Dumb Previous House Owner... AIBU?

Actually also go to your local Royal Mail delivery office and ask them to stop delivering anything for this woman to your house too - they will put a flag on her name and make sure nothing gets through to your house and ALSO that nothing she has with YOUR address on does either so she will then have to sort it out herself as all these fraudulent activities - she’s clearly not able to get a CC using het new address as sounds like she’s built up a load of debt so is now using your address!!

Do NOT forward credit cards she’s taken out usingYOUR address to her!! Contact the bank/CC company yourself and give them her details and tell her what she keeps doing and tell them her new address so they can deal with it! Also message her ONCE more and tell her to sort out her address and that anything that comes to your house with her name on will
gp straight back into the post box or if it’s a credit card it will be destroyed as that’s FRAUD!!!

We had the same issue when we moved into our current home ten years ago. The man that we bought it off also ran a business registered at home and we got his business mail as well as his personal mail including all of his bank statements for a couple of years. We even got all of his kids presents from various relatives delivered here the first Christmas. For a while he'd pop round every so often to collect them and I'd remind him to update his address, but then he moved away and stopped coming. I then started crossing out his name and address on everything that arrived and wrote "Return to Sender - Not Known at This Address" on everything and stuck in back in the postbox. Took another year or so of doing this, but now we receive absolutely nothing in his name, not even the junk mail.

18 years of TV license demands for a previous occupier. And he wasn't even the person we bought it from...

Why is the myth perpetuated that it is 'illegal' to open post not addressed to you.? It's NOT illegal. She is a dick obviously. Just return to sender the lot if you can be bothered. Otherwise, bin. You've done your bit OP.

When did I say you mentioned prison?

I was replying earlier to the PP who did mention prison and you interjected to remind me it's still illegal, like most of us didn't actually know 🙄

It's weird how obsessed Mumsnetters are with the illegality of opening someone's mail, but nobody ever mentions that it's illegal to be drunk in a public place on any of the many threads about Christmas work parties/drunken husbands etc.

It isn't. The law has been linked to and posted enough times on this thread for you to clearly see that it is not illegal to open someone's post UNLESS you are doing so with the intention of causing them detriment. Its a misconception that gets trotted out on here all the time, because people have misunderstood the law.

I never mentioned prison

I'm not scoffing at the illegality.

I'm laughing at anyone thinking the OP would ever go anywhere near a prison for this! 🤣🤣

I never said a prison sentence, it is still illegal though

You may scoff but it is still illegal

I have moved house 4 times.

even if you think you’ve updated everything stuff inevitably slips through the net.

i pay for a years redirection each time. Some institutions can be a fucking nightmare to update though.

just make a pile by the door mark it return to sender and it’ll sort itself out.

Noooo it’s not.

Just put it in the bin, no need for any drama

People are talking about opening it being the offence though. She could chuck it in the bin and it still woulnd't be returned to sender, but apparently magically no offence.

It's perfectly reasonable to make sure you're not going to get bailiffs at your door.

No, that is not correct. Detriment doesn't mean 'mildly inconvenienced'. The woman having to call her bank to find out where her card has gone, or having to order a replacement would not be considered a detriment in this case. And again, the law is about intent, not the end result.

And the OP has always either forwarded it on or, more recently returned it to the bank, she clearly says this in her OP.

Well she has acted to their detriment, in not returning the item to sender and she know's it has been incorrectly delivered to her. There is no reasonable expectation that the mail is for the OP or that she doesn't know who its for.

But the law states the person has to 'intend to act to the person's detriment' - so the fact that the act of opening the post ends up being to their detriment isn't relevant, its about intent. And the law is that it is both intent to act to their detriment AND without having a good reason. So you have to be doing both in order for it to be an offence.

The law is clearly designed to make it an offence to steal the contents of someone's post/their identity. It is not about people trying to figure out what to do with post that is coming to someone's previous address.

We have been in our house 26 years and still get mail addressed to the previous owner who has been dead at least 28 years! We’ve tried RTS and not known etc, have even rang up various ones bit they have said they have to keep trying! Just bin them now!

If they are likely to become distressed, they should ensure their sensitive medical information is sent to their current address. I wouldn't interpret "detriment" as feelings of distress, anyway, I would say tangible financial loss would be a detriment.

We had to open mail from previous occupiers as they owned >80K in VAT and no I did not want that shit on my doorstep.

My policy is to RTS letters from the NHS and just bin everything else. I don't want to take on another admin task if the previous people are not responsible enough to do their own admin.

Once we had a bailiffs letter about unpaid council tax. I wrote to the bailiffs with the address I had for the previous owner and got a very polite email back thanking me for my help with their enquiries.

OP doesn't intend to act to the previous owner's detriment

She's been cutting up their credit cards. It sounds pretty detrimental to me!

I don't think this proves the point but maybe I am the one misinterapting it.

For example, if I have sensitive data, such as personal medical information and I don't want anyone to know about it but is opened, accidently or on purpose then that person is now privy to my sensitive information.

The person opening the post may not be intent on commiting fraud but it may be a detriment to the addresse who may become distressed now someone else has seen that information.