Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jul 1, 2021 19:48:40 GMT
So I have received a response to my email "The debtor changed her address on our system to that to which we are sending correspondence" "unless and until we have a confirmed address for the debtor we will continue to use the address on file" I've replied and said "he is not here and never has been here, I have offered to send you scans of the council tax bill showing one resident, and also Utility bills showing they are in my name. I must therefore formally demand that you cease to correspond on this matter as it is causing me stress, and I believe your behaviour is harassment, which is not permitted by law in chasing debts in the UK I expect an answer confirming you will cease sending correspondence to this address ( nn Road, town, Postcode ) by 17:00 on 5th July 2021. please note my scale of charges for further correspondence, which by continuing to do so, you agree to pay upon demand Email received reading fee £10 Email received reply fee £20 Returning letters £25 Further phone calls to yourselves or from yourselves £5 per minute ( including time"on hold" ) Dealing with court papers £100 per item received Dealing with officers of the court ( including Bailiffs or Sheriffs officers ) £5 per minute, per officer that attends, to be paid by the officer(s) concerned in cash at the time of attendance. I might have also said how can the debtor change their address without proof that is their current address? if they gave proof can I see that. And it would be interesting to know what their previous address was and who is currently living there. The problem is just because the person isn't on any bills they could have been living there, lodger, friend, relative, whatever. But they should have/must have given proof of address when taking out whatever the credit was. If they could then easily change that address later with no proof that's not acceptable.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,618
Likes: 4,191
|
Post by agent69 on Jul 1, 2021 19:50:31 GMT
[...] People are merely being asked for some evidence to back their word up. This is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is the manner in which they are doing it. I have no problem in assisting these people in tracking their wrongdoers, even proving my identity if they ask politely and in a reasonable manner,.... but I am not prepared to be woken at 6am by a couple of thugs banging at the door demanding I comply with their instructions when I've done nothing wrong. If I tell a company their debtor is not at my address, I expect them to believe me. If they won't, then they should gather their counter evidence in a manner which least inconveniences me. Companies are handing out credit far too readily. I don't see why that should impact on me in any way if they misjudge their borrowers. If somebody is required to give an address in relation to some form of loan / credit agreement they are entering into, aren't they required to supply some evidence that they actually live there?
Maybe suggest the people chasing the debt just sit in a van outside your house and wait to see if the debtor turns up, or maybe just suggest that they speak to your neighbours who will confirm what you have said.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 1, 2021 20:24:13 GMT
They are pursuing a civil debt, not prosecuting a criminal case, so innocent until proven guilty has little meaning in this context. Civil issues such as these are more about burden of proof. This is the key though - there *ARE* plenty of criminal laws governing collectors behaviour - criminal harassment, trespass, assault, damage to name a few. In addition to civil remedies. Like all such matters though, they don't prosecute themselves, it requires someone to know the law and push back. Which is why they often 'get away with it' when the people they are targeting dont know their own legal rights and assume the collectors have more power than they actually do. Unfortunately TV programs like "can't pay we'll take it away" and "the sheriffs are coming" perpetuate many of the myths, and they appear on many occasions to get the police to side with them as they start quoting "our rights" at the officers.I think it is extremely unlikely that police officers will accompany baliffs to an address unless they have shown it is correct and appropriate in law. Police officers don't just self deploy in this way, and operations to accompany baliffs would be operationally organised / planned affairs.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 1, 2021 20:27:25 GMT
