Help, problems with previous owners.

DVardysShadow

iscrimger wrote: »

You should never open someone else's mail (it is a criminal offence) and some proof you now own the property and they no longer do should be enough to get rid of the bailiff.

Every time that old chest nut turns up and is supported by a link, it turns out that the 'law' actually refers to post in transmission - which is not the case here.

DVardysShadow

princeofpounds wrote: »

Normally bailiffs are totally ok. You should be able to show them something to demonstrate that you are not the person they are looking for and they walk away. Usually speaking to the office suffices.

You did the right thing not letting them in, as they can then force entry subsequently.

What that one did was unacceptable. You should complain to his company and then to the SIA.

Only if they are acting on a court order. It is right not to let them in

DVardysShadow

PasturesNew wrote: »

In the past I've opened such letters and phoned the company, then never had another letter.

The best thing you can do is grab yourself an information/proof pack that you are who you say you are and you bought the house. e.g. passport and letter from solicitor/mortgage company showing the date. Then give them that to see and pass them the wife's address.

I think that the only thing which is required [and it is on public record - is a copy of the title document from the Land Registry, showing a sale date and who sold the property. Often, when you buy, the solicitor sends a copy through.

poppysarah

"not at this address" in big black pen and put it back in the post.
solves the problem. Don't forward it to the person either - make them change their address if they want their post.

chambta

I'm pretty sure it's not 'illegal' to open someone else's mail that drops through your door.

BitterAndTwisted

You're right, it's not illegal to open someone else's post, it's illegal to put it to fraudulent use

jonathon

I always thought it was an offence to open someone elses mail.
see postel services act 2000.

PART V
Part V Offences in relation to Postal Services

Offences of interfering with the mail

83 Interfering with the mail: postal operators

(1) A person who is engaged in the business of a postal operator commits an offence if, contrary to his duty and 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) Subsection (1) does not apply to the delaying or opening of a postal packet or the opening of a mail-bag under the authority of—
(a) this Act or any other enactment (including, in particular, in pursuance of a warrant issued under any other enactment), or
(b) any directly applicable Community provision.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the delaying or opening of a postal packet in accordance with any terms and conditions applicable to its transmission by post.
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to the delaying of a postal packet as a result of industrial action in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
(5) In subsection (4) “trade dispute” has the meaning given by section 244 of the [1992 c. 52.] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 or Article 127 of the [S.I. 1995/1980 (N.I.12).] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995; and the reference to industrial action shall be construed in accordance with that Act or (as the case may be) that Order.
(6) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both,
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.
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.

not_loaded

84
(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.

So clearly no offence here then!

Also a bailiff, no matter what documents he may have, has no right of entry to someone else’s property. It’s the named person and his belongings he has rights over, not the property.

Welshwoofs

We had this problem in a previous rented property, a private bailiff turning up to extract money the previous tenant owed. The bailiff I got round was extremely unpleasant and threatened to take my car as it was parked on the driveway. Private bailiffs are total scum IMO; they'll use any tactics they can to extract money, even if it's out of someone who doesn't owe it!

Anyway, to the point. A private bailiff can only operate if they've been granted a licence by a County Court and they have to carry ID on them to show they are licenced. You have a RIGHT to see that ID. You need to see it, note down the information on it and then put in a complaint to the County Court who issued his licence. If you have a video camera or a mobile phone which videos, USE IT when they next turn up so you have evidence of him misrepresenting his powers or trying anything that is illegal.

Most of all - DO NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY THESE INDIVIDUALS

Now I solved my issue with a bailiff fairly easily (and boy was he a nasty piece of work!). I demanded to see his ID, took a note of all his information and sent a complaint letter to his company, the issuing County Court and my local MP for good measure. However on the rather 'grey' side of things, I also used that information to locate his home address (combination of electoral register and him using Facebook for private stuff) and I sent him a nice little letter telling him that if I ever saw him around my house again, he'd be getting his personal information posted to every website with anti-bailiff sentiments imaginable.

Never heard from him again...

Running_Horse

Welshwoofs wrote: »

Now I solved my issue with a bailiff fairly easily (and boy was he a nasty piece of work!). I demanded to see his ID, took a note of all his information and sent a complaint letter to his company, the issuing County Court and my local MP for good measure. However on the rather 'grey' side of things, I also used that information to locate his home address (combination of electoral register and him using Facebook for private stuff) and I sent him a nice little letter telling him that if I ever saw him around my house again, he'd be getting his personal information posted to every website with anti-bailiff sentiments imaginable.

Never heard from him again...

I like your style.:T