LETTER USED WHEN A DCA THREATENS A DOORSTEP VISIT [Scottish Version??]

[yoyoscot]

Hi... I'm new to the forum. The letter below [from another part of the forum - see link below] is tailored for English law, with a Scottish interpretation. Is anyone able to confirm that the Scottish version [below] is good to go?

 

Thanks

 

- - -

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/590-letter-used-when-a-dca-threatens-a-doorstep-visit-.html

- - -

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Account Ref xxxx

 

Please be advised that I will only communicate with you in writing. I have noted your repeated attempts to contact me by telephone over the past few weeks/months and these have been duly logged by time and date.

 

Furthermore, should it be your intention to arrange a “doorstep call”, please be advised that under OFT 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 only an implied license under Scots Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc. Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives, to visit me at my property and if you attempt to send such a collector to my home, you will also be reported for harassment and I shall seek damages for a delict of trespass. You would also be liable for conspiring in a delict of trespass by acting in defiance of my instructions and sending someone to visit me nevertheless. Should it be necessary, I will obtain an interdict from the Court to prevent you carrying out your threat.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Remember to print your name never sign it.

Edited November 9, 2009 by yoyoscot
Error on my part that I'd like to rectify for other viewers

[MARTIN3030]

Welcome to the site.

This letter should be ok to use in your case.

[yoyoscot]

Thanks Martin3030.

 

Just wanted to double-check.

[MARTIN3030]

Ok no problems.Can you say who is the DCA or collections firm chasing ?

And who is the lender/creditor ?

[yoyoscot]

Hi Martin,

 

I'm in a fair bit of bother which is all related to a three-year legal battle to remain in contact with my children following the break-up of my marriage. My business was a casualty and with the economy in the toilet I'm now unemployed and on benefits. So here goes:

 

Bank of Scotland

Citibank

Egg

Halifax

Northern Rock

MBNA

Mint

Tesco

 

Most if not all of these accounts have now defaulted. Most of the above recently rejected a settlement offer that I made - this amounted to all that I could raise from my family.

 

Scott & Co [Council Tax] – I’m disputing this with good reason, but I’ve gone through the whole process including going to the SPSO without success. The SPSO’s decision was that the council weren’t wholly to blame [which sounds to me like they accepted the council was partly to blame].

 

I have other outstanding liabilities too, again relating to legal bills but these aren’t as pressing at this stage.

 

Cheers

Edited January 26, 2010 by yoyoscot
update

[Scottish Roddy]

I shall seek damages for a delict of trespass. You would also be liable for conspiring in a delict of trespass by acting in defiance of my instructions and sending someone to visit me nevertheless. Should it be necessary, I will obtain an interdict from the Court to prevent you carrying out your threat.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Remember to print your name never sign it.

 

I believe there is no law of trespass as such in Scotland. Is this paragraph therefore inappropriate in the Scottish jurisdiction?

 

Rod

[IdaInFife]

correct ROD but DCA's don't know it

[MARTIN3030]

No thats got to be a +

[nick20045]

Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 2)

 

6 Land over which access rights not exercisable

 

(1) The land in respect of which access rights are not exercisable is land—

(a) to the extent that there is on it—

(i) a building or other structure or works, plant or fixed machinery;

(ii) a caravan, tent or other place affording a person privacy or shelter;

(b) which—

(i) forms the curtilage of a building which is not a house or of a group of buildings none of which is a house;

(ii) forms a compound or other enclosure containing any such structure, works, plant or fixed machinery as is referred to in paragraph (a)(i) above;

(iii) consists of land contiguous to and used for the purposes of a school; or

(iv) comprises, in relation to a house or any of the places mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii) above, sufficient adjacent land to enable persons living there to have reasonable measures of privacy in that house or place and to ensure that their enjoyment of that house or place is not unreasonably disturbed;

© to which, not being land within paragraph (b)(iv) above, two or more persons have rights in common and which is used by those persons as a private garden;

(d) to which public access is, by or under any enactment other than this Act, prohibited, excluded or restricted;

(e) which has been developed or set out—

(i) as a sports or playing field; or

(ii) for a particular recreational purpose;

(f) to which—

(i) for not fewer than 90 days in the year ending on 31st January 2001, members of the public were admitted only on payment; and

(ii) after that date, and for not fewer than 90 days in each year beginning on 1st February 2001, members of the public are, or are to be, so admitted;

(g) on which—

(i) building, civil engineering or demolition works; or

(ii) works being carried out by a statutory undertaker for the purposes of the undertaking,

are being carried out;

(h) which is used for the working of minerals by surface workings (including quarrying);

(i) in which crops have been sown or are growing;

(j) which has been specified in an order under section 11 or in byelaws under section 12 below as land in respect of which access rights are not exercisable.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(i) above, a bridge, tunnel, causeway, launching site, groyne, weir, boulder weir, embankment of a canalised waterway, fence, wall or anything designed to facilitate passage is not to be regarded as a structure.

