We have no idea how he fraudulently used the address as we don't know what the debt is for... it could be DVLA, or any number of things. I know it is not electoral roll because the council send me the electoral roll stuff to update and whatnot every year and he has never appeared on this information. We know he has fraudulently used the address but we do not know what exactly he has used the address for. The reason we made a subject access request was, in part, so we could find out what exactly the debt relates to. If we had judgment details it would be easy to fix by simply informing the court. Of course as the council and bailiff have both failed with the SARs this is one reason we are taking legal action - not only did they not provide us with this data but they didn't actually respond to the SARs at all. It's pretty hard to correct incorrect information if no one will tell you WHAT is incorrect. Previous correspondence was returned to sender. At one point I hand delivered to the council headquarters reception 11 pieces of mail sent by them to him at my address which all arrived at once explaining to the receptionist this person does not live here, and your own records show I am the sole occupier.

GDPR is new law so there won't be many... I'm confident it will hold. The Code of Conduct stresses that the statutory obligations outweigh other things. The bailiff has a statutory obligation to me but it does not have a statutory obligation to collect the debt. In fact it can refuse to do so citing the CIVEA standards or simply pointing out that the debtor does not live there. MOJ guidelines stress that they must "act within the law at all times, including all defined legislation... and comply with Data Protection legislation". The MOJ published the CIVEA code which specifically says "Before seeking access to premises an enforcement agent should ensure, where possible, the debtor is still resident at that property." It's right there in the CIVEA Code of Conduct and Good Practice Guide which the MOJ says is the minimum acceptable standard. What people here are missing is this man owes the debt, he does not live at this address. It is a point of data accuracy, and one that the CIVEA code explicitly references. It is not about bailiff powers or anything else but about the statutory duty that the bailiff owes to me.

I know because I actually use them myself ... I know too that the firm I use actually refuse to enforce where the debtor no longer is. They get evidence of it, and then that is that. Page 5 of the CIVEA guidelines refers specifically to the Data Protection Act. CIVEA guidelines also say that creditors must not issue an instruction knowing the debtor is not at an address. The creditor has done so. What we are left with is the creditor wrongly seeking to enforce judgments knowing the debtor is not at the address, and the bailiff repeatedly seeking to enforcement judgments knowing the debtor is not at the address. The council has actually ignored the complaints procedure. We have gone one better and reported both to the ICO.

" I take it you have already sent the proof of your none residence to the creditor? There is of course nothing to stop you copying this to the bailiff if you wish." Yes! More to the point the creditor is the local council and knows I live alone because I pay council tax and get a single person discount. I am the only person here on the electoral roll. They know too that the debtor has never lived at this address.

The CIVEA has a code of good conduct that is mandatory for all its members. The complaint process system is mandatory. The firm is legally required to have a private complaint system and resolve it, and has not. The creditor has been notified over a dozen times that its information is wrong. The creditor knows the information is wrong as its own records show me to be the sole resident of the address. It continues to ignore this and has repeatedly violated court procedure in applying for warrants where it knows the debtor does not live. We are suing them separately.

Well thanks for your help everyone... whilst I have a legal team working for one of the big four running this obviously a bunch of people on an internet board are right, and award winning lawyers are wrong. The company is both a debt collection agency and a bailiff. Enforcement agencies have obligations to act in accordance with prevailing legislation, and in a professional, ethical and proportionate manner. This includes a specific requirement to comply with Data Protection legislation (see above). The enforcement agency has ignored a SAR made by my solicitor on my behalf, including an attempt to get the camera footage from previous visits where they were informed the debtor did not live here. CIVEA guidelines are clear that agents are required to check information is correct. CIVEA guidelines state clearly that upon the proof being given the debtor does not live at this address, then the case will be referred back to the creditor so that the records can be updated. Despite requests from my solicitor we have not been provided with any evidence that this this has happened. Proof of residence provided has been to the criteria set by CIVEA. Enforcement agencies must operate a comprehensive complaints procedure and acknowledge within ten days. CIVEA time frames apply too. This has been broken. The enforcement agency also told my solicitor they would reply within seven days and assured her over the telephone that the records would be corrected. They have failed to reply. Enforcement agencies must make available details of complaints procedures. This has not happened. Enforcement agencies must recognise their role in ensuring vulnerable people are protected. No advice or assistance has been given regards to this. As I am legally deaf I have problems with understanding and speaking English.

