Demands for money - but for a previous occupant

[greenalien]

The major downside of living at an address where someone with a bad debt lived previously is that it can seriously damage your credit rating - might be worth checking with Experian or one of the other credit reference agencies or you may have a problem if you need a loan or a mortgage in the future.

[Blitzen]

The major downside of living at an address where someone with a bad debt lived previously is that it can seriously damage your credit rating - might be worth checking with Experian or one of the other credit reference agencies or you may have a problem if you need a loan or a mortgage in the future.

That used to be the case but not anymore.

Its all done on name now rather than address.

[G4Z]

Thanks for all the advice guys. Saracen, you sound as though you know what you're talking about so I think I'll follow your advice. I really want to avoid the situation of having debt collectors coming to the door - especially as it is more likely that it will be my Wife answering the door.

Heh, your comment reminds me of the issue my girlfriend and I are having. We had a letter through froma debt collection agency addressed to her saying they had bought a debt and she owed them £120 but if she paid now it would be 'reduced' to £60. Well, she got on the phone to them straight away, started getting a bit hysterical and worried about it and was pretty much ready to just pay them what they wanted until I took the phone off her. I just couldn't believe that she was prepared to just take these people at their word even though we were 99% sure we had left the previous address with zero outstanding debts and she certainly didn't recall owing £60/£120. So after asking for some evidence of the debt and them saying I would have to write to get it I ended the call.

Amazingly despite the fact that that they had refused to tell us exactly what the debt was for, how much it was for and when it was from she was still ready to pay them. I was incredulous but she wouldn't listen, so I persuaded her to ring her dad who (surprise surprise) agreed with me entirely and drafted up a nice letter to request the info and advising them that so far our costs for this activity was £20 for time and stationary and we would be seeking redress in the event the claim was bogus. Annoyingly she listened to him saying the exact same thing but when I offer advice I am clearly talking bollocks eh?

Anyway, the point of that little story is simply that it is amazing that even people you thought were perfectly sane will cough to a debt with no evidence and recollection of it, just because they are scared to go to court.

[sammyc]

Anyway, the point of that little story is simply that it is amazing that even people you thought were perfectly sane will cough to a debt with no evidence and recollection of it, just because they are scared to go to court.

good point.

Annoyingly she listened to him saying the exact same thing but when I offer advice I am clearly talking bollocks eh?

I hate it when that happens...

[Saracen]

The major downside of living at an address where someone with a bad debt lived previously is that it can seriously damage your credit rating - might be worth checking with Experian or one of the other credit reference agencies or you may have a problem if you need a loan or a mortgage in the future.

Blitzen is right (or almost, anyway) - it's done by name, not address.

The "almost" bit is that I'd put two reservations on that.

The first is that the debt is in the name of the individual, not house-sharers and not even family members, provided there is no financial association between you. If there is any association between individuals that links them financially, then a link to someone with a bad credit rating can affect yours. But "association" effectively means a situation where they have joint financial arrangements, such as joint accounts, joint mortgage or have take out loans in joint names .... and live at the same address. So husband will wife will probably normally be associated, but parents and children much less often, though it certainly happens.

The second reservation is that these financial links can go on your credit rating in all sorts of ways that you might not realise, but tend not to come off automatically. Apply for a loan with the other person's name and the link probably gets created. Split up, move apart and it very likely doesn't come off unless you ask for it to be removed.

Therefore, for this and other good reasons, it's not a bad idea for anyone concerned about their credit rating to get a credit report periodically. It costs £2 per time, and to be really sure, get one from each of the three agencies, Experian, Equifax and Call Credit, because they don't necessarily all have exactly the same data..

[Saracen]

Thanks for all the advice guys. Saracen, you sound as though you know what you're talking about so I think I'll follow your advice. ....

I hope I do, but Vroom .... I'm just a bloke on a forum. I have no qualifications at all in this field. I've done a fair bit of reading, but that's all it is.

