Is there a legal requirement in the UK to receive physical post? I recently was unable to receive post in the UK (due to a broken post box in a post room) and as a result did not read legal document I should have received. While I understand the legal requirement for a valid address in cases such as your driving license, is there a legal requirement to be in receipt of physical post at the address? Does supplying your address also commit you to having received and opened post at that address. Can you deny physical post? Opt out all together from being able to receive post at a residential address? As an aside to the implications of any answers to the above ... if there is a convention of organisations making "reasonable steps" to get in touch with you, how can post be deemed reasonable if they don't get a reply and have no idea if such post was received? Isn't the onus then on me to take "reasonable steps" to receive post? Why should I? What if I can't?
I did the Googling: Prior to the case described in this article, a notice was to be deemed served if the sender can sufficiently prove that the letter was properly addressed, pre-paid and posted. Law - Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 The case made it clear that the same law also sets a condition, where if the letter was not received at said mailbox, or too late received, the notice is to be deemed not served. The receiver is not required to prove that the letter has not arrived in the mailbox. Also, if your mail has been tampered with, you should contact Royal Mail - they will perform an investigation and put your mailbox in order. I work with tenants and landlords, thus lots of official notices. In this practice, it's often a recommended action to follow up on a notice and make sure the receiver has indeed received and acknowledged the notice. I don't know if it's a legal requirement, but often in disputes (which go to arbitration by a 3rd party), if one party states they did not receive the notice and the other party can't sufficiently prove that they did everything in their power to contact and confirm the delivery of the notice, the notice is regarded as not served. I believe you cannot deny post. If it's in your mailbox, it's your responsibility to check and read it.
The law of each country where you offer the app for download applies, and you have to consider: Privacy Policy (GDPR in EU, CCPA in California, APPI in Japan, LGPD in Brasil, and more - check each country to be on the safe side) Disclaimer versus AGB/Terms and Conditions (e.g. Germany), not required but recommended Impressum (Germany, Switzerland, Austria) Value Added Tax (VAT) which is taken care of e.g. by Google Play for most countries but not all (e.g. not for Japan) in case the app is not free Consumer Protection Law - applicable (and different) everywhere There might be more, but these are the important ones I am aware of.
A receipt is just a written proof that money was taken. It is hard to imagine a place on Earth where the legality of giving such a proof would be questionable at all so that you would need to talk about an "authority to issue receipts". Only if you find a place where money itself is illegal. Now, the real question here is whether such receipts (issued by private persons not registered as businesses) can be used for accounting purposes, e.g. to claim that your business, which transacted with those persons, incurred expenses. The mere fact that sole traders need to be registered to do business does not outlaw the use of receipts issued by non-registered persons. For example, your business could be buying old stuff from the public (used cars, electronics etc.) and refurbishing it. Provided that this activity itself is not illegal, receiving receipts from those one-off private sellers, and using them in your bookkeeping would be perfectly legal too.
Why use USPS to Deliver Demand Letter when email is available The answer essentially lies in NateEldredge's comment, and is consistent with Firefighter's Inst. for Racial Equal v. City fo St. Louis, 220 F.3d 898, 903 in that regular mail (and impliedly email) as a method of service is generally inadmissible "because the court cannot be assured that delivery has occurred". Even if the HOA replied to your email, phoog is right in that the possibility of falsification of email records may prevent some courts from admitting service by email.
It's based on the date the letter was received, not the date it was mailed. Since it's certified, it's not received until somebody signs for it, which starts the clock. The actual date isn't possible to calculate from the information on hand. The delivery receipt would have the date it was signed for, it would be prior to the end of the 30th calendar date from that date. Edit... Your new &quot;twist&quot; results in void service and doesn’t require action by the HOA. Certified mail is a service of the USPS, hand delivering or email does not legally count as &quot;certified mail&quot;. If a contract requires service by a specific method (e.g. certified mail), then delivery by any other means is invalid and of no effect.
This varies depending on the specific law of the state or locality involved. In New York, the word &quot;POSTED&quot;, along with the name and address of the owner is sufficient to notify people not to intrude, and anyone ignoring such a sign is technically trespassing (although, in practice, if such a person leaves the property when asked, did no damage, and appeared honestly ignorant, it is likely that no legal action would be taken). In California, as specified by penal code section 553 (quoted in the linked answer) a sign for this purpose must include: the words “trespassing-loitering forbidden by law,” or words describing the use of the property followed by the words “no trespassing.” in letters at least two inches tall, and follow other specifications in the law. The word &quot;Posted&quot; is neither required nor sufficient, although the law calls land with such signs &quot;posted property&quot;.
There is a USPS form to fill out, to change a person's address. This page shows you what the form looks like. You should notice the text which they transcribe onto the page: NOTE: The person signing this form states that he or she is the person, executor, guardian, authorized officer, or agent of the person for whom mail would be forwarded under this order. Anyone submitting false or inaccurate information on this form is subject to punishment by fine or imprisonment or both under Sections 2, 1001, 1702 and 1708 of Title 18, United States Code. So you cannot legally do anything, other than take annoying mail and notate it with an indication that they are not at this address (&quot;Return to Sender&quot; is the classical response), and stick it back in the mail. It is also legal to go to the post office and complain (politely) to the staff, who deal with the situation in a way that doesn't put you at legal risk.
In the UK, no offence is committed, however many public locations cite the Data Protection Act 1998 as a reason to stop people taking pictures. DPA does not mention this topic at all, and is a red herring (however informing the location of this is unlikely to help, I have discovered) In fact, in the UK, the only laws that appear to exist cover either specific locations and properties (eg military installations) or using photography to take pictures of individuals in areas where they have an expectation of privacy. The Photographer's Rights Guide published by digitalcameraworld in 2012 is still current as far as I can see. It has this specific guidance: Photographers Rights: Taking Pictures of People in Public Are you breaking any law when you’re taking pictures of people in public? Probably not, but the position under UK law is uncertain. There are currently no general privacy laws under UK law, but the UK courts must take into account the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives everyone the right to respect for their private and family life. As this is an area of law that has been developing rapidly over the last few years, it is hard to be certain what will constitute an infringement. The key issue is whether the place the image is taken is one where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, it has been suggested that the right of privacy of a child could be infringed by publishing a photo of them with their parents in a public street. It is therefore advisable to be careful when taking photos intended for publication, even where the subject matter is in a public place. Failure to obtain a model release for the use of an image will certainly make it harder to sell the picture to stock libraries. Photographing children The same laws apply to adult and child subjects, but a child does not have the legal capacity to consent and a parent or guardian must therefore do so on their behalf. Be aware that schools, leisure centres and places where children and adults gather usually have their own photography restrictions. Although decent photos of children (see our tips for better pictures of babies, children and teenagers) taken in a public place may be fine for non-commercial use, seek permission from the child’s parents or guardians and don’t shoot covertly with a long lens. For commercial images, you’ll need to get a model release signed by the parents. Also read the section on the powers of police and security guards.