Advice ASAP

ElkyElky

Hey

Something odd happened this morning.

Someone came to my door saying they are from parcel express. And they wanted my mums signature for a parcel. So I told him I'll have to wake her up, anyway he said he'll pop down to the van to get it.

There was no van around. The man came back with a large envelope. My mum signed for it, noticing that the paper he wanted to sign, was handwritten... not like pre-printed like Royal Mail.

My mum was somewhat suspicious and signed her name, but not using her normal signature.

The man said "Thanks. See you in a bit" and walked away. When opening the parcel, it had a brochure in it for Scotland, nothing else. The envelope also didn't have any postage labels on it, nor did it have the flat number.

They either wanted her signature or to see her in person to see what she looks like.

Any idea what this is? Is this a tatic used by debt collection companies or insurance investigators?

never-in-doubt

It would be collections mate - not insurance investigators (wouldn't stand up in court by the deceptive manner)....

Strange though cos usually they send a card with 'parcel to collect - ring this number' or words to that effect.... why did you quote insurance investigators? have you made a claim?

ElkyElky

never-in-doubt wrote: »

It would be collections mate - not insurance investigators (wouldn't stand up in court by the deceptive manner)....

Strange though cos usually they send a card with 'parcel to collect - ring this number' or words to that effect.... why did you quote insurance investigators? have you made a claim?

No, my mum has. She is sueing her former employer because she was assulted at her work. Theres a big battle with her solicitor and their insurance company.

It wasn't delivered by a parcel company, just someone pretending to be from one. I asked to sign for it but he said it had to be my mum. And the fact that he said "See you in a bit" implies he'll be returning.

never-in-doubt

ElkyElky wrote: »

No, my mum has. She is sueing her former employer because she was assulted at her work. Theres a big battle with her solicitor and their insurance company.

It wasn't delivered by a parcel company, just someone pretending to be from one. I asked to sign for it but he said it had to be my mum. And the fact that he said "See you in a bit" implies he'll be returning.

Ok mate, well the employers insurers cannot use deceptive tactics like that - even to test her 'ability' assuming she said she couldn't walk far etc - its entrapment (still inadmissable in court)....

Regards to the comment 'see you later' - don;t worry about it, so long as you do not let them in there is no problem. But to be fair they could be scammers and the fact she signed differently should cover her, plus your account of things (independant witness)....

You could put a sign on your door saying 'DCA's and Insurers beware - big man with raging fists behind closed door - trespassers will be beaten to a pulp' :rotfl: :rotfl:

ElkyElky

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Ok mate, well the employers insurers cannot use deceptive tactics like that - even to test her 'ability' assuming she said she couldn't walk far etc - its entrapment (still inadmissable in court)....

Regards to the comment 'see you later' - don;t worry about it, so long as you do not let them in there is no problem. But to be fair they could be scammers and the fact she signed differently should cover her, plus your account of things (independant witness)....

You could put a sign on your door saying 'DCA's and Insurers beware - big man with raging fists behind closed door - trespassers will be beaten to a pulp' :rotfl: :rotfl:

LOL. I originally thought it was for debt also, maybe even the debt she owes to child benefit.

The brochure that was in the envelope was called "Walk in Scotland". My mum is suing her employer because of a knee injury, and I thought that the brochure title could have been a hint that the insurance investigators were trying to catch her out, or either someone from the disability benefits department.

never-in-doubt

ElkyElky wrote: »

LOL. I originally thought it was for debt also, maybe even the debt she owes to child benefit.

The brochure that was in the envelope was called "Walk in Scotland". My mum is suing her employer because of a knee injury, and I thought that the brochure title could have been a hint that the insurance investigators were trying to catch her out, or either someone from the disability benefits department.

Definitely won't be anything to do with DWP - not their style (remember I used to woork in fraud and investigations there)..... unless they have had a drastic overview of procedure (highly unlikely), this was never allowed in the past.

Just bin the leaflet and ignore it mate - worry not. As for it being ironic, could be coincidence or something but either way, just keep it handy (in case you need prints at a later date) and see what happens in time.

How can you get into debt with CHb? Its preset per child so unless she lied about a child living with her or extending the education time it's almost impossible to have overpayments on supplementary benefits!

ElkyElky

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Definitely won't be anything to do with DWP - not their style (remember I used to woork in fraud and investigations there)..... unless they have had a drastic overview of procedure (highly unlikely), this was never allowed in the past.

Just bin the leaflet and ignore it mate - worry not. As for it being ironic, could be coincidence or something but either way, just keep it handy (in case you need prints at a later date) and see what happens in time.

How can you get into debt with CHb? Its preset per child so unless she lied about a child living with her or extending the education time it's almost impossible to have overpayments on supplementary benefits!

An overpayment from many years ago. She owes them near 5 grand from 10 years ago.

never-in-doubt

ElkyElky wrote: »

An overpayment from many years ago. She owes them near 5 grand from 10 years ago.

Right, how is this possible mate? I explained the process, so it would be almost impossible unless she lied about a child or the time in which they left education? Do you follow? Chb is worked out per child, usually the main one gets £20 and each subsequent one gets £13.20 so even going on todays rates, to owe £5k would mean overpayments spanning 5 years (i.e. 250 weeks)! Back then it would be nearer 8 years of mis-claims...

Anyway, that's not the issue but i'm just trying to establish why it is so much, it just doesn't add up mate!

Moving on, have a look here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/114283-does-statute-barred-rule.html

It is statute barred and so she should send the SB letter from my Unenforceability thread mate

ElkyElky

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Right, how is this possible mate? I explained the process, so it would be almost impossible unless she lied about a child or the time in which they left education? Do you follow? Chb is worked out per child, usually the main one gets £20 and each subsequent one gets £13.20 so even going on todays rates, to owe £5k would mean overpayments spanning 5 years (i.e. 250 weeks)! Back then it would be nearer 8 years of mis-claims...

Anyway, that's not the issue but i'm just trying to establish why it is so much, it just doesn't add up mate!

Moving on, have a look here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/114283-does-statute-barred-rule.html

It is statute barred and so she should send the SB letter from my Unenforceability thread mate

Yeah, I have no idea to be honest. She certainly never lied about having a child. I dunno the situation fully, neither does she. Since she found out they overpaid her, she's never wanted to enquire about it considering it is such a vast amount. Last letter she got about it was about 4 months ago, which went in the shredder and never spoke of again. It was handwritten and hand delivered. :j

As for todays situation, I'll make a note to ask for ID and not sign for any parcel unless expected. My mum is going to be more vigilant now that whomever it was, knows what she looks like and she knows now someone obviously did that for a reason. The piece of paper she signed had nothing else on it except her name and address, which was handwritten, so she couldn't have signed her assets away, that I do know. :rotfl: