Issue Regarding Post

Norma_Desmond

Moved into a place a few months ago.

The previous tenant moved somewhere else locally and asked if it was alright for them to collect or for us to re-deliver their post to their new address.

I agreed to this as I thought that it was a temporary thing i.e. while they sorted out contacting companies etc. to change over their address.

It has now become clear that the person doesn't plan to change their address and expects us to look after their mail indefinitely.

I'm wondering if I'm within my rights to place their mail back into the post box with "not at this address, return to sender" marked on it or am I legally expected to forward their mail?

I figure that if I send it back to the companies etc. they will contact the people to find out their new address.

I have discussed the previous tenant updating their address with them, but they're either lazy or confused regarding how to update their postal address (my guess is the first tbh).

Not very happy about them treating us like An Post.

McCongo

Write "gone away" on the envelope and put it back in the post.

Santa Cruz

Norma_Desmond wrote: »

Moved into a place a few months ago.

The previous tenant moved somewhere else locally and asked if it was alright for them to collect or for us to re-deliver their post to their new address.

I agreed to this as I thought that it was a temporary thing i.e. while they sorted out contacting companies etc. to change over their address.

It has now become clear that the person doesn't plan to change their address and expects us to look after their mail indefinitely.

I'm wondering if I'm within my rights to place their mail back into the post box with "not at this address, return to sender" marked on it or am I legally expected to forward their mail?

I figure that if I send it back to the companies etc. they will contact the people to find out their new address.

I have discussed the previous tenant updating their address with them, but they're either lazy or confused regarding how to update their postal address (my guess is the first tbh).

Not very happy about them treating us like An Post.

You are not legally obliged to do anything. To save it piling up just "no longer at address and return to sender" will do

McCongo

Santa Cruz wrote: »

You are not legally obliged to do anything.

It is a criminal offence to impede the delivery of post. It should not be allowed to pile up.

Santa Cruz

McCongo wrote: »

It is a criminal offence to impede the delivery of post. It should not be allowed to pile up.

An Post have delivered the post to the address on the envelope. There is no obligation on an individual member of the public to do anything else.

Victor

Santa Cruz wrote: »

An Post have delivered the post to the address on the envelope. There is no obligation on an individual member of the public to do anything else.

There is an obligation on the recipient of mis-delivered post to return it.

doublej

Victor wrote: »

There is an obligation on the recipient of mis-delivered post to return it.

But it's not misdelivered . I'm very surprised to learn that I have an "obligation" to someone to return unsolicited post.
Does this "obligation" extend indefinately and does it also cover a responsibility to keep safe and protect from damage and harm any and all of this unsolicited mail ?
Is this a legal obligation or a moral one?
I'm not trying to be smart but it's a strange obligation to acquire.

McCongo

doublej wrote: »

But it's not misdelivered . I'm very surprised to learn that I have an "obligation" to someone to return unsolicited post.
Does this "obligation" extend indefinately and does it also cover a responsibility to keep safe and protect from damage and harm any and all of this unsolicited mail ?
Is this a legal obligation or a moral one?
I'm not trying to be smart but it's a strange obligation to acquire.

The post has been delivered to the address but not the addressee. Usually a few "gone aways" back into a letterbox the problem stops.
Fron the Post Office Act 1908
Criminal diversion of letters from addressee

(1)If any person not in the employment of the Postmaster-General wilfully and maliciously, with intent to injure any other person, either opens or causes to be opened any letter which ought to have been delivered to that other person, or does any act or thing whereby the due delivery of the letter to that other person is prevented or impeded, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months.
(2)Nothing in this section shall apply to a person who does any act to which this section applies where he is parent, or in the position of parent or guardian, of the person to whom the letter is addressed.
(3)A prosecution shall not be instituted in pursuance of this section except by the direction or with the consent of the Postmaster-General.
(4)A letter in this section means a postal packet in course of transmission by post and any other letter which has been delivered by post.

doublej

McCongo wrote: »

The post has been delivered to the address but not the addressee. Usually a few "gone aways" back into a letterbox the problem stops.
Fron the Post Office Act 1908
Criminal diversion of letters from addressee

(1)If any person not in the employment of the Postmaster-General wilfully and maliciously, with intent to injure any other person, either opens or causes to be opened any letter which ought to have been delivered to that other person, or does any act or thing whereby the due delivery of the letter to that other person is prevented or impeded, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months.
(2)Nothing in this section shall apply to a person who does any act to which this section applies where he is parent, or in the position of parent or guardian, of the person to whom the letter is addressed.
(3)A prosecution shall not be instituted in pursuance of this section except by the direction or with the consent of the Postmaster-General.
(4)A letter in this section means a postal packet in course of transmission by post and any other letter which has been delivered by post.