This is incorrect. The code of practice of the UK debt collection trade body says members should "take prompt steps to correct data, both internally and with credit reference agencies, where it is aware that the data is inaccurate or out of date." Although they have been given the address details by the original creditor and initially pursued that debt in good faith based on this information, they have been repeatedly informed it is incorrect. They have been informed by me, by the fraudster's landlord, by the post office, and by solicitor on multiple occasions. What is initially an attempt to collect a debt in good faith ceases to be when notified otherwise. Imagine if a bailiff visits, and then your solicitor contacts the bailiff, sends evidence that the debtor does not and has never lived here and used it fraudulently, and the exact same bailiff a month later turns up again.

Bailiffs, not HCEO, working on behalf of the council to collect a debt for something but I have no idea what. I cannot say which, not least as they may be reading. So far for the Claim we have "Article 5(1)(d) of the GDPR states that “1. Personal data shall be: (d) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (‘accuracy’)” · The Defendant has failed to ensure that the personal data it holds concerning the Claimant and his residence at the Address are accurate. · Furthermore despite being repeatedly informed by the Claimant that the personal data held by the Defendant i) was inaccurate and ii) asking that this inaccurate data be rectified the Defendant appears to have taken no steps at all to rectify the data. This occurred despite the Claimant specifically informing the Defendant that the Defendant’s actions taken in reliance on the inaccurate data was causing the Claimant distress and anxiety. · Article 82 (1) of the GDPR states that : Any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of the GDPR shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or the processor for the damage suffered.” Furthermore Recital 146 of the GDPR says that data subjects should receive "full and effective compensation for the damage they have suffered". These provisions of the GDPR are given effect in English law by virtue of sections 168 and 180 of DPA18. · In the case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311 the Court of Appeal noted, in the majority of cases the type of loss suffered in a breach of privacy and data rights is one of moral damage, or distress, rather than identifiable pecuniary loss and that it was appropriate and right that damages be awarded where distress and anxiety can attributed to a breach of an individual’s rights under the GDPR. The Notifying Email stated, inter alia, that: “In event that BAILIFF contact the Address again in respect TO DEBTOR, causing yet further harass (sic) and distress to SCHWEPPES33, he will take legal action against your organisation including exercising his rights as a data subject under the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. SCHWEPPES33 has no desire to do this, however having repeatedly informed you and LOCAL COUNCIL that DEBTOR does not live at the Address and yet he continues to be contacted in relation to these matters.” " My solicitor however specialises in GDPR, and we are interested in basic stuff about harassment and the experiences of others.

I don't want to ignore them. I want them to stop. I want to sue them, and will do so. I have no idea what the debt refers to. All I know is the debtor falsely registered himself as living at this address - his neighbouring address and then moved out.

To cut a long story short a bailiff keeps pursuing me for debt I do not owe. The bailiff has been informed numerous times in writing about this and yet this continues. I have retained a solicitor and the solicitor has on my behalf contacted the bailiff too. One reason for having to use a solicitor is I am deaf and cannot easily deal with the bailiff myself. Despite having been notified I am deaf they have failed to make any adjustments at all. The solicitor has spoken to the bailiff on the phone, and written to the bailiff twice now demanding that they fix their records. They have been provided with evidence I am the sole occupier of the address and that the debtor fraudulently registered the debt to this address. The bailiff has however failed to respond in writing but has provided my solicitor with read receipts for the emails. Additionally the bailiff was contacted by the old landlord of the Defendant who confirmed the debtor lived at their address, not mine. Yesterday they sent another enforcement agent round who attempted to gain access and left a handwritten note demanding I deal with this within 24 hours. What do people suggest? I'm particularly interested in breaches of the Equalities Act and harassment.

Oh god I have a lodger, not a tenant. How can a lodger have a separate meter when they share a property with you All I wanted to know was if I could force them to install a smart meter. *bangs head* I give up.

2 separate dwellings. I own it (I have a lodger remember).

1) 12 month contract 2) Listed house. I have the lower two floors, there's a flat above. Gas supply comes in through my lower floor but there's only one meter down here, the other was removed over a decade ago right before the house was listed.

Would have to pay to switch. Locked into the deal.

I have repeatedly tried to get a smart meter installed and British Gas has failed to do so. They attended the property, and then said they needed access to next door too and would arrange access. They have failed to do so. They have repeatedly missed appointments at installing a smart meter at all. They have however tried to sell me a new boiler, even lying and claiming that my present boiler could "blow up". Their words, not mine. An independent gas inspector burst out laughing. Anyway, what is the legal perspective of this. It is impossible to monitor energy use with an ancient gas meter in the cellar. My lodger burns energy like god knows what by having the heating on 28c at 4am and cannot see the results of it - I'm getting fed up with £800 per quarter gas bills.