.
Problem is, if you carry on fighting and they decide to give it to a bailif or something, you'll end up with another £400 quid stuck on the bill.

And you'll still have to prove you didn't get the letters, and the bailifs will be more aggresive chasing the debt than the council are.

Might be worth asking for a bit more time - ask them not to 'escalate' it while you work out what happened.
( Not Pineapple anymore, Thu 2 Sep 2010, 16:44, 1 reply)

You also want to look up something called the "postal rule"
It means you're screwed, basically.

All they have to prove is that they sent the letters, not that you received them.
(dxg, Thu 2 Sep 2010, 17:44, closed)

But how is their computer proof that it was actually posted. All the computer can prove is that the letter was produced, not actually posted. Or am I missing something obvious.
(Freakmandu, Thu 2 Sep 2010, 18:10, closed)

.
Yah, unfortunately. History and statistics.

Non receipt is claimed relentlessly by people who have forgotten/decided not to pay their council tax / parking ticket / a thousand other things. This has been happening pretty much since the postal service began. During this time, the postal service has generally become more reliable. Less than 0.1% of mail is actually lost these days.

So, if the council mail 100,000 people, it's fair to say max 100 of them might not get their letter. That's arguable, maybe a court will accept that.

But the chances of you not getting the second one is at least one in a million (0.1% x 0.1% lost). That kind of stat will not stand up in court, unless you can actually show the address was wrong. Otherwise you have no chance whatsoever of getting away with it.

Like I say, this is a very old and very overused excuse, and councils are well used to hearing it, and dealing with it. That's why they write more than once.
( Not Pineapple anymore, Fri 3 Sep 2010, 8:21, closed)

Except that your maths shows that for every ten mailings, there will be someone who doesn't get either letter. If he can persuade the Judge that he's that one...

(He won't of course).
(johnson, Sat 4 Sep 2010, 11:50, closed)