I learn more each day! thank you Mc Congo; seems as if the OP will be readdressing mail ad infinitum, alternative I suppose is to sue them for creating a nuisance?

The Dagda

McCongo wrote: »

The post has been delivered to the address but not the addressee. Usually a few "gone aways" back into a letterbox the problem stops.
Fron the Post Office Act 1908
Criminal diversion of letters from addressee

(1)If any person not in the employment of the Postmaster-General wilfully and maliciously, with intent to injure any other person, either opens or causes to be opened any letter which ought to have been delivered to that other person, or does any act or thing whereby the due delivery of the letter to that other person is prevented or impeded, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months.
(2)Nothing in this section shall apply to a person who does any act to which this section applies where he is parent, or in the position of parent or guardian, of the person to whom the letter is addressed.
(3)A prosecution shall not be instituted in pursuance of this section except by the direction or with the consent of the Postmaster-General.
(4)A letter in this section means a postal packet in course of transmission by post and any other letter which has been delivered by post.

Your bolded part does not mean what you think it means.

The context for the offence is set earlier in the sentence.

You have not proven that people are obliged to return post.

McCongo

The Dagda wrote: »

Your bolded part does not mean what you think it means.

The context for the offence is set earlier in the sentence.

You have not proved that people are obliged to return post.

The part I have bolded is in the alternative to the earlier part. It is an exclusive or not a logical or. A person is not allowed retain or destroy post addressed to another.

The Dagda

McCongo wrote: »

The part I have bolded is in the alternative to the earlier part. It is an exclusive or not a logical or. A person is not allowed retain or destroy post addressed to another.

Wilfully AND maliciously is the context.

noinc

To the best of my knowledge and I urge you to check it out further, you have no obligation to do anything with unsolicited post except to keep it safe in the event that the company who sent it or those it was intended for try to redeem it but if it is not claimed or collected within six months it becomes your property.

234

McCongo wrote: »

The part I have bolded is in the alternative to the earlier part. It is an exclusive or not a logical or. A person is not allowed retain or destroy post addressed to another.

As a matter of grammar the alternative elements are the "either...or..." parts. The "wilfully and maliciously" and "with intent to injure any other person" parts are common to either alternative.

So unless by not returning the post the OP is wilfully and maliciously intending to injure the former resident then he is not committing an offence.

noinc

McCongo wrote: »

The part I have bolded is in the alternative to the earlier part. It is an exclusive or not a logical or. A person is not allowed retain or destroy post addressed to another.

I think the key word here is addressed to some else. Norma is not impeding these letters or parcels and could be implicated in an illegal activity. At some point the former tenant would have have had to give your address to The ESB or other state bodies or agencies and will have had to contact Social Welfare for instance as an example. An Post will know what to do in this case if you are worried Norma. You do not say when the last time you had contact with them but the next time you speak to them tell them their time is up.

Eeden

Something like this has happened to me twice, and in both cases I believe some deliberate deception was going on. When we bought our house, the person who sold it to us still had post delivered to here, and some of it seemed to be social welfare cheques. We finally told her that we would send them back if she didn't inform them of her change of address.

Another time, someone obviously used our address to open up a mobile phone account, seemingly with no intention of ever paying their bill. We eventually had to phone the company to stop these, as they ignored us when we sent them back marked "not at this address".

Five Lamps

The simple thing to do is:

Tell the other party that they need to update their address and that after a particular date you will write "return to sender".

At that date carry out what you said you would do.

I would be suspicious of somebody who was maintaining an old address for post in the way described.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.