charge sheet received - help!

[LAX54]

That’s really frustrating for you, but it highlights the point that if you use a signed for service then you need to check that it has been received - something we may want to suggest in future when we advise people to use such a service.

Id advocate using special delivery for such items, 1st Class signed for can be hit and miss, may not even get there for a couple of days !

 

[MichelleRWB]

There's no such thing. It's either First Class Signed For with the aim of achieving next day delivery, or RM Special Delivery, guaranteeing [with en route tracking] delivery the next day by 1pm.

whatever it was, I got a receipt, looks like First Class Signed For. not all of us are experts in the Royal Mail! you guys are hard core.

 

[eoff]

presumably you have grounds for a complaint with Royal Mail at least to obtain a refund of whatever you spent on their signed for delivery service.

This level of poor service is appalling.

I agree, the special delivery services are much more likely to get you the proof of delivery, seems to be a lottery otherwise.
I think the online form for a refund wants you to say if the item was delivered late or not at all. I got a refund from the Post Office counter in such a circumstance as they can look up the tracking number and see there is no delivery information.

 

[Titfield]

I agree, the special delivery services are much more likely to get you the proof of delivery, seems to be a lottery otherwise.
I think the online form for a refund wants you to say if the item was delivered late or not at all. I got a refund from the Post Office counter in such a circumstance as they can look up the tracking number and see there is no delivery information.

AIUI one of the issues with "signed for" is that if the recipient organisation receives a large number of signed for letters the they are bagged up for delivery and the organisation signs for the bag. In my case I sent a letter to the probate office signed for, they apparently received it (on the basis that it was signed for) but either because it wasnt actually received or lost somehow at the probate office, they failed to action the item the letter was required for. This issue didnt come to light until weeks later when its non delivery or receipt caused a delay in the granting of probate after much chasing.

 

[Haywain]

AIUI one of the issues with "signed for" is that if the recipient organisation receives a large number of signed for letters the they are bagged up for delivery and the organisation signs for the bag. In my case I sent a letter to the probate office signed for, they apparently received it (on the basis that it was signed for) but either because it wasnt actually received or lost somehow at the probate office, they failed to action the item the letter was required for. This issue didnt come to light until weeks later when its non delivery or receipt caused a delay in the granting of probate after much chasing.

It's common for post, even signed for, to be accepted at a mailroom or reception and then distributed internally. It's certainly what happens where GTR's prosecutions team are based.

 

[Titfield]

It's common for post, even signed for, to be accepted at a mailroom or reception and then distributed internally. It's certainly what happens where GTR's prosecutions team are based.

Yes indeed. I jus wonder how secure the process is given we see reports of letters being ignored which could indicate not being received. One can understand why OPs become anxious when they have been told they will receive a letter (re alleged ticket issues) but then weeks later have still not received a communication.

 

[AdamWW]

Judges can’t give “a spent conviction”. They only give convictions. Convictions become spent after a period of time prescribed by law; in the case of an offence punished by fine, this is after a year.

I've read in various places that if a judge gives an absolute discharge that results in a conviction that's immediately spent? Is that not the case?

 

[island]

I've read in various places that if a judge gives an absolute discharge that results in a conviction that's immediately spent? Is that not the case?

Yes, though I’ve never heard of it being described that way.