7 Provisions supplementing and qualifying section 6

 

(1) Section 6 above does not prevent or restrict the exercise of access rights over any land which is a core path.

(2) Land which bears to be within section 6 above by virtue of a development or change of use for which planning permission was or is required under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8) shall, if—

(a) such planning permission has not been granted; or

(b) such permission was granted subject to a condition which has not been complied with,

be regarded, for the purposes of that section, as if that development or change of use had not occurred.

(3) Where planning permission for such a development or change of use of land has been granted, the land shall, for the purposes of section 6 above, be regarded, while that development or change of use is taking place in accordance with the permission, as having been developed or having had its use changed accordingly.

(4) In section 6(1)(b)(iii) above, “school” means not only a school within the meaning of section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (c. 44) but also any other institution which provides education for children below school age within the meaning of that provision.

(5) There are included among the factors which go to determine what extent of land is sufficient for the purposes mentioned in section 6(1)(b)(iv) above, the location and other characteristics of the house or other place.

(6) For the purposes of section 6(1)(d) above, access rights do not extend to the land to which public access is prohibited, excluded or restricted only to the extent of the prohibition, exclusion or restriction.

(7) Section 6(1)(e) above prevents the exercise of access rights over land to which it applies only if—

(a) the land is being used for the purpose for which it has been developed or set out and, in the case of land which is not a sports or playing field, the exercise of those rights would interfere with the recreational use to which the land is being put;

(b) the land is a golf green, bowling green, cricket square, lawn tennis court or other similar area on which grass is grown and prepared for a particular recreational purpose; or

© in the case of land which is a sports or playing field, the surface of the land is comprised of synthetic grass, acrylic, resin or rubber granule.

(8) For the purposes of section 6(1)(e) above, land which has been developed or set out for a particular recreational purpose does not include land on which groynes have been constructed, deepening of pools has been undertaken, fishing platforms have been erected, or where other works for the purposes of fishing have taken place.

(9) Section 6(1)(f) above does not prevent or restrict the exercise of access rights over land to which it applies by any person who forms part of a class of persons who are not, on the days taken into account for the purposes of determining whether that provision applies in relation to the land, required to pay to gain admittance to the land.

(10) For the purposes of section 6(1)(i) above land on which crops are growing—

(a) includes land on which grass is being grown for hay and silage which is at such a late stage of growth that it is likely to be damaged by the exercise of access rights in respect of the land in which it is growing, but otherwise does not include grassland;

(b) does not include headrigs, endrigs or other margins of fields in which crops are growing,

and “crops” means plants which are cultivated for agricultural, forestry or commercial purposes

[buzby]

>Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law

 

Inappropriate for Scotland as there is no 'Common Law' that stipulates to this. I do recall a case where it was hel that a 'do not visit' letter was treated simply as a request, and could be ignored. especially if the caller was enquiring about a debt (real or imagined). The issue of 'damages' would remain a 'live' issue, but like the Private Parking conmanies, they need to prove actual loss - and the closest I got to was theft of electricity by ringing the doorbell. Since the amount was de minimus, this didn't work.

 

Again from memory, the Sheriff stated that in these circumstances, a drawbridge would be useful.

[Bigdebtor]

Hi Martin,

 

I'm in a fair bit of bother

 

Most if not all of these accounts have now defaulted. All of the above recently rejected a settlement offer that I made which worked out at about 18/19% - this was all that I could raise from my family.

 

 

Yoyo

 

Were the DN's followed up by Termination Notices? I suggest you check out Pinky69's excellent thread about "Invalid Default Notices" - and check if the one's you have had are valid or not. If they are not valid and then terminated by the OC then this might be unlawful rescission and you might be able to get off with the balance other than having to pay current arrears at time of DN.

 

Hope this helps. if so, tip my scales!

 

BD

[FlyboyAgain]

>Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law

 

Inappropriate for Scotland as there is no 'Common Law' that stipulates to this. .

 

Are you really sure about this? If so, perhaps you should not have posted this here for the lurking vermin to digest! Most, if not all, of these swine (banks, DCAs) wouldn't know that and you may have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag. I need to look into this. Maybe you ought to delete that post? Just suggesting.

