potential scam on rent charges

theycallmetrinity

hi all I would like to give some Facts of a potential scam that is going on in my area. I would like you to read it and raise awareness in case similar happen to you.

1. In 2015, my wife purchased a property in south east England, registered solely in her name. The title includes a restriction known as a "Deed of Rent Charges," referencing a limited company, which i will refer as JoyceXXX.
2. We resided in the property for two years before renting it out for the past eight years.
3. Throughout this period, we have maintained regular contact with the letting agency, tenant, and neighbors. Neither we nor the neighbors received any communication from JoyceXXX during this time.
4. During the most recent mortgage renewal about 6 years ago, the bank (NatWest) required a response from JoyceXXX due to the title restriction. Despite our efforts, including visiting the company’s offices, we received no response for months. Eventually, the bank proceeded with the renewal.
5. On August 11, 2025, my wife received an anonymous call from an individual claiming to represent NatWest, her mortgage lender. The caller requested her date of birth and residential address, which she provided. The caller then stated that the director of JoyceXXX had contacted the bank regarding an outstanding charge and provided a mobile number and the director’s name, urging my wife to contact them immediately.
6. Concerned about the call’s legitimacy, I advised my wife to verify with NatWest. The bank denied making any such call or sharing third-party information and recommended reporting the incident to Action Fraud, which we did.
7. On August 22, 2025, we received a hand-delivered envelope containing an invoice from JoyceXXX, which stated:

We have yet to receive any communication regarding the matter despite also speaking with the lender listed within the Title document. The telephone operative at National Westminster Bank kindly called yourself and passed contact details to make contact regarding the above as they appreciated the seriousness of the matter at hand. We have still received no communication from you. The outstanding balance now stands at £236.87, including any applicable late fees and interest (see statement attached). Further investigation has revealed 13 LXXX Road, as a contact address.

1. Action Fraud advised against contacting the provided phone number or email, as doing so might compromise potential evidence for a police investigation.
2. Neighbors informed us they received similar hand-delivered invoices and paid them, all 99 properties in the area, believing the demands to be legitimate. They noted that JoyceXXX held a meeting, claiming that previous management companies were fraudulent and that they aimed to rectify past mismanagement. The neighbors also confirmed that communal area maintenance had been performed.
3. Like my wife’s property, the neighbors’ titles include the same rent charge restriction referencing JoyceXXX.
4. Upon reviewing Companies House, I found that the directors of JoyceXXX are associated with previously dissolved companies, which were purportedly responsible for managing these rent charges. These directors reportedly described the prior companies as fraudulent during those meetings with the neighborhood, i was told by couple of residents.
5. I contacted former residents of the same road who sold their properties 6 years ago. One individual reported that a similarly named company, JoyceZZZ ( now dissolved ) , demanded payment to release documents required for their property sale.

I have taken the following steps:

• Reported the matter to Action Fraud, who are yet to respond.
• Contacted the Land Registry, Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), NatWest, and Citizens Advice, all of whom advised reporting to Action Fraud.
• Instructed our letting agency and tenant not to disclose our details to any third party and to contact us directly if approached.

Questions for you... hoping to get your opinion not legal advice.

1. If JoyceXXX is a legitimate entity, why would they impersonate NatWest in a phone call?
2.  why Hand Deliver the letters themselves. I would expect a signed-for or a recorded post.as this way they cannot prove to have served me, i can deny too.
3. How could JoyceXXX in their letter claim awareness of a call from NatWest, given the bank’s denial of involvement?
4. Given the advice from multiple authorities to report to Action Fraud, should I wait for their response, or are there additional steps I should take?
5. Considering the neighbours’ payments and their belief in JoyceXXX’s legitimacy, contrasted with the suspicious call and letter, how can I determine whether this is a legitimate demand or potential fraud?

Next Steps

I am awaiting Action Fraud’s response but am uncertain whether to take further action independently. I would greatly appreciate your opinions.

elsien

As that was very long, I have only  skim read it.
Do not wait for a reply from action fraud because you won’t get one – they don’t work like that.
Regardless of how the invoices are being delivered, surely you checked out that  there was a genuine deed of rent charges when you bought the property, and who it was owed to. So why have you suddenly decided that it’s now a fraud

sheramber

When you report to us you will receive a police crime reference number. Reports taken are passed to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. Action Fraud does not investigate the cases and cannot advise you on the progress of a case.

https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/what-is-action-fraud

theycallmetrinity

elsien said:

As that was very long, I have only  skim read it.
Do not wait for a reply from action fraud because you won’t get one – they don’t work like that.
Regardless of how the invoices are being delivered, surely you checked out that  there was a genuine deed of rent charges when you bought the property, and who it was owed to. So why have you suddenly decided that it’s now a fraud

Very simple. The way i was contacted is fraudulent. Most likely if i was contacted by phone by them i would have fell for the scam ( alleged ) myself. They also outlined in the letter the way i was contacted so in case of legal action they themselves said they impersonated the bank which is illegal. also if really was legit why not assuring that i receive the letter by posting it recorded or signed-for. so is all smelly of a scam. 

MyRealNameToo

theycallmetrinity said:

1. If JoyceXXX is a legitimate entity, why would they impersonate NatWest in a phone call?
2.  why Hand Deliver the letters themselves. I would expect a signed-for or a recorded post.as this way they cannot prove to have served me, i can deny too.
3. How could JoyceXXX in their letter claim awareness of a call from NatWest, given the bank’s denial of involvement?
4. Given the advice from multiple authorities to report to Action Fraud, should I wait for their response, or are there additional steps I should take?
5. Considering the neighbours’ payments and their belief in JoyceXXX’s legitimacy, contrasted with the suspicious call and letter, how can I determine whether this is a legitimate demand or potential fraud?

