The Lemon Fool

I've just had a letter through the post from the land registry. It starts off with "You share a name with other people in England and Wales. HM Land registry has received limited information from the courts that someone with the same name as you is affected by bankruptcy proceedings" and then lists the details of a person with the same name as me in a totally different part of the country.

It goes on to say they need to establish whether I am this person and tells me that if they don't get my reply by the 8th June they'll make an entry against my title register.

a) Is this legit? They quote my actual title number (well one of them, I have a plot of land opposite as well with a different title number)

b) How can they actually be allowed to do this? What if I was on holiday and didn't get the letter until too late? I mean I've been away on a 3 week tour before now.

Should I phone instead? I'm actually really rather cross and fear I may give the call taker an earful, even though it's probably not their fault.

TIA,

Jess

All a bit puzzling and worrying. This must happen a lot if it is legit.

The question that leaps to my mind is the receiver has the authority to liquidate all the assets of a bankrupt, and the receiver is possibly the source of this enquiry. The receiver suspects the bankrupt with your name owns your bit of land and wants to sell it to pay off their creditors, so I think it needs responding to.

Why not just write back, given they wrote to you?

Mike4 wrote:All a bit puzzling and worrying. This must happen a lot if it is legit.

The question that leaps to my mind is the receiver has the authority to liquidate all the assets of a bankrupt, and the receiver is possibly the source of this enquiry. The receiver suspects the bankrupt with your name owns your bit of land and wants to sell it to pay off their creditors, so I think it needs responding to.

Why not just write back, given they wrote to you?

What smells about this is that there is an explicit assumption that the OP is guilty. Unless he responds by a certain date, he will be deemed to be the bankrupt and his assets are potentially at risk.

Surely the default should be that he is deemed innocent and that it is up to the other party to prove otherwise?

And June 8th isn't very far away. What if the OP was overseas for a month or two, and so never saw the letter?

I've calmed down a bit now, so googled it. There's a whole section on it on the Government website:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/hm-land-reg ... etter-b10a

I'm actually quite angry as if I wasn't able to respond in their pathetically brief timeframe (or there was a postal strike and I never got the letter), the onus would be on me to then prove I'm not that person and get the mark removed (probably at my own expense) or suffer the consequences of it on my credit record, and potentially have some drama trying to sell and retain my own hard earned cash from the wolves.

Also, what if my response gets lost in the post? I'm going to email it, phone them AND post it.

my experience:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32299&p=463460#p463460

What's to stop the actual bankrupt ticking the no box. Then they'd be back to square one. Crazy system.

pompeygazza wrote:What's to stop the actual bankrupt ticking the no box. Then they'd be back to square one. Crazy system.

My guess is that someone who is going through bankruptcy who lies about an asset, or fails to disclose an asset, risks having the bankruptcy quashed. And bankruptcy does at least partially protect a debtor by typically forgiving some debt and allowing the bankrupt to retain some assets. It enables a line to be drawn under the past debts. If the bankruptcy fails then the bankrupt is back at the full mercy of the creditors.

But bankruptcy law, like probate law, is mostly written by creditors to protect creditors. Hence the snide assumption of guilt implied with these types of letters.

Well, I've called them (and subsequently treated myself to a cup of tea and biscuit for remaining calm and polite ), and was basically told I had to return the form by post. I said I wasn't happy doing this in case it got lost in the post and was provided with an email address to send the form as a pdf.
So I've just done this and will also be posting the form back in their pre paid envelope this evening when I go for a walk with my little lad.

Hopefully this will be the end of it, but I really am incensed that they are able to do this.

JessUK98 wrote:Well, I've called them (and subsequently treated myself to a cup of tea and biscuit for remaining calm and polite ), and was basically told I had to return the form by post. I said I wasn't happy doing this in case it got lost in the post and was provided with an email address to send the form as a pdf.
So I've just done this and will also be posting the form back in their pre paid envelope this evening when I go for a walk with my little lad.

Hopefully this will be the end of it, but I really am incensed that they are able to do this.

Well done. I suspect that for the LR this is just a "tick the box" exercise that they feel they have to do to satisfy the bankruptcy administrator. And as long as you deny you are this other person in writing, then the LR is off the hook and that is the end of it.

Still annoying as all heck though.

Lootman wrote:Well done. I suspect that for the LR this is just a "tick the box" exercise that they feel they have to do to satisfy the bankruptcy administrator. And as long as you deny you are this other person in writing, then the LR is off the hook and that is the end of it.
Still annoying as all heck though.

Totally agree... but the real issue here is - as Jess said earlier - if she was away for a length of time, she'd have missed the deadline and would now be subject to the constraints the LR had threatened etc. That's the real problem, box ticking exercise or not. As indeed NearlyThere experienced (albeit for different reasons for ending up there).