Letter refusing permission for doorstep visit

iolanthe07

But if you just came to an arrangement with your creditors to pay your debts you would avoid all this hassle and unpleasantness.

poppasmurf_bewdley

ghostmadlittlemiss wrote: »

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

And any debt collector would be within their rights to ignore such a letter.

Just how much damages 'for the tort of trespass' do you think would frighten off a company chasing you for money? How much damages do you think a court would award you considering the circumstances of you owing, and the DCA chasing, a legal debt?

Hanky_Panky

Yep - truly pointless letter really.

Hanky_Panky

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

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

Not sure what your point is - if it's the second type of visit that I outlined and that you referred to in your post as well then there will be a written record that both parties sign agreement to. It can't really get much better than that.

ghostmadlittlemiss

Hi,

Sorry for not replying last night, I forgot when I said I would that I was going to Slimming World that night so wouldn't be home until late. 1 lb and a half off though!

Obviously, going by some of your replies, I should have posted more of an explanation when I started the thread so you didn't automatically assume that I was trying to run away from my debts by asking for this letter. I thought I'd be fine just asking for help though as pre-judgement didn't seem to be the attitude of most posters last time I used this site. Anyway, onwards.

In approx Dec 2013, I suffered a nervous breakdown and went from a wage I could just about live on to SSP, which I couldn't. So, stupidly, I borrowed to bridge the gap, believing that I'd get better quickly. I didn't. Eventually, it all fell apart and I even more stupidly stopped paying all of the debts as I could no longer afford repayments and then buried my head in the sand, hoping that my income would improve. That wasn't an entirely delusional thought as I was fighting the DWP for entitlement to DLA at the time, which would then allow me to claim Working Tax Credits, thereby doubling my income and making paying my debts possible. I've now won the battle with the DWP and receive Lower Rate Care. I've filled in the application form for WTC and am very nearly at the end of an extremely long fight. So I decided to get my head back out of the sand and contact StepChange. According to them, my income and outgoings perfectly match, leaving nothing for debt repayments at the moment, so they're putting me on a token payment plan until the WTC start being paid. According to the WTC website, this can take up to 5 weeks.

In summary, I'm not running away from my debts any more, I'm trying to tackle them. However, one of them is threatening a doorstep visit in rather certain terms (the letter says "We will" instead of "We may") so I was looking for a letter to send to them along with the one off StepChange that would hopefully buy me some time until my WTC are being paid and I can make proper repayment arrangements.

Now that I've explained in full, could someone please tell me whether the letter above is now referring to the correct regulator and can therefore be send (irrespective of whether or not the debt collection company is likely to take any notice of it) and also answer the question in my original post re the law if someone leaves the front door of my block of flats unlocked? I'm sorry if I sound hostile in this post, I just didn't think it was the case that people judged each other without all the facts on this forum.

All the best,

Kayleigh

sourcrates

OP the letter is fine, I understand what your saying, you want to deal with this matter, but not on your doorstep, and that's fine, I wouldn't want the morons round either, send them the letter, its more a statement of intent, rather then a statement of fact, it sets out your stall so to speak, they can choose to ignore or not, it really does not matter, if anyone shows up you have no obligation to talk to them, these people work on a cost analysis basis, basically if they think your likely to pay up on the doorstep, they send round john from Watford, if not, they wont waste money or time on it ! nuff said !!
To answer your other question, these are debt collectors, not bailiffs, they have no more rights than you or I do, if they try to force entry to your home, that's breaking and entering, if they walk in uninvited, that's trespass, only a court appointed bailiff can enter your property, and then only under certain circumstances.

ghostmadlittlemiss

sourcrates wrote: »

OP the letter is fine, I understand what your saying, you want to deal with this matter, but not on your doorstep, and that's fine, I wouldn't want the morons round either, send them the letter, its more a statement of intent, rather then a statement of fact, it sets out your stall so to speak, they can choose to ignore or not, it really does not matter, if anyone shows up you have no obligation to talk to them, these people work on a cost analysis basis, basically if they think your likely to pay up on the doorstep, they send round john from Watford, if not, they wont waste money or time on it ! nuff said !!
To answer your other question, these are debt collectors, not bailiffs, they have no more rights than you or I do, if they try to force entry to your home, that's breaking and entering, if they walk in uninvited, that's trespass, only a court appointed bailiff can enter your property, and then only under certain circumstances.

