Postmen demanding your full name, for signed for items

[meercat]

No you cannot?? Really? Well that's a lie isn't it because you can if you decide to.

Quoting me then adding your reply underneath makes it impossible for ME to then quote your reply as it's mixed in with my post from earlier. You are just creating a mess, surely your memory is not so bad that you can't remember my pertinent point which you have just read literally minutes before?!

The rest of your points are fine, you are welcome to have them. In particular your insistence than a signature needn't be legible (justifying it by saying some people have 'bad' handwriting) seems ludicrous to me but maybe I'm old fashioned. I recall when cheques were commonly used and without a legible signature (ie a likeness to that held on record) it would not be honoured.

Have a good day.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Signature

A mark or sign made by an individual on an instrument or document to signify knowledge, approval, acceptance, or obligation.

In the absence of a statutory prohibition, an individual can use any character, symbol, figure, or designation he wishes to adopt as a signature, and if he uses it as a substitute for his name, he is bound by it. For example, if a contract refers to "William Jones" but Jones signs his name "Bill Jones," the contract is still enforceable against him. An individual can also use a fictitious name or the name of a business firm. A signature might also be adequate to validate an instrument even if it is virtually illegible. The entire name does not have to be written, and the inclusion of a middle name is not significant.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/signature" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[wannabeek]

Is this really something to get so het up about? I once signed for an item (at my own home, delivered by another postie on my day off I must add to avoid the flaming) using a picture of a smiley-face man waving a carrot. The ground did not swallow me up and send me straight to hell, but maybe I have committed a mortal sin. The grumpy postie didn't notice, or maybe didn't care, but it gave me a chuckle when I checked the tracking info later.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Quoting me then adding your reply underneath makes it impossible for ME to then quote your reply as it's mixed in with my post from earlier. You are just creating a mess, surely your memory is not so bad that you can't remember my pertinent point which you have just read literally minutes before?!

It doesn't make it impossible, although it does make it difficult. All you have to is have a [/quote] at the end of everyones quote and the correct starting quote [Quote="Teebs"]

Can you not just reply without quoting half my post??

No I cannot; I quote the pertinent text relative to my response or comment. (It also helps to prevent later editing spoiling the flow of the conversation, for other subscribers).

As an example I have done it here.

Dave said he 'looked' like a serial complainer. So he's made one complaint yes maybe, but Dave said he 'looks' like one not he IS one = you are wrong here and Dave has a legitimate opinion so let him have it please. You might think that using this descriptive term is rude, I don't. What I think IS rude is you telling people they are being rude and then telling them what to think.

Well I may have accepted your request had Dave actually seen the OP, (look), I can only assume therefore that the statement is judgemental based on little 'unfounded' information and therefore rude.

As to the rudeness of people, I suppose as Admin I have made no comment as to who has been or who hasn't, although I do think no one had the intention to be rude, but the printed word has one drawback. Its possible to make many different interpretations from the same phrase and without being able to read peoples body langauge when they post something, make a judgement on how someone phrased something seems a pointless exercise. Also just because someone disagrees with an opinion, doesn't mean they are denying anyones right to hold a different one.


In essence don't read too much into the written word, but more importantly can we move on please.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Is this really something to get so het up about? I once signed for an item (at my own home, delivered by another postie on my day off I must add to avoid the flaming) using a picture of a smiley-face man waving a carrot. The ground did not swallow me up and send me straight to hell, but maybe I have committed a mortal sin. The grumpy postie didn't notice, or maybe didn't care, but it gave me a chuckle when I checked the tracking info later.

You used any character - so its legal and there was nothing wrong with it.

[meercat]

Signature

A mark or sign made by an individual on an instrument or document to signify knowledge, approval, acceptance, or obligation.

In the absence of a statutory prohibition, an individual can use any character, symbol, figure, or designation he wishes to adopt as a signature, and if he uses it as a substitute for his name, he is bound by it. For example, if a contract refers to "William Jones" but Jones signs his name "Bill Jones," the contract is still enforceable against him. An individual can also use a fictitious name or the name of a business firm. A signature might also be adequate to validate an instrument even if it is virtually illegible. The entire name does not have to be written, and the inclusion of a middle name is not significant.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/signature" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You are making a mockery of our RM Signed For and SD service really. Why don't we just tell recipients to mark an X in the box? I mean really. It would save us time and apparently be adequate for SD customers who have spent big money on getting a sig - sometimes when it's a notice of legal proceedings (for example to a dodgy used car salesman from an aggrieved customer) the sig can be used as evidence in a court of law. Will a court accept an 'X'? It's a mark but it is also obviously an attempt at deception.