1. Legitimate companies can still have staff that go rogue. In a big company you would hope they have the processes and controls to reduce the risks and spot problems but even then there are still isolated cases of staff recording customers card numbers and other such frauds. 

There have been many instances of people on this site suggesting that others do illegal things (obv not murder or shop lifting), just one of those need to be given a job like as the new head of recoveries and little oversight and they may consider the ends justify the means. 

2. Presumably as it was convenient for who ever did it? You dont send stuff recorded if you want to prove someone got it because that makes it easy for them to refuse delivery and have a record they never received it. Instead you send it normal post but get a certificate of posting, the law will assume it was delivered in 2 business days unless the recipient can prove they didnt receive it... proving the negative is very hard.

3. Either its NW member of staff not doing what they should have or they know because it was them feigning to be from NW. Let you decide which is more likely. 

4. You're not likely to get a material response from Action Fraud. It is the right course of action but they get over 2,000 notifications a day. According to a parliamentary question there are 95 FTE members of first line staff in Action fraud so in principle that means each one is getting 21 new cases added to their file load daily. 

5. You state the legal entity they are naming is dissolved? Then it's not legitimate. 

theycallmetrinity

MyRealNameToo said:

theycallmetrinity said:

1. If JoyceXXX is a legitimate entity, why would they impersonate NatWest in a phone call?
2.  why Hand Deliver the letters themselves. I would expect a signed-for or a recorded post.as this way they cannot prove to have served me, i can deny too.
3. How could JoyceXXX in their letter claim awareness of a call from NatWest, given the bank’s denial of involvement?
4. Given the advice from multiple authorities to report to Action Fraud, should I wait for their response, or are there additional steps I should take?
5. Considering the neighbours’ payments and their belief in JoyceXXX’s legitimacy, contrasted with the suspicious call and letter, how can I determine whether this is a legitimate demand or potential fraud?

1. Legitimate companies can still have staff that go rogue. In a big company you would hope they have the processes and controls to reduce the risks and spot problems but even then there are still isolated cases of staff recording customers card numbers and other such frauds. 

There have been many instances of people on this site suggesting that others do illegal things (obv not murder or shop lifting), just one of those need to be given a job like as the new head of recoveries and little oversight and they may consider the ends justify the means. 

2. Presumably as it was convenient for who ever did it? You dont send stuff recorded if you want to prove someone got it because that makes it easy for them to refuse delivery and have a record they never received it. Instead you send it normal post but get a certificate of posting, the law will assume it was delivered in 2 business days unless the recipient can prove they didnt receive it... proving the negative is very hard.

3. Either its NW member of staff not doing what they should have or they know because it was them feigning to be from NW. Let you decide which is more likely. 

4. You're not likely to get a material response from Action Fraud. It is the right course of action but they get over 2,000 notifications a day. According to a parliamentary question there are 95 FTE members of first line staff in Action fraud so in principle that means each one is getting 21 new cases added to their file load daily. 

5. You state the legal entity they are naming is dissolved? Then it's not legitimate. 

on your point 3.
of course it was them, because there is no way they could have known i was contacted by natwest and also natwest themselves denied involvement. 
on your point 4.
I contacted the fraud team of the land registry, the ICO, and the bank and they all told me to contact the action fraud. so if they will never get back to me, what we citizens needs to do ?
on your point 5.
it might be a misunderstanding but i meant the same directors were in the similar management companies that were supposed to be the rent charges management and these companies were opened and then dissolved over 10 years i got the property  

user1977

theycallmetrinity said:

How could JoyceXXX in their letter claim awareness of a call from NatWest, given the bank’s denial of involvement?

Because the bank were wrong and the call was actually from NatWest? That seems the most likely explanation of the story. Otherwise it's a strangely convoluted scam.

theycallmetrinity

user1977 said:

theycallmetrinity said:

How could JoyceXXX in their letter claim awareness of a call from NatWest, given the bank’s denial of involvement?

Because the bank were wrong and the call was actually from NatWest? That seems the most likely explanation of the story. Otherwise it's a strangely convoluted scam.

well, the fraud team at natwest said to treat it as a scam as the bank would never call a customer to pass a third party message regardless of the importance. and i was told to open a case with action fraud. but everybody so far said the action fraud would not do anything. so what to do instead? I could potentially confront them.... but as the action fraud team meber said, they could destroy evidence, dissolve the company etc etc... so ? what would you do?  

user1977

But you know which company is the rent charge holder, and presumably know whether or not you owe them anything? As long as you know you are contacting them and not a third party, I'm not sure what the fraud would be. The fact they have a history of being associated with dissolved companies is irrelevant.

MeteredOut

Isn't the simplest thing to contact the rent charge holder via contact details you know are true and ask them if they're trying to contact property owners?

theycallmetrinity

user1977 said:

But you know which company is the rent charge holder, and presumably know whether or not you owe them anything? As long as you know you are contacting them and not a third party, I'm not sure what the fraud would be. The fact they have a history of being associated with dissolved companies is irrelevant.

Look there are 3 important facts here 
1. the way i was approached. 
2. the latter is hand-delivered by one of them not a postman
3. the letter state exactly that natwest called me to pass the message.

would you not treat it as suspicious??

My first reaction would have been to call the mobile number they passed or to email them after the letter but since i was told by the action fraud team not to contact them i decided to follow their advice. 

my question here also is, if the action fraud in 6 months or a year does not contact me?