Recently, I sent a registered letter to my tenant, notifying him of some legal implications if he does not comply to the terms stipulated in our tenancy agreement. Time was also critical for him to respond fast.

Two days later, I went back to collect letters that may have been sent to my previous home address. I was surprised to see my registered letter in my tenanted-home letter-box. It was untidily piled up in the midst of other mail.

The letter was sealed and the sticker with the barcode was missing from the letter. It was obvious that someone has removed the sticker as I could still feel the roughness on the surface.

I called Geylang Delivery Base Post Office and spoke to the supervisor. He checked and told me that he could see, from the system, that the letter was delivered and signed.

He checked with the postman servicing my area and told me that his staff remembered someone signing though the postman did not insist on the person receiving the item to show any identification document.

Thereafter, I personally requested to speak to the postman. The postman insisted that he did hand the letter personally to someone at my place but, upon further probing, started to be unsure about himself.

He claimed that it was not possible to be 100 per cent sure since he had to deliver so many registered articles in a day. He also told me that mine was not the first incident as there were many cases where registered letters are placed back in the letter boxes of the addressees. This was also confirmed by the supervisor. I am sure that they are not referring to undelivered letters here.

Later, the supervisor called me and also told me that from the system, someone had signed and received another separate registered letter addressed to me on July 29. But as the recipient, I am not aware of it. This goes to prove that this system has many loopholes because the one receiving is not accountable for any loss since no identification is required.

My questions are:

>>Who is responsible if the letter does not land in the hands of the intended addressee since identification is not compulsory?

>>Why is the sticker removed and who removed it?

>>If mine is not the first case, why is there no mandate to insist that identification needs to be produced to ensure that letter is sent to the correct place or to the intended recipient?

>>What is puzzling is that how did the postman know that there were many cases of letters being placed back into the letter boxes?

I would request a full investigation into the case. This incident has put me in a difficult position since I do not have adequate basis to pursue legal action against my tenant as he can claim that he was not aware of the existence of this letter and that the signature does not belong to any person who is staying there.

Since I am paying a premium, I would expect reliable service and not a wishy-washy job that is done and forgotten.

Wee Ying Lin