 

In any case, by virtue of the fact that one has, in writing, informed a person or an organisation that they are not welcome at your door, then they should heed it unless they have an order gaining access to your property. It's their misfortune if they do not heed that direction!

[FlyboyAgain]

Two further things to note from the Admin of Justice Act and the Protection from Harrassment Act:-

[buzby]

Are you really sure about this? If so, perhaps you should not have posted this here for the lurking vermin to digest! Most, if not all, of these swine (banks, DCAs) wouldn't know that

 

In much the same way there is no law of Trespass either, are you suggesting (seriously) that by explaining there is no 'Common Law' in Scotland, it will open the floodgates to DCA's? Of course not.

 

It is letters like these that make them realise they've a barrack-room lawyer for a debtor, and they not be remotely interested in anything other than securing payment of the debt. 'Withdrawing permission' to visit is worthy of Monty Python... should they wish to call and discuss the possibility of repayment of a debt (real or imagined) they can do it - if they say they've tried writing and phoning without success, attempting to complain that they called anyway would get short shrift If the debt exists, they have rights too!

 

If you have your own castle, and choose to raise the drawbridge, excellent - there won't be a problem. If there is full and unrestricted public access to common areas, that just so happens to provide access to your doorway. there is no 'permission' to revoke.

 

If truth be told, sending a field agent is very expensive - usually £5 plus petrol (most are freelance), they cannot drive up with a van saying DEBT COLLECTOR, or wear a hat saying DEBT ENFORCER... as that would be easily seen as harassment, and actionable. But if the caller is nondescript, he could be the meter reader, jehovah's witrness, or a charity collector.

 

There are around 18 organisations that can demand access to your property even if you don't want them to. Someone coming to your door with no right of access is laughable, especially since you can offer to make an appointment, at all the times it would cost them considerably more - any other time, you won't be in!

[FlyboyAgain]

I

If truth be told, sending a field agent is very expensive - usually £5 plus petrol (most are freelance), they cannot drive up with a van saying DEBT COLLECTOR, or wear a hat saying DEBT ENFORCER... as that would be easily seen as harassment, and actionable. But if the caller is nondescript, he could be the meter reader, jehovah's witrness, or a charity collector.

 

There are around 18 organisations that can demand access to your property even if you don't want them to. Someone coming to your door with no right of access is laughable, especially since you can offer to make an appointment, at all the times it would cost them considerably more - any other time, you won't be in!

 

The first para above: how do you know this?

 

And if they know they're dealling with a 'barrack-room lawyer', as you so put it, why don't they write back denouncing what's said in these letters?

 

Secondly, who are these '18 organisations' you speak of? And I beg to differ: anybody coming to my door who is uninvited and without a legal document proving they can gain access to my property will be seen off; if they hang arround, that's harrassment and I'd have them on that. You call that 'laughable'? I call it a basic human right.

 

Please also have a look at the two attachments I posted and also have a read at this, from an itroduction to Scots Law; you may find it interesting:-

 

'Trespass

It is a perpetual myth that there are no trespass laws in Scotland. Even before the recent Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, trespass has long been a delict (civil wrong) which is remediable by the remedies of interdict and damages. However, The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 amends the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 and establishes a statutory right of access.

Certain types of trespass have been criminal since the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 was passed, an Act no-one has ever heard of. Section 3 makes it an offence for any person to lodge in any premises, or occupy or encamp on any land, being private property, without the consent of the owner or legal occupier. Admittedly this section envisages a degree of permanency which will not be present in every situation of trespass.'

 

 

And to return to your term 'barrrack-room lawyer's, some of us have no option but to be so, for we find on many occasions we receive no assistance form law firms when it comes to debts and fighting/tackling them or just seeking any sort of legal help on consumer credit.

 

 

With all due respect I found your comments extremely negative, You appear to pour scorn on those of us who would attempt to keep these thugs and liars from our door. Try being a bit positive without having a laugh at us, eh?

Edited January 22, 2010 by FlyboyAgain

[nick20045]

Chill pill recommended. :D

 

And as to "barrack-room lawyer's" what is the problem? It comes to it, it is "barrack-room lawyer's" vs "monkey trained to press between F1 and F10 as to what letter is sent in response".

[FlyboyAgain]

Chill pill recommended. :D

 

And as to "barrack-room lawyer's" what is the problem? It comes to it, it is "barrack-room lawyer's" vs "monkey trained to press between F1 and F10 as to what letter is sent in response".

 

 

Sorry, can you expand, please?

[nick20045]

Sorry, can you expand, please?