So I have received a response to my email "The debtor changed her address on our system to that to which we are sending correspondence" "unless and until we have a confirmed address for the debtor we will continue to use the address on file" I've replied and said "he is not here and never has been here, I have offered to send you scans of the council tax bill showing one resident, and also Utility bills showing they are in my name. I must therefore formally demand that you cease to correspond on this matter as it is causing me stress, and I believe your behaviour is harassment, which is not permitted by law in chasing debts in the UK I expect an answer confirming you will cease sending correspondence to this address ( nn Road, town, Postcode ) by 17:00 on 5th July 2021. please note my scale of charges for further correspondence, which by continuing to do so, you agree to pay upon demandEmail received reading fee £10 Email received reply fee £20 Returning letters £25 Further phone calls to yourselves or from yourselves £5 per minute ( including time"on hold" ) Dealing with court papers £100 per item received Dealing with officers of the court ( including Bailiffs or Sheriffs officers ) £5 per minute, per officer that attends, to be paid by the officer(s) concerned in cash at the time of attendance. I rather like this :-) However, unfortunately your bit highlighted I would suggest is unenforceable. It does however make a point.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 1, 2021 20:32:55 GMT
So I have received a response to my email "The debtor changed her address on our system to that to which we are sending correspondence" "unless and until we have a confirmed address for the debtor we will continue to use the address on file" I've replied and said "he is not here and never has been here, I have offered to send you scans of the council tax bill showing one resident, and also Utility bills showing they are in my name. I must therefore formally demand that you cease to correspond on this matter as it is causing me stress, and I believe your behaviour is harassment, which is not permitted by law in chasing debts in the UK I expect an answer confirming you will cease sending correspondence to this address ( nn Road, town, Postcode ) by 17:00 on 5th July 2021. please note my scale of charges for further correspondence, which by continuing to do so, you agree to pay upon demand Email received reading fee £10 Email received reply fee £20 Returning letters £25 Further phone calls to yourselves or from yourselves £5 per minute ( including time"on hold" ) Dealing with court papers £100 per item received Dealing with officers of the court ( including Bailiffs or Sheriffs officers ) £5 per minute, per officer that attends, to be paid by the officer(s) concerned in cash at the time of attendance. I might have also said how can the debtor change their address without proof that is their current address? if they gave proof can I see that. And it would be interesting to know what their previous address was and who is currently living there. The problem is just because the person isn't on any bills they could have been living there, lodger, friend, relative, whatever. But they should have/must have given proof of address when taking out whatever the credit was. If they could then easily change that address later with no proof that's not acceptable. agree the point, but I wouldn't have put it as a question. Rather to say something along the lines of: "Since they do not reside here and never have resided here, it would appear that you or the entity for whom you are operating have accepted this 'update' without conducting adequate checks as to whether it is in fact correct or simply a crock of ***t to assist with their continued avoidance. This is your problem, not mine."
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Jul 1, 2021 21:09:00 GMT
Unfortunately TV programs like "can't pay we'll take it away" and "the sheriffs are coming" perpetuate many of the myths, and they appear on many occasions to get the police to side with them as they start quoting "our rights" at the officers.I think it is extremely unlikely that police officers will accompany baliffs to an address unless they have shown it is correct and appropriate in law. Police officers don't just self deploy in this way, and operations to accompany baliffs would be operationally organised / planned affairs. What seems to happen is they get in then when the householder tries to remove them they ring and ask for assistance as they are being "threatened with assault"
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 6,013
|
Post by registerme on Jul 1, 2021 22:00:26 GMT
Unfortunately TV programs like "can't pay we'll take it away" and "the sheriffs are coming" perpetuate many of the myths, and they appear on many occasions to get the police to side with them as they start quoting "our rights" at the officers.I think it is extremely unlikely that police officers will accompany baliffs to an address unless they have shown it is correct and appropriate in law. Police officers don't just self deploy in this way, and operations to accompany baliffs would be operationally organised / planned affairs. I believe it's still the case that the only people legally allowed to enter your house (premises?) without a warrant are Customs & Excise. Even if bailiffs (etc) turn up with police in tow you're still allowed to deny them entry without a warrant. And if bailiffs turn up without police you're certainly entitled to give them the finger. www.gov.uk/your-rights-bailiffs
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 1, 2021 22:18:19 GMT
