Pros and cons of Registered Post

Zxc

I've been browsing some of the threads. Interesting reading all round.

Something that struck me particularly about some of the disputes mentioned. Often the advice involves sending letters, documents, etc by registered post.
It occurs to me that anyone involved in a possible dispute might just not accept a registered letter.
Which got me to thinking about the legality or legal position of sending OR receiving (or not as the case may be) registered post.

Can anyone outline the pros and cons, from each perspective, of registered post?

drkpower

Its not really a pros or cons issue - Some Court rules require service by registered post (or personal service etc.) and in those cases, you have no choice. Otherwise, it just provides the comfort of having "evidence" that the recipient received the correspondence.

Where ordinary post is specified as being adequate (or where there is no particlular requirement as to service) i would be inclined to send everything by ordinary post

allthedoyles

AFAIK ..you are not obliged to accept a registered letter .........so if you are in dispute with someone and a registered letter arrives ............just dont sign and Postman will return to sender

McCrack

allthedoyles wrote: »

AFAIK ..you are not obliged to accept a registered letter .........so if you are in dispute with someone and a registered letter arrives ............just dont sign and Postman will return to sender

Thats all fine but in litigation the courts are aware of this practice so there are rules there which allow a plaintiff to serve notice on the other side by ordinary post if the other side are point blank refusing to accept reg post.
Such service by ordinary post is deemed good service and will satisfy court requirements. It's called substituted service.

seadh

Anyone heard of registered post simply being used to intimidate people, I love the idea of refusing to accept them, my colleague and I have received 10 between us from colleagues during one week, all they have to do is hand them to us of or put them in our in-tray but they are sending these with demands of us in relation to a document we published, not one has been a solicitor's letter, full of legal jargon and demanding that replies are sent by registered post to our workplace, no intention of playing that game.Anyone any notions what they are at, could this perhaps form part of organised group bullying?

afw

Regarding Registerd Post.

Can anyone tell me the exact requlations and legal position concerning the receipt of registerd post.

ie;
is it legally acceptable to accept and sign for a registered letter which is intended for someone else at the same address ? ?

In other words, should only the person to whom it is addressed be the signee ??

Our man in Havana

Well a postman will allow anyone at the address to sign for registered post addressed to someone else.

afw

Well Yes,

I am aware of that but that was not exactly my question.

McCrack

Well yes are you aware of the charter awf? No Legal Advice.

afw

McCrack,

I wondered why I bothered suscribing to Boards.ie, given the
fact that it is occasionally possible to stumble
uppon morons like you.

afw

TO QUOTE YOUR OWN POST:....

Thats all fine but in litigation the courts are aware of this practice so there are rules there which allow a plaintiff to serve notice on the other side by ordinary post if the other side are point blank refusing to accept reg post.
Such service by ordinary post is deemed good service and will satisfy court requirements. It's called substituted service.

a NO ALL WHO KNOWs NOTHING.

McCrack

Well there you go. Remember that the right attitude goes a long way in getting what you're after.

Maybe another moron like me will decide to help you and tell you what you don't know.

afw

Well yes are you aware of the charter awf? No Legal Advice.

Thanks for all the useful advice, you have been a wonderful help.:rolleyes: :pac:

nuac

afw you should apologise to McCrack for calling him or her a moron.

McCrack has made many helpful posts on this board over many months, expressing views on legal principles and procedures with which ( as a practising lawyer ) I have usually agreed.

As the Greeks used to say gnothi s'auton ( Know thyself )

Tom Young

User in question has received an infraction.

McCrack

Nuac it's no bother, you know yourself with some people.

I do appreciate what you say however.

time lord

I use registered post a lot for a local authority.
Somtimes it amazes me that the An Post will write on the non delivered post not known at this address or insufficient address. The council would have usually an E.S.B. bill or something which funnily enough did manage to make it to the same address.
Certain routes with certain postal employees have very differant success rates at delivering registered post. If I know the person is at the address I will hand deliver it myself.

ciarraibhoy

What should you do if a registered letter is delivered without anyone signing for it? I was away for a few days and arrived back to this situation.

servicecharge

It's a good question, the original one.

So many people believe registered post carries weight. It doesn't. Only where the court rules require use of registered post is it important and these can be by-passed.

Ordinary people sending invoices, threatening letters etc by registered post is a pointless expense.

Fax or email is ideal, and ordinary post together with a cert of post is plenty (55cent as opposed to €5). And if you are dealing with a ltd company ordinary post is enough.

Trojan911

McCrack wrote: »

Such service by ordinary post is deemed good service and will satisfy court requirements. It's called substituted service.

Is one obliged to open a letter (non registered or registered) to himself once delivered? I, for instance, very rarely do not open my mail if I don't recognise the sender or if I'm not expecting one. I have had most junk/marketing mail stopped as well.

It normally goes straight to shredder.

Jo King

Trojan911 wrote: »

Is one obliged to open a letter (non registered or registered) to himself once delivered? I, for instance, very rarely do not open my mail if I don't recognise the sender or if I'm not expecting one. I have had most junk/marketing mail stopped as well.

It normally goes straight to shredder.

No one is obliged to open a letter. In a courtroom situation, if it is established that a letter was received by someone it is likely that they will be taken to have opened it and read the contents as that is what most people do.
The best way to stop junk mail is to put it back in the envelope, endorse it and mark it "return to sender". There will never be mail from that source again!

servicecharge

The court doesn't care if you read it. Only that it was sent and not returned.

Our man in Havana

If a subsituted service letter is rejected, the option to personally serve is still open.

Trojan911

Jo King wrote: »

No one is obliged to open a letter. In a courtroom situation, if it is established that a letter was received by someone it is likely that they will be taken to have opened it and read the contents as that is what most people do.
The best way to stop junk mail is to put it back in the envelope, endorse it and mark it "return to sender". There will never be mail from that source again!

That's what I was thinking. Re the junk mail I contacted the Irish Direct Marketing Assoc (IDMA) and had all my details taken off their database (if anyone is looking to do this).