Permalink Submitted by Junk Buster on 6th November 2015.
I received this question via e-mail:
Why can't the advertising company be pursued, rather than the delivery man? Was it ever explained why there was no legal route to pursue the advertiser?
You might have the same question, so I'll post my reply here…
As I understand it the junk mail handling fee was inspired by how
parking on private land is enforced: you put up a notice and any
offenders are then presented with a fee. This implies that you should
pursue the deliverer rather than the sender, in the same way that you'd
pursue the driver rather than the driver's employer when enforcing a
parking notice.
The person who invented the scheme expected that in practice the sender
or distributor would pay the fee. I'm not sure if that expectation was
realistic.
It's worth mentioning that trespass notices do target the sender.
I received this question via e-mail:
You might have the same question, so I'll post my reply here…
As I understand it the junk mail handling fee was inspired by how parking on private land is enforced: you put up a notice and any offenders are then presented with a fee. This implies that you should pursue the deliverer rather than the sender, in the same way that you'd pursue the driver rather than the driver's employer when enforcing a parking notice.
The person who invented the scheme expected that in practice the sender or distributor would pay the fee. I'm not sure if that expectation was realistic.
It's worth mentioning that trespass notices do target the sender.