keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,807
Likes: 2,283
Member is Online
|
Post by keitha on Jun 30, 2021 16:46:05 GMT
well I've emailed the company and told them to "cease and desist " from sending me letters, and that I expect a response within 48 hours confirming they will not send any more letters to this address,and that they will not follow through on any threat of court action against her at this address. bernythedolt I've had dealings with bailiffs last year, as you say mega aggressive and of course dressed to look as much like the police as possible. This pair of clowns turned upon my doorstep chasing a debt run up by someone who lived in the HMO I was in 4 years ago. I seems and I can remember him making a claim for damage to his TV etc. anyway what he did was take out an insurance policy on the whole house then 2 months later he slapped in a claim for his TV etc being damaged and as I remember he got a decent payout then a couple of weeks later he did a moonlight and returned home to Africa. Of course he didn't make any more payments on the policy, the debt collectors decided in their wisdom to try for the other residents, one has moved to France so is out of reach the other doesn't have 2 pennies to rub together so I was the logical target. They can be sneaky, they will ask to come inside to discuss the matter, the issue then is once you let them in they have made "peaceful entry" and have the right to then come back in. I managed to get rid of them by asking for proof I'd signed the credit agreement and demanding that before i'd let them in. I haven't heard from them since
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 30, 2021 17:50:54 GMT
Another letter arrived yesterday, and unlike the others that I've put back in the post marked "Not known at this address" I decided to open it and try to contact the sender directly. I though it was illegal to open a letter addressed to somebody else, based on the Postal Services Act 2000 ? not if you have a 'reasonable excuse' (see also above someone posting that the offence is comitted if you DON'T have reasonable excuse). Per another post above: Opening someone else’s mail is allowed in certain circumstances under the Postal Services Act 2000. It is only an offence if you open someone else’s mail ‘without reasonable excuse’ or if you ‘intend to act to another’s detriment’.
For example, if you are receiving bank statements/cards in someone else’s name then you should act on that immediately. You should tell the sender, either by returning it marked “not known at this address” or by opening the mail and calling any number provided within. The “reasonable excuse” for opening such items would then be that you were helping to prevent fraud against the companies involved.Which of course is entirely reasonable and logical.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 30, 2021 17:58:36 GMT
over the last few weeks I've had letters arriving with increasing frequency addressed to someone else at my address. It happens that I know the surnames of the previous 2 residents, and that their occupancy together with mine goes back at least 30 years. Another letter arrived yesterday, and unlike the others that I've put back in the post marked "Not known at this address" I decided to open it and try to contact the sender directly. So I've rung the number, basically I can't ask them to remove my address because I'm not the account holder they quoted me data protection, so I pointed out that the data protection act requires them to correct data they know is wrong. So the guy says "we will send miss Williams a letter asking her to confirm this is not her address", so I asked where it would be sent to and they quoted my address. I was totally unable to get it through to them that that is pointless as she doesn't and never has lived here. Eventually got put through to a Supervisor, who repeated the same spiel, but with the addition that they are considering issuing county court papers ( This is what the letter was about ), and that my address could be blacklisted for credit. Now I assume the courts would not issue a CCJ against my address if I tell them she doesn't live here. anyway the end of the conversation is that I can make this all go away if I pay the bill, but he then said if the bill is paid the card will be reactivated and can be used again. ...... These are two upright, PhD-qualified citizens, yet even they, with all their intelligence and research skills, found it next to impossible to get the company to listen. It's quite disgusting. I'm not going to defend the behaviour of baliffs in general or in the specifics of any case. But I can see another side to this - I haven't fully consumed your post so am talking about the general situation not the one you relayed. It seems entirely reasonable that they would pursue until they have seen clear evidence that the persons involved are not resident at a property they otherwise have reason to believe would be at that address (e.g. the address used to fraudulently take out a loan). Its all very well people protesting '"its not me guv", but of course the rule "they would say that wouldn't they" also applies here. Hence a need to be proactive and if necessary provide evidence e.g. utility bill with your name on it. Personally having baliffs turn up is the last thing I would want, hence why on the couple of occasions such things have happened to me I've acted assuming the worst and been proactive. Thankfully things have never got to the point of anyone turning up on my doorstep.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jun 30, 2021 19:14:46 GMT