No problem. I will expand. From a "monkey" in the DCA office pressing a button (irrespective of whether or not it answers your letter) between F1 and F10 we will expand and allow them to F12.

 

And incidentally, sometimes they will press the same F"x" button more then once. It seems to make the template letters last longer. Which is why most of the time you may get a letter that has nothing to do with what you wrote or may get the same letter sent to you more then once.

 

Actually, I sometimes wonder if DCAs are really Russian [problematic]. Russian [problematic] (and even Ukranian ones) love to use a program called "The Bat" for mass sending of template letters. But........ I guess that is another issue.

 

p.s. For any DCA reading this no offence intended as to calling your employees "monkeys". :rolleyes:

[FlyboyAgain]

Well, they are monkeys; don't apologise for it.

 

It is said that if you put enough monkeys in front of typewriters (or indeed PCs), given enough time they would produce the complete works of Shakespeare. The parallel here is that, given enough time, the DCA monkeys wolud actually produce a coherent communication in response to that composed by the 'barrack-room lawyer'! That said, life's too short to await the arrival of that!

[buzby]

The first para above: how do you know this?

It is called research.

 

And if they know they're dealing with a 'barrack-room lawyer', as you so put it, why don't they write back denouncing what's said in these letters?

Because they don't have a 'form letter' of the 5 or 6 pre-prepared strong-arm responses that will (usually) ignore any representations made and rumble on regardless. In fact, entering into extended discussions is counter productive - it isn't productive, it might lend credibility to your imagined argument, and it isn't profitable (for them).

Secondly, who are these '18 organisations' you speak of? And I beg to differ: anybody coming to my door who is uninvited and without a legal document proving they can gain access to my property will be seen off; if they hang arround, that's harrassment and I'd have them on that. You call that 'laughable'? I call it a basic human right.

 

Well, the Human Rights Court won't agree with you either. If you want to live in a dream world, be my guest. But you're going to be mightily disappointed as you get older when you realise the 'system' doesn't care a jot about you. If you have the MONEY to protect yourself, you may have limited success - but not otherwise. If you want to know who has a right of entry, do your own research like I did. But from your comment, you appear to believe nobody has a right. As for 'seeing them off' if you prevent entry, the police will remove you.

 

Please also have a look at the two attachments I posted and also have a read at this, from an itroduction to Scots Law; you may find it interesting:-

No - I found it boring. It proved my case. The reason is you address the wrong issue. Prior to CJPOA1994, trespass was not a crime but a civil wrong. You couldn't call the police and have that nasty person knocking your door taken away. You would have to have attempted to get damages in the Sheriff Court for something akin to 'denting the paint on your door'.

 

The fact you had to open the door or shout through the letterbox to tell them to go away provides no financial redress. Neither is it harassment, as this is a criminal offence and requires much MUCH more than someone phoning you 4 times a day and visiting your front door to affect payment for a debt. If there was REAL harassment, (and proved to be so because the PF decided to prosecute) then hooray... but blood would have to have been spilt (or equivalent) to make them notice.

 

Post-CJPOA1994, I'm only aware of 3 cases - and all were tied in with the 'Right To Roam' nonsense (which we had anyway) the landowner had limited success in 2 of the cases (one being Ms Gloag) but it still doesn't prevent you marching up to her front door and ringing the bell should you desire.

 

And to return to your term 'barrrack-room lawyer's, some of us have no option but to be so, for we find on many occasions we receive no assistance form law firms when it comes to debts and fighting/tackling them or just seeking any sort of legal help on consumer credit.

 

No assistance? I have found providing you are willing to pay the price for a consultation you get the benefit of their expertise. In much the same way it works for a painter or plumber. If you mean it's not available for free... just point me to a reason why, and where I can find a plumber or electrician who will provide this free advice.

 

With all due respect I found your comments extremely negative, You appear to pour scorn on those of us who would attempt to keep these thugs and liars from our door. Try being a bit positive without having a laugh at us, eh?

 

That's usually the position of those who take a contrary opinion to mine. I don't approach problems with a 'clean sheet' and evaluate on the basis of what might be 'right'. That might give you a fluffy warm feelling of bonhomie, but if you've sat in a Court in Carlton Place and seen what get's thrown out as irrelevant, with whole claims being disregarded as irrelevancies, you get to know how 'fair' the legal profession is, and what the laws actually provide.

 

In your case, your expectations are wholly unreasonable, and whilst there is nothing wrong with that, showing this to the other party gives them a valuable indise track to let you get on with it, safe in the knowledge you're not going to get anywhere, and the (I'd estimate) 90% of threats to take someone to court, fall at the first hurdle. (You mean I have to pay £60 to do this???).

