Letter Before Action sent to my flat but not to me

Ricardo1980

Hello guys,

Today I received a letter from a lawyer (I was expecting one for a completely unrelated topic, that is the reason I opened it by mistake) and then after reading it I realized it was not for me. It is a Letter Before Action, talking about a debt of a few grands and addressed to the tenant was here before me (about one year ago).

What should I do?
I don't want any legal problem. In the same way, I do believe that person should know he/she is being sued, and the lawyer should know that guy is not here, but again, I don't want any legal problem. Should I use tape to fix the letter, write something and let it in a mailbox? Should I call the lawyer?

Any recommendation? Thanks.

unholyangel

You can open mail that arrives at your address - even if its addressed to someone else (providing you dont have malicious intentions like stealing their identity for example).

Are the solicitors a genuine reputable solicitors or one of these "claim" companies where basically they change someone £10 to send a letter with legal jargon with a solicitors name attached to it in a bid to scare people into paying? If the latter I'd ignore it completely. If the former, I'd contact them.

hollydays

If you ever call someone who's chasing for money-phone them from a call box, otherwise you might risk them harassing you by phone.

Ricardo1980

It seems it is a firm specialized in deb recovery. And its client is a big University in UK, so I guess everything is right.

unholyangel

hollydays wrote: »

If you ever call someone who's chasing for money-phone them from a call box, otherwise you might risk them harassing you by phone.

And who would have given them permission to store & process the OP's personal data?

Theres strict rules around chasing debt via phone if memory serves (even where the debt is owed).

But personally I'd email them so OP has a written record of his request which he can then refer to ICO if the company ignore his request and keep sending letters.

worried_jim

Just put it in the bin and forget about it, it's absolutely nothing to do with you and not your problem.

[Deleted User]

You might like to take Elvis Presley's advice here; "She wrote upon it, 'Return To Sender, Address Unknown'...."

steampowered

If you have a forwarding address for him, just forward it on. Otherwise not your problem.

It may be worth informing the debt collection company. Otherwise, there could be further letters. Further legal documents could be served and eventually bailiffs would come round if a CCJ was issued, although the bailiffs obviously couldn't do anything once they visit and realise the previous tenant has moved on.

hollydays

unholyangel wrote: »

And who would have given them permission to store & process the OP's personal data?

Theres strict rules around chasing debt via phone if memory serves (even where the debt is owed).

But personally I'd email them so OP has a written record of his request which he can then refer to ICO if the company ignore his request and keep sending letters.

Yes but debt collectors aren't known for sticking to the rules.
There have been many posts on mse about phone harassment.

unholyangel

hollydays wrote: »

Yes but debt collectors aren't known for sticking to the rules.
There have been many posts on mse about phone harassment.

I know where you're coming from, but I think they were a lot worse before they were regulated by the FCA. Probably because the FCA can fine them, suspend their licence or revoke it - where the OFT had to take court action against them (at least if memory serves).

Its also a lot more clear cut when you arent the debtor because they have no legitimate reason to be contacting you.

Do you guys have a protected minimum balance yet? Always used to strike me as lunacy that we had situations where someone might not be subject to an arrestment of earnings due to earning too little but the second those wages got paid into a bank, they could.

agrinnall

unholyangel wrote: »

Do you guys have a protected minimum balance yet? Always used to strike me as lunacy that we had situations where someone might not be subject to an arrestment of earnings due to earning too little but the second those wages got paid into a bank, they could.

Which 'you guys' are you referring to? Is there a difference in the law regarding this in Scotland and rUK?