🗳️ ELECTION 2024: THE MSE LEADERS' DEBATE Got a burning question you want us to ask the party leaders ahead of the general election? Post them on our dedicated Forum board where you can see and upvote other users' questions, or submit your suggestions via this form. Please note that the Forum's rules on avoiding general political discussion still apply across all boards.
cottager Posts: 934 Forumite
4 March 2016 at 12:56AM
Options
antrobus wrote: »
Why all the pallaver? Just stick it in a letterbox, and scawl 'not known at this address, please return to sender'. There is no need to include any correspondance; it's not like the sender needs any further explanation.
Don't they? A bank we do not and have never had an account or any dealings with has our address for two of its customers who are completely unknown to us and have never lived here. Any financial information the bank passes to credit reference agencies about those customers will potentially be associated with our address.
In any case, might it not be possible for anyone with either dubious intentions or in financial difficulty to think of simply scrawling on an envelope 'not known at this address, please return to sender' as a delaying tactic to avoid being 'caught up with'. For all I know, it could be quite a common ruse and one the banks are familiar with. Why would they necessarily take much notice?
We don't know what these letters contain: they could be notifying a credit of a million quid at one end of the scale to threatening court action or repossession at the other, or anything inbetween. But if it was at the 'bad end', would you want your address potentially mixed up with it, and trust a quick scrawl would put it right or make it go away? Wouldn't you want to know why and how your address ever came to be linked with complete strangers in the first place? Was it simple human error somewhere, or did these people deliberately give a false address? How do we know? We don't. Yes, if it was almost anything else I'd have done the scrawl-and-letterbox thing, and said so in the original post, but not in this instance.
Chances of something bad happening? Realistically pretty low I should think, and a c--kup somewhere is much more likely. But impossible? - no. Evidently not in yours, but in my view correspondance [sic] is a sensible precaution, then IF there are any unwelcome developments in the future, our position possibly caught up somewhere in the middle of it was set out early on.
~cottager
agrinnall Posts: 23,344 Forumite
4 March 2016 at 9:31AM
Options
Credit records are associated with a person not an address.
Ballard Posts: 2,857 Forumite
4 March 2016 at 10:20AM
Options
I have to agree with the OP that rather than returning it to sender I'd write a note explaining the situation and asking them to write back confirming that they accepted that this person does not reside at my address.
I hate verisimilitude.
antrobus Posts: 17,386 Forumite
4 March 2016 at 11:11AM
Options
cottager wrote: »
Don't they?....
That's right. It's always happening..
cottager wrote: »
...Any financial information the bank passes to credit reference agencies about those customers will potentially be associated with our address..
Wrong. As another poster has already explained.
cottager wrote: »
...In any case, might it not be possible for anyone with either dubious intentions or in financial difficulty to think of simply scrawling on an envelope 'not known at this address, please return to sender' as a delaying tactic to avoid being 'caught up with'. For all I know, it could be quite a common ruse and one the banks are familiar with. Why would they necessarily take much notice?...
Possible? It's a rip-roaring certainty.
cottager wrote: »
....We don't know what these letters contain: ...
Then open the foxin letter and find out what it's about. Then you'll have a correspondance address and a telephone number most likely, and you can contact them, tell them you know nothing about this person and put your mind at rest..
Although bear in mind that some people with "either dubious intentions or in financial difficulty" have been known to do that as well as a "delaying tactic" and it's a "quite a common ruse" that "the banks are familiar with" and they don't "necessarily take much notice".
cottager wrote: »
....Chances of something bad happening? Realistically pretty low I should think, and a c--kup somewhere is much more likely. But impossible? - no. Evidently not in yours, but in my view correspondance [sic] is a sensible precaution, then IF there are any unwelcome developments in the future, our position possibly caught up somewhere in the middle of it was set out early on.
Why are you trying to start an argument about something so trivial?
It's really quite simple. You receive a letter at your address for someone of whom you have no knowledge. You either (a) return it to sender unopened or (b) you open it, find out what it's about, and contact the sender.
«12»
This discussion has been closed.