 

If you want sycophantic support, you're in the wrong place. If you want an honest evaluation of a problem and the chances of success should the matter go to court, then you've found the right place. However, despite your indignation, your ire is misplaced - don't shoot the messenger.

[FlyboyAgain]

Who mentioned 'sycophantic support'? Where did you get that from?

 

 

And who are these firms that you have had 'consultations' with? Funny how I've tried going on half a dozen who won't even entertain it without even the mention of fees!

 

BTW, I have never had to shout through letterboxes at anyone.

 

Anyway, listen, mate: it's all about the interperation of the law and, maybe if I ever get that far, I'll let you know how I get on in court

 

And, quite interesting you found my attachemnts 'boring'. Says rather a lot. Lets agree to differ, eh?

[Bigdebtor]

 

And who are these firms that you have had 'consultations' with? Funny how I've tried going on half a dozen who won't even entertain it without even the mention of fees!

 

 

Stripping out the schoolboy stuff, Flyboy's point above is well made.

 

I too have tried ummpteen lawyers - and to a man they won't touch anything against the banks - who have all the good (by that I mean clever - not angelic) firms on retainers.

 

If buzby can point us to some firms who WILL act for us (even for an extortionate fee) against the Banks then please let us have some names and something good will have come out of the recent exchanges!

 

BTW - please don't just suggest the CAB, various local law centres etc. I mean proper firms working for proper (expensive) fees with a chance of getting a good out of court settlement or actually putting up a good show in court.

 

BD

[buzby]

Who mentioned 'sycophantic support'? Where did you get that from?

 

Unusually - I mentioned it in the last paragraph iin my reply to you. It wasn't a quote. If that's not what you meant to say, am I supposed to assume you meant what relevance it had? If so. I get that from your obvious distrain of any opinion that does not accord with your own.

 

And who are these firms that you have had 'consultations' with? Funny how I've tried going on half a dozen who won't even entertain it without even the mention of fees!

 

I've no idea what you're referring to. Really. I pointed out people want paid for their work, you seem to believe they shouldn't?

 

BTW, I have never had to shout through letterboxes at anyone.

Ah, I see now. You've actually lost the plot. It was not what you do through a letterbox, but your interpretation that someone visiting your property can be prevented and enforced by sending a letter. Your expectation of 'harassment' would never fly, even if the DCA agent shouted through YOUR letterbox.

 

Anyway, listen, mate: it's all about the interpretation of the law and, maybe if I ever get that far, I'll let you know how I get on in court

It has to be relevant, before it becomes an issue of interpretation (hence the many cases that that abandoned mean a waste of money to the pursuer who, like you, felt they 'had a case'. Nevertheless, if you get a judgement in your favour, great - I'd be delighted for you as you fought the system and won against the odds.

 

And, quite interesting you found my attachemnts 'boring'. Says rather a lot. Lets agree to differ, eh?

 

They were irrelevant to the issue at hand, so if you think that says a lot you must be easily pleased! No need to differ - you get your judgement, and I'll buy you a pint.

 

[Bigdebtor]

Buzby

 

I see it now - all words and no substance.

 

You just ASSUME lawyers will work for the great unwashed against the Banks - but you have stated it as a FACT.

 

If it's a fact then give us names of firms who will do so - put up or shut up.

 

If yoiu can't prove this point I think your other points must also be regarded as without substance until backe dup with evidence too.

 

BD

[buzby]

If buzby can point us to some firms who WILL act for us (even for an extortionate fee) against the Banks then please let us have some names and something good will have come out of the recent exchanges!

 

BTW - please don't just suggest the CAB, various local law centres etc. I mean proper firms working for proper (expensive) fees with a chance of getting a good out of court settlement or actually putting up a good show in court.

 

BD

 

Hi BD,

 

I can honestly say I don't subscribe to your succession that the Banks have sewn up the legal firms who with one voice will cite a conflict of interest and decline to act. The banks have the large firms on retainers anyway, but they;re the type of firms we could never afford anyway!

 

As for suggesting CAB.... nope, I would think a day trip to Blackpool would be more useful that wasting your time to get advice that (often) is worse that information dispensed here. I had a project 3 years ago where a problem with a slam-dunk solution against a bank (because of fraudulent misrepresentations) and was taken to 3 different CABs. 1 suggested a solicitor, 2 others said to take it up with the BBA (which was nonsensical).

 

The service is only as good as the volunteer that you speak to, and even then, can still be a complete waste of time.