Retired Forums > UK Getty Images Letter Forum

UK Copyright infringement Letter using Getty but not Getty

<< < (2/3) > >>

UKHelper:
Also is it reasonable to suggest that if a letter does not come addressed to an individual or is not sent registered then it is safe to ignore/bin it?

DavidVGoliath:

--- Quote from: UKHelper on November 28, 2016, 06:00:19 AM ---Also is it reasonable to suggest that if a letter does not come addressed to an individual or is not sent registered then it is safe to ignore/bin it?
--- End quote ---

Nope; first-class post is quite a valid method of communication, and it's even deemed appropriate for the service of letters pertaining to court proceedings - just see https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06 for clarification.

UKHelper:

--- Quote from: DavidVGoliath on December 01, 2016, 04:50:26 AM ---
--- Quote from: UKHelper on November 28, 2016, 06:00:19 AM ---Also is it reasonable to suggest that if a letter does not come addressed to an individual or is not sent registered then it is safe to ignore/bin it?
--- End quote ---

Nope; first-class post is quite a valid method of communication, and it's even deemed appropriate for the service of letters pertaining to court proceedings - just see https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06 for clarification.

--- End quote ---

Thank you very much for this, how can they prove they sent it though?

DavidVGoliath:

--- Quote from: UKHelper on December 01, 2016, 02:09:01 PM ---Thank you very much for this, how can they prove they sent it though?

--- End quote ---

Well there's a paradox for you: though first class post is commonly accepted as a method of legal communication, there's no way to actually prove a letter was sent or received in this manner; it's presumed to have been delivered on account of the way in which Royal Mail (as a statutory corporation) is mandated to operate.

If a claimant wanted to absolutely prove that a document was sent, then using a signed-for service would offer an additional layer of confirmation - it's certainly the way that I do business for important matters, but it's not a legal requirement.

Matthew Chan:
David is correct that advance notification is generally not required for any legal action to occur.  It is a courtesy, not a requirement. In any case, there is little incentive for people to file lawsuits when they can squeeze money through letters.

If you want to ignore it, just ignore it then.  But to me, it is not a good use of time to have someone prove they sent the letter. There is no requirement to do so and it is easy for them to send you another one and another one which they will do anyhow until you decide to pay. They will persist and escalate as much as they can short of filing a lawsuit to intimidate you to pay.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page