I think it is extremely unlikely that police officers will accompany baliffs to an address unless they have shown it is correct and appropriate in law. Police officers don't just self deploy in this way, and operations to accompany baliffs would be operationally organised / planned affairs. I believe it's still the case that the only people legally allowed to enter your house (premises?) without a warrant are Customs & Excise. Even if bailiffs (etc) turn up with police in tow you're still allowed to deny them entry without a warrant. And if bailiffs turn up without police you're certainly entitled to give them the finger. www.gov.uk/your-rights-bailiffsAgreed. And/but the point I was making was that the police are not even going to countenance turning up with bailiffs unless it is to assist with the enforcement/execution of a valid legally granted warrant. PC Plod isn't just of his own accord going to say 'yeah I'll come along and help you' unless he/she is utterly ignorant and wants his career to go up in a puff of smoke. Any assistance to bailiffs by way of accompanying them would be a scheduled/planned operation for the day, and that will only happen by authorisation of a senior of some form, and it won't be unless it is legal.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,009
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 2, 2021 7:29:45 GMT
If I tell a company their debtor is not at my address, I expect them to believe me. If it was that simple, nobody would ever have to pay any debts. "No, not me, guv. Never 'eard of 'im."Including P2P borrowers and guarantors.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Jul 2, 2021 11:49:15 GMT
I think it is extremely unlikely that police officers will accompany baliffs to an address unless they have shown it is correct and appropriate in law. Police officers don't just self deploy in this way, and operations to accompany baliffs would be operationally organised / planned affairs. I believe it's still the case that the only people legally allowed to enter your house (premises?) without a warrant are Customs & Excise. Even if bailiffs (etc) turn up with police in tow you're still allowed to deny them entry without a warrant. And if bailiffs turn up without police you're certainly entitled to give them the finger. www.gov.uk/your-rights-bailiffsBailiffs can force entry if you've previously let them in, also and this is a trick they use they ask to come in to "discuss the matter" once they have entered you can't legally remove them ( so you try to physically remove them they phone "plod" because you have "assaulted" them ), and they are entitled to return and if necessary force entry . Rating officers have a right of entry,but must give 72 hours notice Housing officers have a right of entry to do various checks they must have written authority but who has the power to give that authority? Planning officers can just turn up to check things without a warrant HMRC can only enter for specific purposes
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Jul 2, 2021 12:10:47 GMT
... you're certainly entitled to give them the finger. certainly? That can easily cost you 500£ as an offence by itself
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 6,013
|
Post by registerme on Jul 2, 2021 13:15:01 GMT
... you're certainly entitled to give them the finger. certainly? That can easily cost you 500£ as an offence by itself I didn't know that. Thank you. If they ever show up at my door I'll consider whether or not it's worth it .
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Jul 5, 2021 11:48:40 GMT
Talking to a friend at the weekend. He had a situation a few years ago whereby he'd overpaid a well known telecoms company. Their systems had a glitch where any account that was closed more than 3 months with a non zero balance was referred for debt collection. He fought the system all the way through, constantly pointing out that they owed him money not him them, but eventually it ended up in the county court where a CCJ was issued against him for £-44. It was only when he managed to get hold of someone in the legal department of the company that he got it wiped as he pointed out the CCJ would enable him to send bailiffs ...
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jul 5, 2021 19:45:07 GMT
Talking to a friend at the weekend. He had a situation a few years ago whereby he'd overpaid a well known telecoms company. Their systems had a glitch where any account that was closed more than 3 months with a non zero balance was referred for debt collection. He fought the system all the way through, constantly pointing out that they owed him money not him them, but eventually it ended up in the county court where a CCJ was issued against him for £-44. It was only when he managed to get hold of someone in the legal department of the company that he got it wiped as he pointed out the CCJ would enable him to send bailiffs ... I hope he collect the £44, by Bailiffs if necessary?
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Jul 12, 2021 14:17:41 GMT
Finally had a response. "We have tried the phone number provided by the customer but no answer, We have tried emailing using the email address we have on file but have had no response. We therefore have no option but to continue to write to the last address the customer gave us." so this joker has discovered that she can open an account and ( presumably ) give them a throwaway email address and phone number, change her address to another ( after getting the card ), and they will chase her at that address.
|
|