Return to sender no longer allowed

L1011 · 07-09-2013 9:17am

Nothing is being readdressed. I'm not liable to and hence absolutely not paying for returning.

Shelflife · 07-09-2013 10:12am

MYOB wrote: »

Nothing is being readdressed. I'm not liable to and hence absolutely not paying for returning.

The letter has been delivered to the correct address, an post have completed their end of the bargain.

You (trying to do the right thing) want to send the letter back to the sender. Why should an post do it for free?

You are in effect re addressing it as it has already been delivered correctly and you want to send it somewhere else .

trad · 07-09-2013 10:23am

How does Santa get his letters?

cgarvey · 07-09-2013 11:10am

trad wrote: »

How does Santa get his letters?

Does Santa get his letters?!

Shelflife · 07-09-2013 11:13am

cgarvey wrote: »

Does Santa get his letters?!

Of course he does, just because you're bold don't blame it on the postie!

mathepac · 07-09-2013 12:09pm

mathepac wrote: »

.... the individually named letter-boxes.

Shelflife wrote: »

Individually numbered boxes , but you already knew that....

But I specified individually named boxes, boxes which are not numbered.

Shelflife · 07-09-2013 12:17pm

mathepac wrote: »

But I specified individually named boxes, boxes which are not numbered.

Ok they deliver to a specified address , that can be 1 toytown or joe blogs house beside the shop in toytown . If you send a letter to joe blogs toytown there's a fair chance that it won't be delivered unless that's the only joe blogs in toytown and is known to the postie.

Zaph · 07-09-2013 12:29pm

mathepac wrote: »

For the last 6/7 years I've been returning mail addressed to my former partner delivered to my home. This year in utter frustration I rang the company identified by the "return to" address on the envelope.

I was told that they had no record of mail I re-directed being returned to them EVER! So I suppose An Post use the big roundy file for this stuff.

I used to get a lot of mail for the previous owners of my house, but they had left their new address so I used to forward on the mail to them. After a while I mislaid the address, but at that point the only mail that continued to arrive for them were holiday brochures (presumably from some firm they'd previously booked a holiday with). As it was only brochures I didn't feel too bad about not forwarding them on, but I did get fed up with the company continuing to send them. After a while I started to put "Not at this address - Return to sender" on them. They stopped arriving very shortly afterwards, so I assume that they avoided the big roundy file and were actually returned to the sender.

L1011 · 07-09-2013 3:31pm

Shelflife wrote: »

The letter has been delivered to the correct address, an post have completed their end of the bargain.

You (trying to do the right thing) want to send the letter back to the sender. Why should an post do it for free?

You are in effect re addressing it as it has already been delivered correctly and you want to send it somewhere else .

Return to sender does not equal redressing. Never has, never will. Suggest you check An Posts obligations under their USO.

Shelflife · 07-09-2013 9:29pm

MYOB wrote: »

Return to sender does not equal redressing. Never has, never will. Suggest you check An Posts obligations under their USO.

A link would be appreciated.

L1011 · 07-09-2013 9:49pm

An Post's structure and USO are defined in the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983 (as amended) and the European Communities (Postal Services) Regulations 2002 which is a transpositon of EC67/97. These state An Post's (or any other USO operator, if we ever get another) requirements on how handle post which cannot be delivered to the addressee. Fecking a letter in a letterbox at a given address does not mean it has been delivered to addressee.

The person to whom it has been delivered but not addressed is legally forbidden from opening it or destroying it. Their only legal course of action is to return it to An Post who are hence made aware it has not been delivered to the addressee.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 07-09-2013 9:58pm

Shelflife wrote: »

A link would be appreciated.

Not every statute or business SLA is posted online!

Shelflife · 07-09-2013 10:45pm

Carlee Cuddly Celebration wrote: »

Not every statute or business SLA is posted online!

This is true, but in previous topics when I posted figures or rules or laws I was told that it was the accepted norm to back it up with a link or where it could be found.

It also wasn't a glib remark, it was a polite request.

amtc · 10-09-2013 2:01am

Legislative inks posted have been superseded by the Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Act 2012 - trust me, I knowwhat I'm talking about.

An Post's obligation is to deliver to the ADDRESS not the person named.

RTS goes to special centre in Limerick (usually) where it is held, and streamed. This can take some time.

The issue arises that items now that are not sent through An POst, of which some bank statements are etc., get delayed as well there

amtc · 10-09-2013 2:03am

Legislative inks posted have been superseded by the Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Act 2012 - trust me, I knowwhat I'm talking about. Check the comreg website for the link or irishstatutebook.ie - it's Act No 21, transpansng Directive 2008/6/EC

An Post's obligation is to deliver to the ADDRESS not the person named.

RTS goes to special centre in Limerick (usually) where it is held, and streamed. This can take some time.

The issue arises that items now that are not sent through An POst, of which some bank statements are etc., get delayed as well there

Return to sender no longer allowed

Comments