0

There are situations where the sending and receiving of mail is legally preformative. Examples include Service (well explained in this answer) and unpaid parking charges pursued under the Protection of Freedoms Act.

My understanding is that all that is required in these situations is for the sender to say that they sent the letter. If the receiver did not receive the letter there is no evidence generated, and the letter is considered received if it is reported as sent.

Suppose the receiver of the letter had created and installed a device that recorded all mail received, perhaps something to ensure letter pass one at a time and a camera taking an image of each letter. Would the output of such a device be admissible evidence as to the non-receipt of a preformative letter?

User65535
  • 10,342
  • 5
  • 40
  • 88

2 Answers2

2

The presumption in your question is flawed

It is insufficient for the sender to "say" they posted it; they must prove they posted it. Their unsupported testimony may be sufficient, or it may not be, depending on what weight the trier of fact gives it. If you are posting something important, get a receipt.

Proving non-receipt

It's always tricky to prove a negative. However, if you can demonstrate a process such that all mail is normally logged, and this one wasn't, then that may be sufficient to prove it was not received.

As I said in my answer to the linked question - disputes about this are highly profitable for lawyers.

Dale M
  • 237,717
  • 18
  • 273
  • 546
0

This is covered for most scenarios by Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978:

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

Points to note:

  • "unless the contrary intention appears" means that it's a general rule which can be overridden for specific statutes.
  • The starting presumption is that service takes place when the the document would be "delivered in the ordinary course of post".
  • That presumption can be rebutted if the recipient can prove that they didn't receive it or received it at a later time.
JBentley
  • 12,609
  • 32
  • 60