junk mail

EternalHope

Someone has a no junk mail sign. Someone puts some junk in the door. When challenged the person who delivered says "when it is inside your letterbox it is not my responsibility." Can this be so if he was notified by the sign not to put it in

What right if any does she have to deliver junk in such a case. This is hypothetical based on something heard

brian_t

A 'No Junk Mail' sign is nothing more than a polite request not to deliver such mail.

EternalHope

brian_t wrote: »

A 'No Junk Mail' sign is nothing more than a polite request not to deliver such mail.

I doubt that. it may not have legal weight. The thread about the dog escaping says "Whatever is not prohibited is permitted. "

but the person delivering saw it was prohibibited so how could he lose responsibility for the mail after it was delivered when he had no right to deliver it. Was he not trespassing. I heard a solicitor on radio saying you do not have to have anyone in your garden you do not want, even a postman. So how could he have any right to be there dumping rubbish through the door

joebloggs32

What is the definition of "junk mail"?

The person delivering can claim their mail is not junk.

Victor

joebloggs32 wrote: »

What is the definition of "junk mail"?

The person delivering can claim their mail is not junk.

And a judge or jury will differ. They know junk mail when they see it.

EternalHope

joebloggs32 wrote: »

What is the definition of "junk mail"?

The person delivering can claim their mail is not junk.

i would imagine the reasonable person often referred to in law knows that junk is anything not delivered by postman such as ads/flyers/fast food menus etc

EternalHope

Victor wrote: »

And a judge or jury will differ. They know junk mail when they see it.

i agree except i would say a judge and jury may differ. one never knows in law

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

EternalHope

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

which can be opted out of except when it is address to the owner/resident. but it is clear from the op this is not the postman. it is someone delivering junk mail

Steve

If I hypothetically decided to dispose of my domestic waste (rubbish) into my neighbors letterbox, what law would cover it?

Is posting 'junk' mail any different?

Genuinely curious, I have to pay to get rid of the unsolicited crap that comes in.

esforum

EternalHope wrote: »

I doubt that. it may not have legal weight. The thread about the dog escaping says "Whatever is not prohibited is permitted. "

but the person delivering saw it was prohibibited so how could he lose responsibility for the mail after it was delivered when he had no right to deliver it. Was he not trespassing. I heard a solicitor on radio saying you do not have to have anyone in your garden you do not want, even a postman. So how could he have any right to be there dumping rubbish through the door

If you accept t carries no legal weight, why do you dobt it?

In regards the tresspass, theres many court cases stating that theres an implied right of access to the curtilage of a house. If you close the gate and put a no entry sign up, thats different but no junk mail is nothing sadly.

EternalHope wrote: »

i would imagine the reasonable person often referred to in law knows that junk is anything not delivered by postman such as ads/flyers/fast food menus etc

The postman delivers a lot of flyers and coupons, etc

EternalHope wrote: »

which can be opted out of except when it is address to the owner/resident. but it is clear from the op this is not the postman. it is someone delivering junk mail

Wrong way round, theres no law stopping a company sending post to 'the occupant'. Its bull**** but there ya go

brian_t

Steve wrote: »

Genuinely curious, I have to pay to get rid of the unsolicited crap that comes in.

Is recycling of paper and magazines not free-of-charge ?

Captain Chaos

brian_t wrote: »

Is recycling of paper and magazines not free-of-charge ?

No, it's pay by weight per lift.

Either that or you have to drive to a recycling plant, either way junk mail is costing people money. There should be a way of charging the company that sends it. Every 2 weeks my green bin goes out for collection and half of it is filled with junk mail. It's getting silly at this stage.

GM228

How could someone deal with it realistically. Obviously it's a civil matter, but is it worth perusing and if so on what grounds?

Trespass?
Nuisance?
Data Protection?

Trespass I imagine would be very difficult especially if the people delivering the leaflets state things like "implied right of access" or use the contractual clause (i.e they we're fulfilling an expressed or implied contractual condition-the implied/expressed condition of their contract was to deliver mail through a letter box).

Nuisance-not sure if this could even come into play. Unless the same person is constantly delivering the junk mail then I can't see how this would even be considered. Usually when nuisance is an issue it has to be a considerable nuisance to the persons comfort and enjoyment etc etc.

Direct marketing rules (unsolicited mail) don't apply as no address is on the junk mail so Data Protection isn't an issue.

So what does that leave?

Another issue is even with a "no junk mail" type sign on the door there's no guarantee that the person delivering the mail reads/understands it (i.e they may have no English, be illiterate, dislexic etc which would be reasonable defence).

Sam Kade

Maybe if you wrote no rubbish post

bladespin

brian_t wrote:

Is recycling of paper and magazines not free-of-charge ?

