Quote:
Originally Posted by kopbabe  Hi This is my first post but wondering if anyone could give some advice. I recieved a letter from Westcot Credit saying on behalf of Phoenix Recoveries they were looking for payment of £257.49 on an outstanding debt. I phoned Westcot and asked who did i owe the money too and was told Littlewoods Catalogues. I told them i had no idea what they were talking about and that i was not going to pay them the money on just their say so. Two weeks later i recieved another letter from Westcot saying unless i paid them the money they would take me to court or send round a debt collector. I phoned them again and told them i would phone Littlewoods directly and sort it with them. I phoned Littlewoods and explained the letter i'd recieved and asked them when this debt was from and was told 1997 !!! I nearly dropped the phone laughing. I asked them to send me a list of all the items i had supposedly brought from them and all the signed delivery notes. I was then told that they couldn't do that as their records don't go back that far and they had now sold the debt to Phoenix Recoveries so i would have to deal with them. I have not made any more phone calls to Westcot and do not intend to do so. I have sent them a letter from the templates page about debts over six years old by recorded delivery, i was just wondering if there was anything else i could do ? Many thanks for any help with this kopbabe |
Yes, there is. I believe that you may have several grounds to complain to the Office of Fair Trading regarding the way this has been handled, as I believe that if what you say is correct, then the debt management company in question may have broken several of the guidelines laid down by the Office of Fair Trading that creditors and debt management companies are obliged to abide by (please see document
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...dit/oft664.pdf for reference):
The Office of Fair Trading deems the following as unfair practice:
2.2(e) "failing to provide debtors or creditors with information on status of debts, for example, not providing requested balance statements when reasonably requested" - as Littlewoods say they have no record of the details of the debt, then getting documentary evidence from Phoenix/Westcot would therefore likely be impossible too.
2.4(f) "pursuing third parties for payment when they are not liable" - if you are certain that the debt is not yours.
2.6(d) "not ensuring that an adequate history of the debt is passed on as appropriate resulting in repetitive and/or frequent contact by different parties" - not sure about the bit about repetitive/frequent contact by different parties, but you could certainly assert that by Littlewoods not itemising the details of the debt, then this would count as "not ensuring that an adequate history of the debt is passed on".
2.6(h) "ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment" - as you stated you had no knowledge of the debt, then this would certainly count as being disputed.
2.8(a) "sending demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question, for example, threatening debt recovery action to 'the occupier' or sending a payment demand to all people sharing the same name/date of birth as a debtor in the hope that contact with the correct debtor will be made."
2.8(i) "failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued" - again by not being able to provide appropriate details of the debt, they would likely be in breach of this guideline.
2.8(k) "not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt." - having received the letters threatening court action two weeks later after contacting and disputing the debt, you could reasonably say that this was "not ceasing collection activity".
As this relates to an alleged debt from 1997, then it is almost certainly "statute barred" under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5. In which case, the following guidelines would also apply:
2.14(b) "It is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period"
and "it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations, for example, falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally recoverable and relying on consumers not knowing the relevant legal provisions"
and "continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970".
It is up to you to consider if you believe any of these guidelines to have been broken with regards to this case. However, if you do (or any other guidelines in the document which I have not listed also apply) then a complaint form which may be used for contacting the OFT is available here,
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...plaintForm.DOC
Remember also that the OFT has the power to revoke a consumer credit licence, which would force a debt collection agency to cease trading.
Re: Have you received threatening demands for debts older than 6 years? 
and have received a Statutory Demand.
