Debt collectors - previous occupier

adouglasmhor

So if you just binned them instead? What then? Also the official website is the one a few people have quoted from, it details the act itself.

caz2703

I could understand the law regarding opening mail if it was to benefit me e.g. opening a parcel from Next or a coloured envolope containing a birthday card and cash which we're fairly sure the people who bought the last house did when my hubby's birthday card was sent there by accident with £20 in it.

As I've said before, we have returned some of the post to sender but when the same company contacts you again you have to presume that they either didn't get the first returned letter or they took no notice. At the end of the day I could return my bills to sender saying I didn't live here so by contacting the companies directly - and at cost I know - they get a record of my name and when the previous occupier moved.

I had a brainwave last night and tried finding the woman and one of her kids on Facebook but no joy. It was worth a try eh?

adouglasmhor

BTW I have my staff open mail on a daily basis that is addressed to our premises but not to any occupier, I then phone, email, write or fax the company or individual concerned to tell them there information is wrong (and give them any other information needed). I have been doing this job at one level or other since the early 90s for the same organisation and have opened letters from Law Firms, Government agencies, Utilities, Royal Mail and the Police. Times prosecuted or even investigated = 0.

liam8282

adouglasmhor wrote: »

BTW I have my staff open mail on a daily basis that is addressed to our premises but not to any occupier, I then phone, email, write or fax the company or individual concerned to tell them there information is wrong (and give them any other information needed). I have been doing this job at one level or other since the early 90s for the same organisation and have opened letters from Law Firms, Government agencies, Utilities, Royal Mail and the Police. Times prosecuted or even investigated = 0.

You have answered that yourself haven't you?

If staff are opening business mail they presumably have authorisation to do so. In my office only 3 people are authorised to open the mail, if I were to go into their offices and start opening it I would be sacked.


Could someone explain how when you can see a letter is clearly addressed to a previous occupier what reason you would have to open it?

Bear in mind, you shouldn't know what the letter is about unless you open it, you can see the letter is not addressed to you and you have no association with the person.


I did say that all of this was very unlikely to happen in my original post, but in theory it is possible.

As there is no precedent, the advice given by Consumer Direct (& OFT), is a much sounder basis of the interpretation of the act, rather than people spouting off on an internet forum.

liam8282

OP, from your posts, you have said several times that debt collectors are contacting you.

As far as I can make out they are not contacting you, they are sending letters to the previous occupier. It is you that is taking it upon yourself to open the letters and in turn you are contacting the debt collectors and creating a lot of stress and hassle for yourself.

caz2703

liam8282 wrote: »

OP, from your posts, you have said several times that debt collectors are contacting you.

As far as I can make out they are not contacting you, they are sending letters to the previous occupier. It is you that is taking it upon yourself to open the letters and in turn you are contacting the debt collectors and creating a lot of stress and hassle for yourself.

The debt collectors are contacting our address and it will be our door they knock on looking for the pervious occupier. I think the amount of stress opening the letters compared to the stress if a debt collector turned up at the door is a lot less. As I have said before, I am not gaining from opening the mail and the only mail that is opened is stuff that is obviously not junk mail. We have returned quite a bit of stuff to sender but it only seems to be circulars e.g. shopping catalogues that have had the desired effect. Again, as I've said before, anyone could 'return to sender' any mail including items that are named & addressed correctly but it seems that only by contacing the sender directly and giving proof that we are not the person they are looking for are the letters slowly stopping.

liam8282

adouglasmhor wrote: »

So if you just binned them instead? What then? Also the official website is the one a few people have quoted from, it details the act itself.

Presumably intentional delay, first point of the Act you posted.

adouglasmhor

liam8282 wrote: »

You have answered that yourself haven't you?

If staff are opening business mail they presumably have authorisation to do so. In my office only 3 people are authorised to open the mail, if I were to go into their offices and start opening it I would be sacked.


Could someone explain how when you can see a letter is clearly addressed to a previous occupier what reason you would have to open it?

Bear in mind, you shouldn't know what the letter is about unless you open it, you can see the letter is not addressed to you and you have no association with the person.


I did say that all of this was very unlikely to happen in my original post, but in theory it is possible.

As there is no precedent, the advice given by Consumer Direct (& OFT), is a much sounder basis of the interpretation of the act, rather than people spouting off on an internet forum.

There can be no previous occupier for our premises as we (or rather the organisation of which we are a heritable successor) built them, therefore any mail to our premises that is for another addressee is possibly a sign of our address being used fraudulently and requires investigation.

If you are happy that someone could be using your home address to gain credit or as guarantor for credit, or as happened to me, giving the address when they bought a TV or DVD recorder to avoid the TV licence people tracking them, ignore them all you want. Don’t start a thread about it when you have the turmoil of sorting it all out later. The scenarios I have given have happened to people more than once.

liam8282

caz2703 wrote: »

The debt collectors are contacting our address and it will be our door they knock on looking for the pervious occupier. I think the amount of stress opening the letters compared to the stress if a debt collector turned up at the door is a lot less. As I have said before, I am not gaining from opening the mail and the only mail that is opened is stuff that is obviously not junk mail. We have returned quite a bit of stuff to sender but it only seems to be circulars e.g. shopping catalogues that have had the desired effect. Again, as I've said before, anyone could 'return to sender' any mail including items that are named & addressed correctly but it seems that only by contacing the sender directly and giving proof that we are not the person they are looking for are the letters slowly stopping.

By the same reckoning anybody could ring up a debt collector and say I am not the person your looking for.....

If you don't like my advice, ignore it.

adouglasmhor

liam8282 wrote: »

Presumably intentional delay, first point of the Act you posted.

the_act wrote:

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—

So householders are now postal operators? You just can't stop yourself can you. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Give you a clue as you obviously haven't got one.
http://www.psc.gov.uk/licensed-postal-operators.html