Don't fall for the 'not on headed paper' ruse

[ProfessorDent]

Okay, I'll keep this vague, but if you get a snitty email from a firm or what have you, and it's sent to you recorded delivery for instance, and it winds you up and puts you in a huff... do check that it is on the firm's headed paper, and that it actually has the person's signature on it. Otherwise, even though you may have sat down the person in question and challenged the accusations made in the letter, which you'll regard as defamatory... there's no proof they actually sent it.

You could be walking into a massive trap, if you wave this letter around saying, hey, what a bunch of arses, look what they've accused me of, they can then do YOU for defamation. Get them to resend it on headed paper, and if possible from a viable email address. That way they're legally responsible for what they say.

Tbh this is so vague that I'm not quite sure what you mean.

If I received an official letter, on headed paper or not, accusing me of something, then I would be seeking advice, not waving it around and telling people!

Recorded delivery email. Whatever will they invent next!

Recorded delivery email. Whatever will they invent next!

Next ? They'd have to invent recorded delivery email first.

What on earth are you talking about op

I'm lost too.
There is something about sending a blank piece of paper recorded delivery as a scam though, I can't remember the details.

If you want to prove something is from someone then you need the proof. I think that is the point being made. So a piece of paper purporting to come from BT legal department which has no BT details on it is not going to pass muster etc.

More information please?

So you have received a letter accusing you of certain things, which purported to be from a firm, individual or organisation but not on their headed paper or with an e-mail copy?

You have then proceeded to bad mouth the sender regarding the contents of the letter. They have (I think) now said that the letter was NOT from them and are threatening to take action against you for bad mouthing them.

Is that right?

So you want to warn people that receiving a letter via Recorded Delivery does not necessarily mean it comes from who it says it comes from.

Or have I misunderstood?

Hi Santas, not that's what almost happened... I stayed my hand.

Oh, it was a care home actually. It accused my sister and I of abusive behaviour and threatening to report us to social services and the police. This was after we raised legitimate concerns about our mother's care, it was a way of getting their retaliation in first, smearing our name in advance of any complaints we might make to the CQC.

It also was possibly a first strike to get us barred from the home. In which case, our mother would have been at risk as she relied on us to give her enough drink each day, as the carers certainly didn't, despite our raising it. In other words: 'Complain about us, and we can kill your mother'... if you read between the lines.

(BTW on the subject do not let your relative anywhere near a care home unless the relative has granted you Lasting Power of Attorney in Health and Welfare. This can only be done when they retain mental capacity, it can't be got afterwards. Otherwise, Social Services basically own your relative, you don't, even if you're the ones forking out a grand a week for a care home.)

My sister met with the manager, rebutted most of the points made against her, so on. When we moved our mother to another home within the week, the old care home reported us to social services. Nice.

Now, there's no doubt the care home sent the letter. And it has been discussed with the safeguarding advisor. However, it wasn't actually sent on headed paper, nor was it signed, though of course it has the manager's name at the foot of it. It didn't occur to me at the time, because, well, there was no doubt they sent it. It hit me later.

But if I were to go on mumsnet or to the local press with it, I'd be relying on someone else's word to say, yes, they did send it. Technically I would be the one being libelous, as I could not prove they were behind it, recorded delivery or not. They wouldn't want to admit to sending it if it makes them look bad. It was no oversight on their part.

Oh, and the recorded delivery is something of nothing.

I mean, that means you can trace that to where it was posted from, but it doesn't require a signature, I mean for all anyone knows, we could have been the ones who sent it to ourselves, to smear the home.

It just made it look more official and intimidating when we got, possibly a ruse or smokescreen.

I mean if you met the Prime Minister and he slagged you off and said he was going to send you a letter later doing just that, and you get it... if it's not on headed paper and signed, it's meaningless. Of course, it wouldn't immediately cross your mind that he'd later deny it.

Regardless of who sent it a letter sent to you cannot be libellous. It has to be sent to someone else for it to be libel.

If they attempted to sue you for libel and argued that they did not send the letter the courts would look at the balance of probabilities. You do not need absolute proof that the letter was sent by the care home.

Thanks prh47bridge (where did THAT name come from!) and I take your point but the whole thing about the letter sent to us was that it obviously was written for someone else's eyes, ie social workers and so on. And they will have got it. After all, they knew that we knew it was rubbish. So yeah, otherwise it would not be libelous or even that worrying, just rude and annoying.

Balance of probabilities is all very well, but it is in the view of someone else ie the court, and so not great. Like I say, it's no accident imo that it was not on headed paper, ie to avoid defamation (ie you can't prove we sent it, nor prove we sent it to anyone else) though another reason might be that the head office might not get to know about it, if all letters on headed paper get sent past them as a matter of course?

Recorded Deloivery does mean signed for. I've used it a lot, and if you have the tracking number, you can check online to see a copy of the signature.

Can't remember now if I checked the sig but as I recall I think it gave me no joy, after all someone could just scribble anything on it, it wouldn't count for much unless it looked exactly as it should.

Royal Mail record the name of the person who signed for something and also the details of the sender. Now it's possible the sender could give details that weren't their own in the Post Office and pay cash. Anyway - I think you are getting side tracked. The most important thing is your mother's care and she is no longer with the people you did not trust to have her best interests at heart.

If I were in your shoes I wouldn't even contemplate defamation proceedings anyway, it's fantastically expensive and stressful.

Hi FryOneFatManic, yes, Recorded Delivery is signed for - but on the tracking note, the signature will be the recipient's! So yes, I recognise my Dad's signature, and that doesn't help! I want the signature of the person sending it (though if they had any sense they could just fake that anyway). As I stated, I cannot prove who sent that letter, and as such, anyone could make out we fabricated it.