There are plans to charge for recycling.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

EternalHope

esforum wrote: »

If you accept t carries no legal weight, why do you dobt it?

In regards the tresspass, theres many court cases stating that theres an implied right of access to the curtilage of a house. If you close the gate and put a no entry sign up, thats different but no junk mail is nothing sadly.



The postman delivers a lot of flyers and coupons, etc



Wrong way round, theres no law stopping a company sending post to 'the occupant'. Its bull**** but there ya go

i did not say there was

EternalHope

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How? Is the sign on the door withdrawing right of access or do you mean the no entry on gate

I would question if having no English, be illiterate, dislexic etc which would be reasonable defence. Is the employer who send them out not obliged to see they can do their job without causing problems

And if they cannot read the sign on the door how can they read the sign on the gate

tphase

Steve wrote: »

If I hypothetically decided to dispose of my domestic waste (rubbish) into my neighbors letterbox, what law would cover it?

Is posting 'junk' mail any different?

Genuinely curious, I have to pay to get rid of the unsolicited crap that comes in.

Bring it back to the Post Office?

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

You can withdraw the implied right of access by giving notice to those involved.

Has such a withdrawal of implied right of access been successfully tested in court?

I only know of one case (in the UK-Thornton vs Rosendales), and it wasn't that successful, the claimant failed due to there been a statute provision preventing someone been a trespasser in certain circumstances basically. It involves the claimant saying a bailiff was now trespassing after withdrawing his right of entry even though statute defined him as not being a trespasser.

What I find interesting is the judges comment regarding the claimants understanding of these types of notices.

In his final summary, the Judge made it clear to the claimant that he had been ill-advised in making his claim to the county court to try to prevent the bailiff from carrying out what he was perfectly legally entitled to do. From the claimants’ response it was clear that he had been influenced by information on the internet when preparing his case.

So hypotheticaly speaking:-
I'm delivering the junk mail, I read the notice and ignore it, it withdraws one of the factors that prevents me from being a trespasser, so I exercise my contractual obligation to deliver this leaflet which also prevents me from being a trespasser. What then?

Victor

GM228 wrote: »

so I exercise my contractual obligation to deliver this leaflet which also prevents me from being a trespasser. What then?

How do you come to that conclusion? If you are delivering junk mail, you have not contract with the occupier.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Once the implied right is withdrawn, that person is then a trespasser.

Unless they are there by invitation or to fulfil a contractual obligation.

Victor wrote: »

How do you come to that conclusion? If you are delivering junk mail, you have not contract with the occupier.

The Civil Liberties Act.

“trespasser” means an entrant other than a recreational user or visitor

visitor” means—

(a) an entrant, other than a recreational user, who is present on premises at the invitation, or with the permission, of the occupier or any other entrant specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of the definition of “recreational user”,

(b) an entrant, other than a recreational user, who is present on premises by virtue of an express or implied term in a contract, and

(c) an entrant as of right,

Dosn't specify the contract has to be with the occupant so it's a valid argument, up to a court to decide if the contract actually has to be with the occupant etc.

Obviously my argument is hypothetical, but would be interesting to see it put to the test.

esforum

GM raises a valid arguement, while it would seem common sense that the contract must be with the home owner, the quoted case from the UK suggests that it need not be.

On the other hand, if you have a wall, a locked gate and a sign stating no entry is that not a very definitive instruction? Can people start scaling walls because they have been paid to deliver a leaflet?

To my mind it would boil down to the level of effort required to enter. Thats a little crude maybe, what I mean is can the person meander up your driveway or bounce over a 1 foot dividing wall? If the answer is yes, I would see your case for tresspass being dismissed.

esforum

Captain Chaos wrote: »

No, it's pay by weight per lift..

Really? My area the green and brown bins have always been free, I was led to understand that you couldnt charge for them.

EternalHope

esforum wrote: »

GM raises a valid arguement, while it would seem common sense that the contract must be with the home owner, the quoted case from the UK suggests that it need not be.

On the other hand, if you have a wall, a locked gate and a sign stating no entry is that not a very definitive instruction? Can people start scaling walls because they have been paid to deliver a leaflet?

To my mind it would boil down to the level of effort required to enter. Thats a little crude maybe, what I mean is can the person meander up your driveway or bounce over a 1 foot dividing wall? If the answer is yes, I would see your case for tresspass being dismissed.

