Mackenzie Hall - not my debt

waynehayes

fermi wrote: »

Unless I am mistaken here, we have.

Two letters addressed to "the occupier" stating that they are seeking "this person". That is all. No details of the debt disclosed and no personal details other than the name.

Then another letter actually addressed to him that you (in theory) shouldn't have opened.

Is that correct?

If that is so, then it is sneaky, but not strictly a breach of the "letter" of the guidelines as far as I can see.

First letter - 'To the occupier' - no details apart from 'trying to contact Mr. X for a personal matter'

Second letter - Adressed to 'Mr X' - no details other than that they are trying to contact him.

Third letter - Adressed to 'Mr. X' - details of debt and creditor.

RAS

fermi

They may have weaseled round the OFT Guidelines if there was nothing in the first letters to indicate that they were a debt collector, but even then many people would know their business. "designed to cause embarassment."

Thinking Data Protection. In that context a letter on paper that indicated the company concerned was a debt collector could be in contravention.

fermi

waynehayes wrote: »

First letter - 'To the occupier' - no details apart from 'trying to contact Mr. X for a personal matter'

Second letter - Adressed to 'Mr X' - no details other than that they are trying to contact him.

Third letter - Adressed to 'Mr. X' - details of debt and creditor.

OK same thing applies then.

The first letter didn't disclose anything apart from the name. It was just a "tracing" letter. Sneaky, but not against the guidelines.

The other two you were strictly not entitled to open. Should have really just gone back to sender.

Seems they are acting within the guidelines. Technically as the letter of them stands anyway, if not within the spirit of them.

I can't stand these barstewards, but time and effort in complaining may be futile in this case. Just my opinion though...........

fermi

RAS wrote: »

They may have weaseled round the OFT Guidelines if there was nothing in the first letters to indicate that they were a debt collector, but even then many people would know their business. "designed to cause embarassment."

I can't see that counting.

RAS wrote: »

Thinking Data Protection. In that context a letter on paper that indicated the company concerned was a debt collector could be in contravention.

Nope. Doesn't necessarily indicate that there was a debt.

I'm playing 'devil's advocate' here, sorry.

I think complaining may be wasted effort in this case.

I'm all for complaining when they really do break the guidelines badly,