baileffs calling for someone that lived in our house - help please!!!

mikey72

hethmar wrote: »

We had this too - basically I just told them the name of the estate agent where we had bought the property, showed them a letter addressed to us with a different name to that they were chasing and they were very apologetic.

Ring them and ring the county court too if you want as they would have issued the warrant.

This was more my experience as well. They are doing a job, they aren't the spawn of satan.
They was quite pleasant when they realised we weren't who they were after, and apologetic.
However, life is much easier if you prove you're not the previous tennant, and work with the bailiffs. I had no problem telling the bailiff anything I could, particuarly as the tennants had left all the debt behind and I had to sort it out. You can imagine the number of times the bailiffs must have heard "no that's not me" though.

hethmar

Yes, you have to look at it from there point of view, I expect they hear that many times a day - "its not me". As long as you can show some identity and give them details of the estate agent or anything else relevant you will be fine.

sooz

I quite agree with the last few posts. The advice about not letting them in is appropriate if it were your debts. But they are not.

Call the number on the letter you received & talk to them, explaining that the person named doesn't live there. Then confirm your conversation in writing, by recorded delivery.

I've had to do this a few times, & never has a bailiff been unreasonable on the phone. The ones I talk to are normally collecting on behalf of tfl, where a previous tenant has not realised they had been caught by the congestion charge cameras/traffic warden/bus lane camera etc. A year later it comes back to haunt them, with HUGE interest!

money_saving_diva

Thank you all. Yesterday I went to the court office which had been addressed on the form and explained. i had to write a statement to the bailiff to explain who now lives in house and the dates etc and they said they would ring me today if there was a problem and they haven't so I am hoping that is the end of it. Although I have a horrible feeling this bloke might have more debts at this address and this might happen again but all your advice has really helped.

Should I now open mail addressed to this person to stop it getting this far again? Is it legal to do so??

Thank you

Incisor

money_saving_diva wrote: »

Thank you all. Yesterday I went to the court office which had been addressed on the form and explained. i had to write a statement to the bailiff to explain who now lives in house and the dates etc and they said they would ring me today if there was a problem and they haven't so I am hoping that is the end of it. Although I have a horrible feeling this bloke might have more debts at this address and this might happen again but all your advice has really helped.

Should I now open mail addressed to this person to stop it getting this far again? Is it legal to do so??

Oh, well done! seems like going to the courthouse is the thing to do then?

As for the mail, this question is an old chestnut here and no doubt I will get all the nay sayers up in arms with this: Given the distress you have been caused, I think you would now be well advised to open and look at everything like this to see whether there is a risk of more grief. On the legal position, the regs that the nay sayers tend to quote refer to mail in transit. If it has your address on it, you can argue it has been delivered so you are not interfering with mail in transit, so it is not illegal to open it to deal with it properly. After all a letter addressed to Mr<Not MoneySavingDiva> could be sent to the addressee in his capacity of [former] occupier of your address or in a personal capacity. When it comes to bailiffs, you are well entitled to know about court orders which render your property liable to seizure.

tbs624

Agree with Incisor - the law uses the phrase "without reasonable excuse" when referring to opening someone else's post delivered to you. I'd say stopping the arrival of more bailiffs at your home comes under the heading of a reasonable excuse.

uk_steve

Imp wrote: »

DO NOT LET THE BAILIFFS INSIDE YOUR HOUSE.

DO NOT LET THEM INTO YOUR HOUSE.

Sorry to sound thick here maybe:rolleyes:
Even if you let them in if you are not the person they are looking for? then they can not remove items without the person being there in the 1st place.

if you bought the house? even stronger case they cant do it surly as well because of mortgage letters,legal letters etc

Mutton_Geoff

The bailiffs won't be the slightest bit interested in you or your possessions, but having heard all sorts of excuses from the average scroats, they will just need to establish you are who you say you are. This can all be done perfectly reasonably without any stress. Forget contacting the company by post or returning mail "not known at this address" as this tactic is often done by scumbags in residence so is generally ignored by the firms.

I don't think a new occupier has "reasonable excuse" to open someone elses mail under these circumstances. Return to sender is the only real option.

Section 84: Interfering with the mail: general

127. Section 84(1) provides for it to be an offence if persons intentionally delay or open postal packets without reasonable excuse. It amalgamates the content of offences previously included in the Post Office Act 1953.
Link to regulations

PS They are tenants, not tennants!

Incisor

Mutton_Geoff wrote: »

... I don't think a new occupier has "reasonable excuse" to open someone elses mail under these circumstances. Return to sender is the only real option.

Section 84: Interfering with the mail: general

127. Section 84(1) provides for it to be an offence if persons intentionally delay or open postal packets without reasonable excuse. It amalgamates the content of offences previously included in the Post Office Act 1953.
Link to regulations

PS They are tenants, not tennants!

That is thoroughly misleading. Your "link to regulations" is no such thing, it is actuallly a link to explanatory notes which have no legal force, although they do suit your theory. The actual legislation says:

84 Interfering with the mail: general

(1) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he—
(a) intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or
(b) intentionally opens a mail-bag.
(2) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 83 apply to subsection (1) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.
(3) A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 83 (so far as they relate to the opening of postal packets) apply to subsection (3) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.
(5) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

Now, read what it actually says. It applies to mail bags and to mail in the course of its transmission. It does not apply to mail which has been delivered, even less so to mail which has been delivered to the correct address. And of course there is the reasonable excuse.

So, bear in mind that this question comes up every time someone posts here having moved into a place and then discovering that they are getting attention from bailiffs after a previous occupier. It is stressful enough to have the fear of bailiffs taking your possessions. It is reaching the stage of being despicable, the extent to which posters falsely pile on top of this stress the fear of being prosecuted for opening mail addressed to previous occupiers. Opening mail may be the only warning of a court order against your address. That is reasonable excuse.

karenj

We had the same problem with a car we had sold 2 years previously and had the bailiffs round for unpaid penalty charges. We were told, under no circumstances, to contact the bailiff or the debt collection agency. There was no debt outstanding, the fines that they were trying to collect were nothing to do with us - just that the DVLA, for a change (!) had not re-registered the car to the new owner. Eventually it all got sorted, with no further redress, but only after I had made several complaints to the DVLA and the council concerned who tried to charge my OH for driving offences that he hadn't committed.