I doubt if a junk mail delivery person has then same right the bailiff has. the solicitor who said on radio you do not have to have anyone in your garden not even the postman is a real solicitor with a practice not an internet freeman or facebook lawyer

GM228

EternalHope wrote: »

I doubt if a junk mail delivery person has then same right the bailiff has. the solicitor who said on radio you do not have to have anyone in your garden not even the postman is a real solicitor with a practice not an internet freeman or facebook lawyer

The point is the bailiff is not a trespasser (as per law in the UK) just like someone here is not trespasser if fulfilling part of a contract as per our law, it's written in black and white and pretty clear who is/isn't a trespasser.

Unless it's been tested in court (and ultimately decided who the contract must be with) then a solicitor can make his/her own interpretation just like any of us, but that dosn't mean they are correct.

A postman has a contract to deliver mail and I very much doubt a court would say a postman is a trespasser, and in the case of a postman the contract is with the person sending the post and not the recipient (the occupant) so that would also go against an argument that the contract must be with the occupant.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

You can withdraw the implied right of access to An Post by sending them a notice.

The result will be you won't get any post. You will have to collect from the local office.

I'm not so sure? Perhaps that is a courtesy rather than any legal requirement.

Possibly relevant but in 2012 the High Court (ComReg vs An Post) ruled that An Post has an legal obligation to deliver post to the 'postal address' of the customer and not to any other of a number of addresses such as for example the District Electoral Division in which the customers house is located.

Also worth mentioning from the Postal Act 1983 section 12.

(3) The company shall have power to do anything which appears to it to be requisite, advantageous or incidental to, or which appears to it to facilitate, either directly or indirectly, the performance by it of its functions as specified in this Act or in its memorandum of association and is not inconsistent with any enactment for the time being in force.

(2) Nothing in section 12 or this section shall be construed as imposing on the company, either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court to which it would not otherwise be subject.

esforum

esforum wrote: »

Really? My area the green and brown bins have always been free, I was led to understand that you couldnt charge for them.

That will change from July this year.

"FROM THIS SUMMER, your bin charges will be calculated by weight.
The ‘pay by weight’ system, which will come into effect from 1 July, will see flat-fee annual charges banned.
The new system has raised fears that bills could increase.
Head of waste management at the Irish Waste Management Association Conor Walsh told TheJournal.ie, “It’s not a new charge, it’s an existing charge.
“It has been policy in Ireland for a long time that we have to pay by use.
“In the past it has been a bit irregular, different companies were interpreting pay by use in their own way. This requires that everyone is charged by kilo.”"

http://www.thejournal.ie/bin-charges-pay-by-weight-july-2537294-Jan2016/

EternalHope

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course you can and yes it means you get no mail delivered

GreatDefector

Big issue I have with these guys is that they put mail half in the letterbox so you can see it hanging out.

After a few hours it's blatantly obvious whos home or not. A bunch of houses together with nobody home are prime candidates for a thief

EternalHope

GM228 wrote: »

The point is the bailiff is not a trespasser (as per law in the UK) just like someone here is not trespasser if fulfilling part of a contract as per our law, it's written in black and white and pretty clear who is/isn't a trespasser.

Unless it's been tested in court (and ultimately decided who the contract must be with) then a solicitor can make his/her own interpretation just like any of us, but that dosn't mean they are correct.

A postman has a contract to deliver mail and I very much doubt a court would say a postman is a trespasser, and in the case of a postman the contract is with the person sending the post and not the recipient (the occupant) so that would also go against an argument that the contract must be with the occupant.

It does not mean you are correct either. I know the solicitor- by reputation not personally.- I doubt he would make a statement without qualifying it by saying it is his interpretation

The point is a bailiff is a legal officer. A junk mailman is not.

Persistent cold calling is a criminal offence http://thecai.ie/your-rights/legal-protection/ So, what happens if you have a contract to cold call?

GM228

EternalHope wrote: »

It does not mean you are correct either. I know the solicitor- by reputation not personally.- I doubt he would make a statement without qualifying it by saying it is his interpretation

The point is a bailiff is a legal officer. A junk mailman is not.

Persistent cold calling is a criminal offence http://thecai.ie/your-rights/legal-protection/ So, what happens if you have a contract to cold call?

Legal officer or not makes no odds, they are only legally not a trespasser because the law says they arn't.

I never said I was correct either, I said the court would decide ultimately. However also note section 12 of the Post Act (message above).

It's never been tested, but it is clear in legislation that someone fulfilling a contract obligation is not a trespasser, a solicitor can interpret it all they like (just like we can), but only a court can ultimately decide, not you, me or any solicitor.

EternalHope

GM228 wrote: »

Legal officer or not makes no odds, they are only legally not a trespasser because the law says they arn't.

I never said I was correct either, I said the court would decide ultimately. However also note section 12 of the Post Act (message above).