...... These are two upright, PhD-qualified citizens, yet even they, with all their intelligence and research skills, found it next to impossible to get the company to listen. It's quite disgusting. I'm not going to defend the behaviour of baliffs in general or in the specifics of any case. But I can see another side to this - I haven't fully consumed your post so am talking about the general situation not the one you relayed. It seems entirely reasonable that they would pursue until they have seen clear evidence that the persons involved are not resident at a property they otherwise have reason to believe would be at that address (e.g. the address used to fraudulently take out a loan). Its all very well people protesting '"its not me guv", but of course the rule "they would say that wouldn't they" also applies here. Hence a need to be proactive and if necessary provide evidence e.g. utility bill with your name on it. Personally having baliffs turn up is the last thing I would want, hence why on the couple of occasions such things have happened to me I've acted assuming the worst and been proactive. Thankfully things have never got to the point of anyone turning up on my doorstep. It's not reasonable at all. The law of England & Wales is predicated on innocent until proven guilty. People move homes. When a company, or its debt collection agency, is told that a house is under new occupation, that is something they can confirm for themselves... and then stop pestering the new occupants. Why should innocent people be allowed to be harassed in this way? My son-in-law doesn't pay a TV licence and has no interest in watching TV broadcasts. You should see the constant stream of increasingly threatening letters he receives from the BBC. Everyone should remain innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2021 19:40:37 GMT
It's not reasonable at all. The law of England & Wales is predicated on innocent until proven guilty. People move homes. When a company, or its debt collection agency, is told that a house is under new occupation, that is something they can confirm for themselves... and then stop pestering the new occupants. Why should innocent people be allowed to be harassed in this way? My son-in-law doesn't pay a TV licence and has no interest in watching TV broadcasts. You should see the constant stream of increasingly threatening letters he receives from the BBC. Everyone should remain innocent until proven guilty. 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.
|
|
stub8535
Member of DD Central
personal opinions only. Not qualified to advise on investment products.
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 945
|
Post by stub8535 on Jun 30, 2021 20:46:33 GMT
over the last few weeks I've had letters arriving with increasing frequency addressed to someone else at my address. It happens that I know the surnames of the previous 2 residents, and that their occupancy together with mine goes back at least 30 years. Another letter arrived yesterday, and unlike the others that I've put back in the post marked "Not known at this address" I decided to open it and try to contact the sender directly. So I've rung the number, basically I can't ask them to remove my address because I'm not the account holder they quoted me data protection, so I pointed out that the data protection act requires them to correct data they know is wrong. So the guy says "we will send miss Williams a letter asking her to confirm this is not her address", so I asked where it would be sent to and they quoted my address. I was totally unable to get it through to them that that is pointless as she doesn't and never has lived here. Eventually got put through to a Supervisor, who repeated the same spiel, but with the addition that they are considering issuing county court papers ( This is what the letter was about ), and that my address could be blacklisted for credit. Now I assume the courts would not issue a CCJ against my address if I tell them she doesn't live here. anyway the end of the conversation is that I can make this all go away if I pay the bill, but he then said if the bill is paid the card will be reactivated and can be used again. A check of your credit reference files would show if the card holders activities have impacted your credit worthiness. If there is an entry on any/all of the 3 then send a letter explaining what has happened so that this can be placed on your file. If court papers are served then return the letter unopened marked "not known at this address" to the court it came from. If you have more than a nodding relationship with your postie you could ask if they recognise the name. If they do then ask for that persons post to be directed there instead. Other than this tgen, as mentioned elsewhere, Citizens Advice could give you help to sort it out. S
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,871
Likes: 4,752
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 1, 2021 7:35:55 GMT
My son-in-law doesn't pay a TV licence and has no interest in watching TV broadcasts. You should see the constant stream of increasingly threatening letters he receives from the BBC. He doesn't. He receives them from Capita Business Services Ltd. Concerning the relationship of the BBC brand with the TV Licensing brand, the BBC's position is stated as: "The TV Licensing brand is separate from the BBC brand. No link between the two brands should be made in customer facing communications, in particular, use of the BBC name and logo".www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wording_and_approval_of_tv_licen#incoming-247162 I don't think that means what you think it does... Nobody is being accused of any criminal offence, let alone convicted of one. People are merely being asked for some evidence to back their word up. This is not unreasonable.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,871
