Bailiff and CCJs

Wonky_Radiator

I had a visit from a bailiff this afternoon, who asked for the landlord. I gave him the landlord's phone number and the landlord called me later to tell me not to worry, and that it was in relation to a parking ticket for one of his other tenants.

Frankly, I don't believe him, and I wish that I had now taken the bailiff's details, so that I could contact them to make sure that they won't come around any more.

The bailiff wasn't at all menacing, but I really don't like the idea of them coming back if only my wife and kids are in.

Is there any realistic way of me finding out who the firm are (I very much doubt that the landlord would tell me)?

Also, I am a bit concerned that there could be CCJs connected to this property, which might contaminate the my credit rating or my wife's.

I think that you need an individual's permissions to run a credit check on them, but is it possible to check for CCJs related to a property instead?

Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide.

mickeyfinn1

Someone with more knowledge will be along soon but CCJ's belong to a person, not a property so no worries there. Sorry that you had to deal with that, doesn't sound nice

Jowo_2

No, you can't find CCJs attached to a property. You can only search for CCJs for a particular person at a particular address. Credit rating is for a person.

RAS

Hi

Unless you have any joint accounts with the landlord, your credit rating is not affected by any problems he has. Credit ratings are attached to people, not property.

G_M

I would be suspicious too. Why would a previous tenant's CCJ be relevant to the LL? No, it was him they were looking for.

However it is he that has the credit rating issue, not the property, and not you. Unlikely they'll come back, but just in case, make a photocopy of your tenancy agreement and keep it near the front door. If bailiffs come back, show it to them to prove the LL does not live there but you do. Don't let them in.

The only slight nagging doubt is the LL's mortgage. If he's in financial trouble (rather than just a parking ticket) he might default on his mortgage and the lender might seek to repossess the house. Unlikely, but read up on this with Shelter here so you know what's what.

BitterAndTwisted

It's curious that the bailiff called asking for the landlord but the LL claims they were looking for a previous tenant. That can't be right.

In any case, as advised debts are attached to people and not addresses

sonastin

I wouldn't be overly worried about bailiffs coming back - they know you're renting the place and they ain't gonna find LL there. I suppose another set of bailiffs could come along trying to enforce another debt but as you've already discovered, in general they aren't too menacing and they'll leave you alone once they know you're not the one they're looking for. Its worth keeping some ID and possibly a copy of your tenancy agreement close to the door so you can show it to the bailiffs without letting them in.

Paul_the_Painter

If the Bailiff asked for "Mr XXXXXXX" and that was the name of your landlord - They were probably after him for something (may not be that serious for you) - certainly wouldn't be because your home was about to be repossesed, or you would have a recieved a letter addressed to "the occupier"

If the Bailiff asked for "your landlord" he may well be a very proffessional bailiff who has done a bit of research/knew the previous occupier. Saw that the name on the electoral roll had changed from the person they after, googled the address, saw that it was up for for rent a few months back, then figured the tenants had left, and the best way to track them down was by asking the landlord.

Of course you may get the situation where "Mr XXXXXX" is a large landlord and the Bailiff is after the chap who used to live at number 24, but the new tenants weren't in, and the bailiff knows the same Landlord owns 22,24,26,28,30 and 32, so knocks on your door at number 26 as he has lost the contact for the Landlord.

It could of course be none of the above, but I would not be concerned.