An interesting rebuttal to the "no visits" letter

[king123]

I have had an interesting rebuttal to the "no visits" letter, the one that quotes Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R. I'd like to post the rebuttal (which I disagree with) so it can be discussed but can't find a suitable thread. Can someone help or advise where I should post?

[cerberusalert]

Moved to the debt collection forum.

[cerberusalert]

Can you post up their rebuttal, I could do with a laugh.

[dx100uk]

and me

 

dx

[brokebutnotbeatn]

Please do post...

[citizenB]

me too

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Veeery eeenteresting:lol:

[DonkeyB]

Please post it. Might help me get through to Friday...

[disgruntled2007]

Please?????

[Dorabell]

don,t keep the guests waiting lol

[cerberusalert]

Thread re-titled.

[Bazooka Boo]

I bet it states that this can only be enforced with a court order or by a Judge?

[Tootles1971]

Shall we all guess what it says, and the winner gets to meet them on the doorstep????

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It is their YUMAN RIGHT (SUB HUMAN IN THIS CASE) to go where vever they like to intimidate who ever they like (some muppett in th EU said so)

[Tootles1971]

I think it is " Your doorstep is the next one in my I-spy book of doorsteps, so I need to visit to be able to tick it off"

[meemok]

i think its "we refer you to the soap powder adverts where danny baker turns up on the doorstep with a box of daz and gets your whites white. danny baker is not a postman."

[dx100uk]

play it again sam.

 

dx

[disgruntled2007]

why the suspense????? post already!!!

 

I have had an interesting rebuttal to the "no visits" letter, the one that quotes Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R. I'd like to post the rebuttal (which I disagree with) so it can be discussed but can't find a suitable thread. Can someone help or advise where I should post?

[DonkeyB]

Come on, King, you’re online right now!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

YEA spill the beans!!!!

[king123]

Sorry I was on the site researching a more pressing issue (new to me DCA popped up re another debt), didn't know there were folks waiting for the gossip!

 

Bolding is mine for emphasis:

"[CSL] offers a door step collection service whereby field agents visit a property to discuss repayment of an outstanding amount. This is simply another option available to our customers to assist them in repaying their debts. In relation to field visits in subsection 2.12 of Office of Fair Tradings' [sic] guidelines doorstep visits must give adequate notice of the time and date of visit. The Armstrong v Sheppard (1959) case you quoted is dependant on each individual circumstance and only such order[sic] to refuse access can come from a Court and not from the individual".

 

I've not read the case but that sounds like total [EDIT] to me, as from what I can tell the judgement was that the postman has an implicit licence from the householder.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

You to still don't have to agree to any appointment given notice or not

if they turn up uninvited it amount tp harassment after the appointment has been refused IMHO.

[harrassed senior]

Surely if you 'own the property, ie, have the expense and or liability to maintain said 'piece of land' then you also have the right to say who can and cannot 'alight' onto that piece of property!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Exactly you can withdraw any permission implied or explicit for any one to enter your property.

[rockwell304]

Simply use my 10 second rule - if you can sprint to the gate in under 10 seconds you live!