MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Would you give debt collectors someone's address?

bandyp

I would give the address. Why should my credit rating suffer because of people I don't even know?

RRatchet

No I wouldn't. The alleged debt is none of my business; I would return any mail to sender. My credit rating would not suffer because of some-one elses debt at that address. However if perchance their name and debt had erroneously being linked to my 'Experian et al' credit report then I would tell the credit reference company to remove that info. We all should be checking our credit file status with these companies on a regular basis in any case.

scubajon

No chance. It's none of my business and my motto is "do unto others" etc.

riffraffsgirl

Having had the same dilemma with the people who previously lived in our house I started off by marking the letters 'return to sender'. This worked for most of the debts that came to our house (for the previous occupiers).

Then started receiving letters about these debts addressed to "the occupier" stating that Debt Collectors would be calling at MY property for a debt that was NOTHING to do with either me or my husband. I had, perchance, found out where the previous occupiers had gone and I took great delight in passing on ALL the information I had found out.

I wouldn't hesitate to do it again either, why should I be left to sort out SOMEONE ELSE'S MESS. Take it with you, is what I say. I can't believe that people could be so naive to think that the debt collection agencies wouldn't catch up with them eventually!!!!

John_H._Maw

It doesn't seem completely straight forward to me. I think it would depend on the exact circumstances. As the question is put, it sounds like a lot of debts owed to many different companies and people. That seems to suggest that the previous tenant was a bit of a serial debtor. If that were the case I would probably pass the details on. It is important to remember that not all companies are ogres swindling the little guy. Some times it is the little guy swindling the companies, and those companies employ little guys too. So the final decision for me would rest on the detail.

Saetana

ANT wrote: »

Saetana wrote: »

I would never shop anyone to the bailiffs for any reason - I totally disagree with using bailiffs in any way for debt collection.

:mad:I have used a bailiff and would do so again without hesitation:mad::mad: :mad:

I had an extension built 3 years ago and to cut a very long and drawn-out story short, my family (i have 2 small children) and i were ripped off with crappy workmanship etc and it cost us an extra £3,000 to sort things out with a proper builder.
To add insult to the fiasco, a relative had passed away and left my family the money for the building work. The scum (i don't want to refer to them as builders because it is an insult to people that are actually builders), left my property in a mess, unfinished and then disappeared from site after receiving too much money for the work that had been done.
We had no choice but to use the courts which involved judgement being made in our favour, (the scum still didn't pay up) then having to enforce this judgement, then using a baliff and then applying for the scum to be questioned in court. I am sure you will agree that this sounds like a lot of hassle for an innocent family to have to endure - it is. We have still not had a penny piece from them and has cost an additional £200 so far.
My family is INNOCENT in all of this.
Bailiffs a bad idea SAETANA? We dont think so.
Bailiffs exist mainly because of the 'runners' (or if you prefer crooks, thieves, scum). If someone has genuine problems then there are ways of sorting things out by actually opening their mouths and talking to the company/person etc concerned. The sort of scum that we have had to deal with deserve everything they get and more.

By the way, we have sinced found out that these scum also cost another family £13,000 (they have children including a baby) and effed and blinded at a female customer because she had the cheek to complain.

If the bailiff had been successful for us then we would have been very grateful. unfortunately it was a no goer. Don't forget that this is OUR MONEY.

STAND UP FOR YOURSELVES AND DON'T BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND. WE ARE SURE THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ON HERE PAY THEIR BILLS/DEBTS.
:TGOOD LUCK TO ALL THE BAILIFFS OUT THERE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :T:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:

I am not advocating people not paying their debts, but I am totally against the use of bailiffs! As I mentioned earlier, we have had problems with bailiffs in the past and we were not doing a runner anywhere! Unless you have had personal experience with bailiffs after you I have to say how can you know just how bad and frightening it is? Bailiffs are not just used against those who "have done a runner", they are used against people in serious financial difficulties who just don't know where to turn. We are now almost debt-free after many years of problems which we wouldn't be if the bailiffs had added their extortionate fees on top.

I have no problem with court action to recover debts but bailiffs are not on, applying for an attachment of earnings/benefit is the way to go (and more certain) and I stand by what I said.

By the way, excessive "shouting" (use of capitals) is considered bad form.

tryfive

lindsayu wrote: »

Have been in this situation before and would definitely pass the details on. Why should I protect someone that I don't know who is making my life a misery?!

Excuse me, but... Exactly WHO is making your life a misery?

The previous occupant, or THE DEBT COLLECTORS WHO REFUSE TO ACCEPT YOU DON'T OWE THEM ANYTHING?

ISTM a lot of people here blame the previous occupant, who has nothing to do with them.

pineisland

farang wrote: »

yes, absolutely.
Why should people use services and buy goods and then not have to pay for them.
If you can not afford it don't buy it.
In the end it is those that pay their bills that end up paying for those that don't.

i totally agree. Couldn't have put it better.:

sam2302

yes i would definatly, :-s good spelling:-)

ses6jwg

I was under the impression that it was up to the Landlord to sort out any outstanding debt on the property from previous tenants?

Am I wrong?