So what I said wasn't advice as such, it was comment on a discussion forum and a remark or two about what I'd do. If you do it, on your head be it.

Seriously though, I will give one piece of advice. If you're concerned about this, and it can be worrying, talk either to Citizen's Advice about it, or one of several national debt counselling organisations or charities. They should be able to give you assistance that you can rely on as advice, and assume they've got some idea what they're talking about. Or, for that matter, if you have an insurance policy that includes cover and advice for legal matters, ring them. Personally, I'd probably either try the CAB or one of those debt specialist organisations, though. They deal with this type of issue every day. Lawyers typically don't.

Oh one more piece of generic advice. Be very careful about assuming anyone on an internet forum actually knows what they're talking about, even if they sound like they do.

[Saracen]

don't think they can touch you for opening mail accidentally, ....

As far as I know, that's correct.

It IS an offence to open (or even just delay) mail, but there's more to it than that.

If you intentionally open or delay a letter, without reasonable excuse, during it's transmission, it's an offence. If it's been delivered, is it still being transmitted? What about if it's delivered, but to the wrong address/person - is that still being transmitted?

If you open a packet, even if incorrectly delivered, it's an offence if it's done intending to act to the addressee's detriment. That makes no stipulation about intending to open it, so accidentally would presumably be ncluded. But I'm having trouble working out how you could intend to be acting to the detriment of the addressee while accidentally opening the letter.

These, incidentally, are in the Postal Services Act 2000.

So while opening letters can be an offence, it seems there needs to be some element of nefarious intent in the process, which would be absent if it was either accidental or ifthe intent was to ascertain the sender to send it back.

[Vroomparrot]

I hope I do, but Vroom .... I'm just a bloke on a forum. I have no qualifications at all in this field. I've done a fair bit of reading, but that's all it is.

Oh one more piece of generic advice. Be very careful about assuming anyone on an internet forum actually knows what they're talking about, even if they sound like they do.

Duly noted

[SiM]

I'm just a bloke on a forum. I have no qualifications at all in this field. I've done a fair bit of reading, but that's all it is.

You have to put that in your sig!!!

[toolsong]

did you hear back from them?

Never

[Rave]

I also am just a bloke on a forum who's done a bit of reading on the subject. And I got the impression that opening other people's mail for whatever reason could potentially be a criminal offence. So I would never own up to that. I'd certanly never open a letter and then contact the sender to say that I'd done so.

Anyway, that said: this other bloke that I know, right, got fed up with marking dozens of letters to various previous occupants of his house "Return To Sender" and posting them all back, especially as almost none of them were actually sent via Royal Mail- they tended to be 'UK Post' or one of those other twatty companies that piggyback a healthy profit off the Royal Mail's hard work. So he grabbed a representative sample, opened them up, and had a shufty. He found that they were demands for sums ranging from £2k+ (for bad credit card debts/overdrafts) to piddling sums like £100 for an unpaid mobile phone bill. He's never had a bailiff show up for any of them.

The only time a bailiff has ever shown up on his door was a couple of months after he moved in. That bailiff was chasing a council tax bill, and his wife just showed him their passports as proof that they weren't who he was chasing. They heard no more about that.

For some reason people are still scared that bailiffs will turn up at their house while they're out, break in, and remove all their stuff as settlement for someone else's debt. Maybe it still happens, but in 5+ years of regular forum surfing, news reading etc., I've never heard of such an instance. I was under the impression that to force entry a bailiff had to have a court order, and be accompanied by a police officer. The police officer is there to officiate, and if you can prove that you're not the debtor, the police officer will tell the bailiff to sling his hook. If some loon of a bailiff does break into your house and try to take your stuff, you can use as much force as is necessary to prevent him doing so. My mate has a 2.5kg metal fire extinguisher in his kitchen in case of such an eventuality, but he doesn't expect to have to use it.