Thanks for the reply,
With regards to being against the law to hold an item, I thought 'without reasonable excuse
', could have been used. As in, the reasonable excuse would have been to stop a crime from taking place / or prevent someone being defrauded. As for a warrant, the police would never get a warrant for £450, they wouldn't even entertain it.
ebay already informed and buyer has been struck off.
I just personally, find it amazing that a Postal Service is unable to intercept, and this failure is allowing millions of pounds of fraud to be committed every year.
That's the only thing I think relates to delaying.
Interfering with the mail: postal operators
(1)A person who is engaged in the business of a postal operator commits an offence if, contrary to his duty and without reasonable excuse, he—
(a)intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or
(b)intentionally opens a mail-bag.
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply to the delaying or opening of a postal packet or the opening of a mail-bag under the authority of—
(a)this Act or any other enactment (including, in particular, in pursuance of a warrant issued under any other enactment), or
(b)any directly applicable Community provision.
(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to the delaying or opening of a postal packet in accordance with any terms and conditions applicable to its transmission by post.
(4)Subsection (1) does not apply to the delaying of a postal packet as a result of industrial action in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
(5)In subsection (4) “trade dispute” has the meaning given by section 244 of the [1992 c. 52.] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 or Article 127 of the [S.I. 1995/1980 (N.I.12).] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995; and the reference to industrial action shall be construed in accordance with that Act or (as the case may be) that Order.
(6)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both,
(b)on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.
12 Apr 2019, 12:20
geordieonline wrote:With regards to being against the law to hold an item, I thought 'without reasonable excuse', could have been used. As in, the reasonable excuse would have been to stop a crime from taking place / or prevent someone being defrauded.
The problem is that the scam can work both ways and without evidence or direction from a legal perspective its difficult for Royal Mail to decide wether its right to stop a packet because of an accusation of fraud against the receiver, or albeit the rarer case, when the scammer is the sender. They therefore leave it up to the sender/receiver to carry out due dilligence on the people they are dealing with.
12 Apr 2019, 15:04
I disagree, the postal service should only be able to hold/delay a parcel at the request of a customer, if due process had been followed, i.e contacted Action Fraud/Police and post office with the provided crime reference number / postal receipt and tracking number. Once the parcel is delayed, the police should be able to investigate (all evidence - emails, paypal, ebay, postal receipt etc) and then either collect the parcel or allow post office to continue with delivery, if no evidence to prove a scam/crime has been committed.
Like I say, there should be an appropriate extra charge for the extra work / holding service involved.
Page 1 of 1