Hi,

Thanks very much for all your help, I really appreciate it.

All the best,

Kayleigh

fevlo

Hi Kayleigh. I just wanted to add my little bit to your thread.
I too have had threats of DCA's visiting at home and as such I used a letter very similar to yours and have had nothing but sucsess.
Infact I was paid £100 compensation when a compnay who had been issued with this letter turned up !
Even if the legality surrounding such a letter is debateable, the letter sets out your desire not to be contacted by a doorstepper.

If a DCA chooses to ignore your letter and a doorstepper turnes up they simply need to be told to leave your property...end of.
If they dont then call the police and let them deal with the individual.

jamesd

ghostmadlittlemiss wrote: »

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

There is no such FCA rule. As part of its transitional provisions the FCA has said that creditors should follow "OFT664 Rev 2 "July 2003 (updated November 2012)" and that makes it clear that appointments are not mandatory, writing "Debt collectors who can show that the debt is due and that any dispute has been looked into and the debt confirmed will not be in breach of this provision".

"3 CLARIFICATION NOTE
Debt Collection visits
Paragraphs 2.12f and 2.12 g of the Debt collection guidance
Both these paragraphs relate to debt collection visits.
We have clarified the context for these provisions and defined the terms we use as follows:
Our aim is to ensure that visits are not used in a threatening way. We have seen examples of letters and other communications where debt collectors refer to visits in vague and/or threatening ways and cases where visits are not appropriate.

2.12f: Visiting or threatening to visit debtors without prior agreement when the debt is deadlocked or disputed.

By 'deadlocked' we mean where a debtor (or debtor’s adviser) agrees there is a debt and has offered a repayment programme which has not been agreed by the creditor or debt collector. We are not saying that any offer must be accepted but we have seen cases where offers are disregarded and a debtor is told that 'we are sending field agents'. Many debtors are unlikely to understand this term and are likely to view the visit as a threat designed to make them offer more money when they can pay no more. Some letters appear to be designed to give this impression.

By 'disputed' we mean genuinely disputed. We are not seeking to protect 'won’t pays' but those who are being pursued for a debt they do not owe or genuinely believe they do not owe. Debt collectors who can show that the debt is due and that any dispute has been looked into and the debt confirmed will not be in breach of this provision.

2.12g: Not giving adequate notice of the time and date of a visit

When a door-to-door debt collector makes an initial home visit to a debtor it may not always be possible for them to give adequate notice of the time and date of that visit. This is not necessarily unfair.

The key word is adequate. This was inserted to ensure that what the debtor regarded as adequate was key.

What is adequate will vary from debtor to debtor. When initial contact is made a debtor may be happy to speak to the debt collector there and then. If that is the case the visit would not be unfair. Where a debtor prefers to use that first visit to agree to a future visit at a more convenient time a debt collector should respect their wishes. A debtor may prefer to do so at a later date so they can seek advice about their situation or arrange for a third party to be there. What is important is that a debtor is given enough time to prepare. They should never be coerced into immediate discussions."

However, the guidance does include as examples of unfair practice:

"d. entering a property uninvited
e. not leaving a property when asked to"

and for the present purpose it is likely to be sufficient to advise the creditor that it is intended that for any visit, the visitor will be told to leave immediately.

Combining that with a withdrawing of the common law right of access should make the likely futility of visits clear, at least until the visitors change from field agents to bailiffs enforcing a court order.