Letter refusing permission for doorstep visit

spacey2012

The protection of harassment act 1997 has far more teeth.
It has three steps:
The person is warned by the victim not to contact them again.
If Ignored the police must issue a police warning.
If ignored an arrestable offence is committed.

The victim only has to believe or feel the unwarranted contact is causing them alarm and distress.

Hanky_Panky

fermi wrote: »

The precise legality of that letter has been the subject of debate.

Certainly the case that legal or not, it sends the debt collector a clear message that they will not be welcome and that any visit would be a complete waste of their time and money, so most of the time seems to achieve the desired result regardless.

(Assuming the threat to turn up was a genuine one, where in fact most are very empty threats)

I agree, it's very questionable whether these letters have any teeth what-so-ever but they do certainly send a very clear message that the doorstep visitor is not welcome.

Firstly, I'm not sure you can withdraw a right you have agreed to by contract without first fulfilling that contract. In other words you sign a loan agreement giving certain rights - possibly including the right to make a doorstep visit. You can't then withdraw that right without first paying off the loan as you are still bound by the original contract.

Secondly, there is more than one type of visit. They could be sent round purely to collect monies owed and have very little interest in anything else. Not sure you'd be any more likely to speak to these than any other debt collection call. They could however be what some lenders used to call field agents whose remit is entirely different. For them it's not just about getting money out of people, they are also sent round to find out what's going on, maybe fill out an I&E and hopefully come to a sustainable arrangement. This type of action is often taken by the lender just prior to legal action on a mortgage for example to hopefully prevent that from happening.

I have seen both these types in action and you might want to talk to the second type as they will often offer real help and advice. Of course it is entirely up to you and you may have already gone through that process yourself.

Hanky_Panky

spacey2012 wrote: »

The protection of harassment act 1997 has far more teeth.
It has three steps:
The person is warned by the victim not to contact them again.
If Ignored the police must issue a police warning.
If ignored an arrestable offence is committed.

The victim only has to believe or feel the unwarranted contact is causing them alarm and distress.

Good luck with that !

As someone who has successfully had someone prosecuted for harassment for something far more serious than this I can assure you it will take a hell of a lot more than that.

[Deleted User]

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

I have seen both these types in action and you might want to talk to the second type as they will often offer real help and advice.

The problem with talking to a doorstep caller is, there's no proper record of what has been said/agreed.

spacey2012

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

Good luck with that !

As someone who has successfully had someone prosecuted for harassment for something far more serious than this I can assure you it will take a hell of a lot more than that.

I have no doubts it does,but the objective is to put the pest at risk of prosecution and arrest.

stevemLS

As post 14.

Sub-section 1(3) of the Protection of Harrassment Act:

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

So, for doorstep calls, the defence in ss1(3)(c) would appear to be available.

Hanky_Panky

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

The problem with talking to a doorstep caller is, there's no proper record of what has been said/agreed.

Incorrect - it is entirely likely that following agreement both parties would sign to say exactly what has been agreed.

[Deleted User]

But, just like with a phone call, they'll say things they wouldn't put in writing.

harveybobbles

If they turn up (which they wont) just laugh at them and blow rasberries

ghostmadlittlemiss

happy_bunny wrote: »

There is a template for this.

Something like this, adjusted for removal of OFT and inclusion of FCA. There may be a more up to date version.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=23624477&postcount=4

Hi,

Thank you to everyone who posted helpful replies, they've all been very useful. Would the following be acceptable? I've changed OFT to FCA and omitted the bit about having kept a record of the times they've contacted me by phone as I don't want to claim anything that isn't true. I'll give a more detailed reply to all of you this evening.

All the best,

Kayleigh

Dear Sirs,

Account No: XXXXXXXX

Please be advised that I will only communicate with you in writing. Should it be your intention to arrange a doorstep visit, please be advised that under FCA rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make such an appointment with you.

There is an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and, if you do so, you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.

Yours faithfully




Sign digitally