Likes: 4,752
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 1, 2021 7:40:06 GMT
over the last few weeks I've had letters arriving with increasing frequency addressed to someone else at my address. It happens that I know the surnames of the previous 2 residents, and that their occupancy together with mine goes back at least 30 years. ... So the guy says "we will send miss Williams a letter asking her to confirm this is not her address", so I asked where it would be sent to and they quoted my address. I was totally unable to get it through to them that that is pointless as she doesn't and never has lived here. So does her occupation of the property "go back at least 30 years", or has she never lived there? Addresses don't have credit records. People do. Can an address be blacklistedNo – not even if the people who lived there before you had multiple debts and were on shaky financial ground. It doesn’t matter who lived at your address in the past – their financial mistakes won’t be linked to you just because you live in the same house or flat. Your credit score is based on your financial history, not your address. interesting because I know that's wrong I lived in a HMO for a few months and they linked me with other past and current tenants of that property and that adversely affected my credit score No, it's absolutely correct. However, people's credit records can be linked... If you were on a joint utility bill or tenancy contract with those other tenants, or similar. If the debt related to those joint contracts, then all those named are jointly and severally liable. If the other people don't pay "their share", that's your bill.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,807
Likes: 2,283
Member is Online
|
Post by keitha on Jul 1, 2021 10:01:58 GMT
adriancnever lived here, and given the shop name shown on the letter I'd suggest she is under 30.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,807
Likes: 2,283
Member is Online
|
Post by keitha on Jul 1, 2021 10:10:10 GMT
Addresses don't have credit records. People do. interesting because I know that's wrong I lived in a HMO for a few months and they linked me with other past and current tenants of that property and that adversely affected my credit score No, it's absolutely correct. However, people's credit records can be linked... If you were on a joint utility bill or tenancy contract with those other tenants, or similar. If the debt related to those joint contracts, then all those named are jointly and severally liable. If the other people don't pay "their share", that's your bill. yes the example I gave yesterday relating to insurance, one tenant takes out contents insurance on property, the insurance company ( IMHO wrongly ) assume that person is taking it out on behalf of all the tenants. I had no bills or a tenancy agreement in common, but i'd gone through an agency, I now wonder if they had a master agreement with the owner, and therefore unwittingly we had a tenancy agreement in common
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,807
Likes: 2,283
Member is Online
|
Post by keitha on Jul 1, 2021 10:16:56 GMT
It's not reasonable at all. The law of England & Wales is predicated on innocent until proven guilty. People move homes. When a company, or its debt collection agency, is told that a house is under new occupation, that is something they can confirm for themselves... and then stop pestering the new occupants. Why should innocent people be allowed to be harassed in this way? My son-in-law doesn't pay a TV licence and has no interest in watching TV broadcasts. You should see the constant stream of increasingly threatening letters he receives from the BBC. Everyone should remain innocent until proven guilty. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2021 10:59:11 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. Agreed. However, collectors do have specific powers with regard to *CORRECTLY* identified targets. Since the context of this thread is *INCORRECTLY* (or insufficiently) identified targets... in such a case, they have to be much, much more careful how they act. But yes, a lot of their act is about the appearance, rather than the fact, of authority. They rely on many honest peoples fear of conflict and fear of the legal system.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,785
Likes: 2,733
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 1, 2021 12:57:42 GMT
My son-in-law doesn't pay a TV licence and has no interest in watching TV broadcasts. You should see the constant stream of increasingly threatening letters he receives from the BBC. He doesn't. He receives them from Capita Business Services Ltd. Concerning the relationship of the BBC brand with the TV Licensing brand, the BBC's position is stated as: "The TV Licensing brand is separate from the BBC brand. No link between the two brands should be made in customer facing communications, in particular, use of the BBC name and logo".www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wording_and_approval_of_tv_licen#incoming-247162 I wonder why that could be ? I seem to find reasons to dislike the BBC more and more each day.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jul 1, 2021 16:12:13 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.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,807
Likes: 2,283
Member is Online
|
Post by keitha on Jul 1, 2021 19:02:52 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.
|
|