained in the Companies Act 2006 and this covers far more than your "trusted sources".
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,991
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Its some time since I studied the companies act so I could be wrong but I thought it was for the purposes of timing as opposed to any sort of guarantee it had happened.
So you couldn't just not communicate in order to try to prevent something for example.
IE if someone can demonstrate they sent something to all parties (based on trust) then its assumed its been delivered after 48 working hours (2 working week days).
IIRC this is to ensure that acts such as trying to remove a director cannot be done on a whim, but require notification to be sent and reasonable time for it to be delivered and defended.
The exact wording of the act is:
"Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
Which suggests to me this only applies to letters/documents which are defined in another piece of legislation, and so wouldn't actually apply in this case. (However IANAL!)
It's an example of specific legislation covering deemed delivery other than from a "trusted source".