LET'S BE SENSIBLE HERE!!!!

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I presented the legal position, but I suppose it depends on your defintion of sensibility on how you proceed.

Signature

A mark or sign made by an individual on an instrument or document to signify knowledge, approval, acceptance, or obligation.

In the absence of a statutory prohibition, an individual can use any character, symbol, figure, or designation he wishes to adopt as a signature, and if he uses it as a substitute for his name, he is bound by it.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/signature" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Will a court accept an 'X'? It's a mark but it is also obviously an attempt at deception.

Yes - because there is no statutory prohibition on what we can and can't accept as a signutre. That means there is no law that makes RM responsible for obtaining clear and legible signatures.

Signature

In the absence of a statutory prohibition, an individual can use any character, symbol, figure, or designation he wishes to adopt as a signature, and if he uses it as a substitute for his name, he is bound by it.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/signature" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But if you feel that you should attempt to do so I am not going to judge you, so I would be pleased if you would return the compliement.

[wannabeek]

Yeah, if I was taken to court and asked to swear if that sig of a smiley-face man with a carrot was mine then I'd have to fess up and say 'yes, m'lud, I'm banged to rights, and I was holding some carrots as the postie came along and I think I was also smiling'.

Surely it really doesn't matter if it's your 'legal' signature, I've never dreamed of asking a resident to sign more legibly.

Also I'd rather not let the local posties see my 'legal' signature, some of them look right dodgy sorts! (and they have access to my cheque books, etc. Good grief, just the thought is making me panicky. I will never again sign a PDA properly now.)

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

Signature

A mark or sign made by an individual on an instrument or document to signify knowledge, approval, acceptance, or obligation.

In the absence of a statutory prohibition, an individual can use any character, symbol, figure, or designation he wishes to adopt as a signature, and if he uses it as a substitute for his name, he is bound by it. For example, if a contract refers to "William Jones" but Jones signs his name "Bill Jones," the contract is still enforceable against him. An individual can also use a fictitious name or the name of a business firm. A signature might also be adequate to validate an instrument even if it is virtually illegible. The entire name does not have to be written, and the inclusion of a middle name is not significant.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/signature" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You are making a mockery of our RM Signed For and SD service really. Why don't we just tell recipients to mark an X in the box? I mean really. It would save us time and apparently be adequate for SD customers who have spent big money on getting a sig - sometimes when it's a notice of legal proceedings (for example to a dodgy used car salesman from an aggrieved customer) the sig can be used as evidence in a court of law. Will a court accept an 'X'? It's a mark but it is also obviously an attempt at deception.

LET'S BE SENSIBLE HERE!!!!

So what would you do if the person who was to sign for the item was illiterate? Have you never heard the phrase make your mark? An x is perfectly acceptable in a court of law, signing your name in that way is not necessarily an attempt at deception

The literacy rate in the uk is around 99% and going by that percentage and the average size of walk the average postie is going to have around 10 or 11 people on their round who can't read or write, are you going to discriminate against them because they may struggle to write properly

[steve1873]

This is mental. Of course the postman has a right to ask for your name as it is important to note who signed for the item. If you refuse to divulge your name then, by extension you are refusing delivery of the item.

The item requires a signature and the signature has to be identifiable.

[meercat]

We are not talking about illiterate recipients! Illiterate recipients usually can atleast sign their own name anyway.

Let's put it this way. If all the packets I sent out for my business by RM got scrawny sigs that you couldn't read while delivery firm 'A+ Deliveries' got signatures that were clear and readable I WOULD GO WITH 'A+ Deliveries' EVERYTIME!!!!!

Remember we run a business here not a bloody legal-technicalities club!

[arnold cheshire]

Calling someone a 'serial complainer' is not name-calling it's an observation Dave made.

And by the way this guy is not a customer of ours he is the recipient of the package. The customer is the guy who paid the postage costs - and indeed paid for a legible signature to be taken.

so if you misdeliver no 5 to no 7 how can no 7 complain if there not a customer?

[arnold cheshire]

person at number 27 receives a wet letter how can he complain he isnt the customer? barclays is