Help! I'm being chased for a debt...

arcon5

Welshdebtor wrote: »

Wrong

Unless you are now accusing the OP of opening illegal mail Seeing as they know who it is from and what for suggests they opened it.Going by your account they have broken the law. Thankfully they have not as per The Postal Services Act 2000. Unless the address is not not yours you can open the letter legally. You are only committing an offence if you stop/interfere with it getting to the address on the envelope.

Postal Services Act 2000 Section 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.

I don't have time to look it up at the moment but i'm also sure there are privacy laws also applicable.

The letter is not intended for op.

Also, what about HMO type accomodation... if letters we're delivered to an address and not an individual that would mean any house mate would be allow to take receipt and open any letter that arrives -- even if intended for a particular tenant.

Welshdebtor

arcon5 wrote: »

Postal Services Act 2000 Section 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.

I don't have time to look it up at the moment but i'm also sure there are privacy laws also applicable.

The letter is not intended for op.

Those 3 points are my 3 points

He received the letters with his address on - he opened them (as he knows who they are from and what they are about, so must of). Nothing illegal with that, as he needs to check it is not meant for him. By opening them to date or in the future the OP is not committing an offence unless they carry out the first part of (3) the bit you did not make bold. In simples terms the OP can not open it if they intend to cause harm from knowingly opening the mail.

The person it is intended for, has the right to privacy about their debts.The OP has informed 3 that they are not that person, yet they continue to send letters without investigating the OP's claim they are not the person they want.

We all agree the letter is not intended for the OP. They have asked for them to stop, but 3 continue this is an unfair practise and harassment. So they have 3 options, put up with them coming and send them back(OP has said they find this annoying), bin them (OP has hinted they may of done this with the last 2) or try and put a total stop to them by reporting 3 for harassment.

fluffnutter

arcon5 wrote: »

Postal Services Act 2000 Section 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.

I don't have time to look it up at the moment but i'm also sure there are privacy laws also applicable.

The letter is not intended for op.

Also, what about HMO type accomodation... if letters we're delivered to an address and not an individual that would mean any house mate would be allow to take receipt and open any letter that arrives -- even if intended for a particular tenant.

It's not illegal to open someone's mail. Opening mail merely to determine what the content is to, say, see if there's any way you can help redirect it to the correct person, constitutes 'reasonable excuse'.

Detriment, e.g. tampering, fraud, identity theft etc. would have to be proved in order to prosecute someone for opening mail. Merely having a squizz to see what it's about is not classed as being to someone's 'detriment'.

Welshdebtor

arcon5 wrote: »

Postal Services Act 2000 Section 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.

I don't have time to look it up at the moment but i'm also sure there are privacy laws also applicable.

The letter is not intended for op.

Also, what about HMO type accomodation... if letters we're delivered to an address and not an individual that would mean any house mate would be allow to take receipt and open any letter that arrives -- even if intended for a particular tenant.

Just seen your edit. I know what you mean morally it may be wrong but it is not illegal. This is why businesses can open all mail addressed to the property regardless of the name on it.Or the most common user of the fact you can open mail once it has arrived at the address even if for another named person is prisons.

arcon5

Okay, re-reading that point with your comments in mind I agree thats probably irrelevant in ops case.

But the point still remains op is not the intended recipient (as we have agreed) and therefore they are not pursuing op for the debt so how can this be constued as harassment towards op? Simply because it is sent to ops address does not mean they are pursuing the "third party".

Welshdebtor

arcon5 wrote: »

Okay, re-reading that point with your comments in mind I agree thats probably irrelevant in ops case.

But the point still remains op is not the intended recipient (as we have agreed) and therefore they are not pursuing op for the debt so how can this be constued as harassment towards op? Simply because it is sent to ops address does not mean they are pursuing the "third party".

Because 3 have been informed the OP is not the person they want yet they continue to send letters which the OP finds annoying. I would class this as harassment.

Now if you think of it from 3's point of view. This person saying they are not "Ted Baker", could be lying. I guess it is a common excuse used by genuine debtors to get out of paying and one seen often by creditors. So they should stop sending the letters while they investigate the OP's claims, as per OFT Guidelines. This does not appear to be getting done by 3.Thus making it an unfair practise under OFT guidelines plus the real intended person having their debts known to someone else.

I am interested in the OP returning and letting us know if they are from 3 themselves which would suggest a recent debt, or if they are from a DCA. A DCA could of bulk bought some statute barred debts, this being one. Hence why the OP can not tie the name with occupants of the last 7 years. Maybe the person named was there over 7 years ago and this debt as I said is statute barred. Hope that makes sense

arcon5

3 know op is not the person they want -- they never thought op was the person they want. 3 are not sending op any letters, nor harassing op.

3 have never even contacted op.

:wall: :wall:

Welshdebtor

We are going around and around in circles here lol.

Have you forgotten how an address is more legal than the name?
Whose address 3 are bombarding with mail?The Op's

3 have contacted the OP by using his address, does not matter the name is different as per earlier posts (not only by me either but you seem to like just querying my posts for some reason lol).

We have all all given the Op a total of 3 options.

1. Keep sending them back.
2. Bin Them
3. Consider the harassment route.

Only the OP can pick the best one for them.They have tried option 1&2, but maybe they can continue for a while longer, depends how annoying they find it.

Blackjack_Davy

Seems I've started quite a discussion here. I think I'll sit on it for now and see what happens. To one of the earlier queries, it's the mobile company sending the letters about one a week I guess. Debt recovery companies aren't involved (yet). I guess I fear coming home one day and finding the place emptied by the bailiffs! Yes I know it's not a rational fear and they'd probably have to have proof of ID etc etc before they can do anything of that kind. Thanks for the replies.

Welshdebtor

Blackjack_Davy wrote: »

Seems I've started quite a discussion here. I think I'll sit on it for now and see what happens. To one of the earlier queries, it's the mobile company sending the letters about one a week I guess. Debt recovery companies aren't involved (yet). I guess I fear coming home one day and finding the place emptied by the bailiffs! Yes I know it's not a rational fear and they'd probably have to have proof of ID etc etc before they can do anything of that kind. Thanks for the replies.

Yeah you have :rotfl:

Bailiffs would not turn up even if the debt was yours, for a mobile phone debt. As mentioned by others the only visitors you may get is door step collection agents, but these are easy to stop.

I guess you will have to consider all options mentioned. I think they have all been covered, I for one can not think of any other option.

Edit - Possible Option 4 - Give them your name, and hope that stops them. Though some what doubt it, so the other options may be a better choice.