It's never been tested, but it is clear in legislation that someone fulfilling a contract obligation is not a trespasser, a solicitor can interpret it all they like (just like we can), but only a court can ultimately decide, not you, me or any solicitor.

It does make a difference the bailiff has a power to junk mailer does not. And what about persistent cold caller which the law says is a criminal offence. I am not just talking trespassing when i ask if the junk mmailer has a rightto enter the garden. And i still prefer the solicitor over anonymous internet poster

GM228

EternalHope wrote: »

It does make a difference the bailiff has a power to junk mailer does not. And what about persistent cold caller which the law says is a criminal offence. I am not just talking trespassing when i ask if the junk mmailer has a rightto enter the garden. And i still prefer the solicitor over anonymous internet poster

What could there be other than trespassing?

It doesn't make a difference, it's not the power that makes them not a trespasser. Gardaí also have powers but can still be involved in trespass, trespass dosn't come into play if the law says it dosn't as it's not an automatic right for someone with a particular power.

Take the UK case for example-being a bailiff isn't actually what made them not a trespasser, but rather a person collecting "distress" was exempt, just like the way here a person fulfilling a contractual obligation is exempt.

The removal of access makes someone who ignores it a trespasser generally, however you can't be a trespasser in a situation when you ignore such a removal notice if the law specifically states you arn't a trespasser-the notice is irrelevant.

This case has most likely set an analogising precedent and been a successful test case of the withdrawal of access argument and subsequent levies for breach of the notice.

Another interesting thing to note about the withdrawal of access is the fact that some people impose a levy for trespass, so what did the Thornton vs Rossendales case say about that?

The Judge said that despite what the claimant had written in the notice regarding contractual terms and conditions, it was not a contract as there was no consideration from either party involved. The claimant could not simply rely on Rossendales accepting the terms of the notice purely because they carried on with a lawful act.

The Judge felt that the claimant was confusing the law of contract with the tort of trespass – which was a different element of law altogether. It was stated by the Judge that it is a common misconception that trespassers can be automatically prosecuted when in fact they cannot. Instead, an aggrieved individual would have to demonstrate that there had been a loss as a result of damages caused by the defendant’s alleged trespass.

The question was put to the claimant; where was the loss in this particular instance? The claimant could not provide any evidence to support his claim. It's also worth noting that you can't pre-estimate a loss.

With regards to Cold Calling:-
Cold calling laws only apply to electronic communications due to Data Protection laws.

Cold calling is a lot different than junk mail and it is only illegal if you are on the National Direct Database No Direct Marketing list (for landlines) and someone then calls you for direct marketing purposes, (or on your mobile phone if you havn't consented for direct marketing).

If the call is for a survey or you haven't opted out for direct marketing on a landline or you have opted in for direct marketing on a mobile then it isn't illegal, it's all covered by Data Protection Law.


You are right to not trust an anonymous internet user, however what I have stated and quoted is in the Statute Book and the mentioned case file which you can access online and see for yourself.


On a final note about postmen, Judge and Law Lord Kenneth Diplock (best known for setting up the "Diplock Courts" in Northern Ireland during the troubles) ruled (in Regina vs Edwards and Roberts 1978) that "persons such as the postman or milkman who have an implied licence to enter the garden do so not as members of the public but rather as lawful visitors".

Strumms

Folks, I have tried to look online.. Citizens Information etc but can't quite seem to find an answer to this one... What is the legal standpoint for flyers into letterboxes that have clearly marked 'no junk mail' on the letterbox itself which is a box on the wall beside our front door... Usually just bin them when we get the odd one but got one today from an estate and letting agency that had quite passive aggressive marketing content... pissed off too as the person rang the doorbell earlier I'd just got to sleep after a night shift and would at least like to know where I stand in order to give them a massive bollocking etc..... thanks..

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Strumms

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well yes, a bit of an expense and waste of time for a flyer but from a legal standpoint, they have no right to flyer the letterbox which has 'No Junk Mail' clearly labeled ?

MarkAnthony

Strumms wrote: »

Folks, I have tried to look online.. Citizens Information etc but can't quite seem to find an answer to this one... What is the legal standpoint for flyers into letterboxes that have clearly marked 'no junk mail' on the letterbox itself which is a box on the wall beside our front door... Usually just bin them when we get the odd one but got one today from an estate and letting agency that had quite passive aggressive marketing content... pissed off too as the person rang the doorbell earlier I'd just got to sleep after a night shift and would at least like to know where I stand in order to give them a massive bollocking etc..... thanks..

Get a small packet (something that will fit in the letter box) fill it with stones. Attach flyer, address it back to the company concerned without postage.

Standing there giving some lad who works on contract a bollocking is just going to give him an amusing story to tell down the pub tbh.