Login
You're viewing the functional.cafe public feed.
  • Ed Daviesedavies
    Nov 13, 2026, 12:46 PM

    @HighlandLawyer @neil There was that instance [¹] where somebody's objection to a planning application wasn't taken into account by the planners because it was rejected by the council's spam filters because it contained the word “erection”.

    So the mail was delivered to the recipients (the council) but they chose (by using a spam filter) to not read it. So who takes liability for the spam filter?

    [¹] I was going to write “case” there but I don't think it went to court so that might have mislead.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 2

Replies

  • HighlandLawyerHighlandLawyer@mastodon.social
    Nov 13, 2026, 4:01 PM

    @edavies @neil
    There's a whole line of historical development of rules when intimation is effective.
    Way back it was when someone became aware of it.
    But it was too easy to say "I never saw/heard it", so you got personal service by an official giving it to you, or leaving it at your home.
    Then the universal postal service was created, with regular & effective deliveries, so rules were created based on the expectation of such ("postal rule").
    Now we're going through it again with e-delivery.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1