Thread: OFT debt collection guidance

Thanks for putting this on the site its a very intersting read.

yes thank you very much i wasn't aware of a statute of limitations.i have been able to download a sample letter to use.i will be using this to further pee off the pond scum known as robinson way.

Originally Posted by 1970

Having read the OFT guide, am I correct in the following statements:

1. DCA's can only collect if there is contractural basis - deed of assignment.
2. DCA's can only add charges or interest if there is contractural basis as point 1.

Correct?

1970.

1. if the debt has been bought by the dca then i would agree, yes. some dcas work on behalf of a creditor, some are actually inhouse (metropolitan and mercers for example)

2. i would agree!

Originally Posted by remus

sequenci

if the DCA have had the debt passed to them, (not inhouse) are you saying they can not add on charges ie: in my case increase of £20, queried, and told it was admin? do I need to ascertain if there is a deed of assignment

it's the same principles as the bank charges argument. you could probably challenge it on the grounds that either

a) it's disproportionate
b) there was no provision for it within the original contract

Just a quick point with regards to notice of assignments from DCA's.
If the notice includes an amount demanded that is incorrect it renders the notice legally invalid (e.g. unlawful charges or DCA admin/collection charges).
Even if the amount doesn't include charges but is misstated it is still invalid.
If the date is incorrect it is legally invalid (i.e. does not tie in with the deed of assignment - the execution of assignment should be the same as the date shown on the notice).
The case that supports this is W.F.Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 1 WLR 419

P.S Thanks go to Laiste for pointing this out.

For those that are getting unreasonable telephone harassment from debt collectors, there some good advice here: Resisting harassment from creditors with the Wonga Wallah

Hello.

I have a debt with Amex, that I am willing to pay in monthly payments, that has been passed to AIS who have informed me that unless I pay the full amount immediately their charges will be high amd that I wll have to pay them a lot more that the original debt, so the sooner I pay the better.

I have a thread on this elsewhere in this forum, so I hope its OK me asking this here. Does that mean that they cannot add charges that are disproportionate to their costs, or that they cannot add charges at all?

If the former what is 'disproportionate'. Also what legal costs can they charge me, and how do I get to find out what I have signed in any of the original paperwork? Would this be on the CCA, and if so what can I do when they refuse to accept that they have to send a copy to me on request, if indeed they are so obliged?

What if they refuse, then produce it themselves in court?

Regards,

Peter

"I have a thread on this elsewhere in this forum, so I hope its OK me asking this here. Does that mean that they cannot add charges that are disproportionate to their costs, or that they cannot add charges at all?"

They can not add charges full stop.

In answer to your other question - the CCA would show what ou agreed to. If they fail to supply it (or say you can't have it) after 12 working days from receipt of the request they are in default. Once they are in default the debt is unenforceable without them producing a copy of the agreement and so you can withold an payment.

Supplying you with a copy of the agreement is your legal right. Whether they feel obliged to do so or not is neither here nor there. If they refused and then produced it in court the case would be thrown out on the isue of discloser.

If you give me a link to your thread I'll have a look at it.

Thanks Rory.

I have been unwell for a while and am just able to get back to the computer. The thread is finished now. AIC Glasgow accepted my offer of payment after I threatened to report them to the OFT and to take them to court for defaulting on my CCA request after 42 days (actually over 2 months). They agreed to accept my payment offer - great result!

Thanks everybody involved in helping me over this! It just proves to me that you all give great advice, and if it is followed properly then you can get a result, irrespective of how aggressive and abusive the DCA is.

Cheers.

Hope you are well pete - glad to here you got the result you wanted

Rory

Greendykes, hopefully this will help.

From the Consumer Credit Act 1974:

Facts. The manager of the C Bank agrees orally with D (an individual) to open a current account in D’s name. Nothing is said about overdraft facilities. After maintaining the account in credit for some weeks, D draws a cheque in favour of E for an amount exceeding D’s credit balance by £20. E presents the cheque and the Bank pay it.
Analysis. In drawing the cheque D, by implication, requests the Bank to grant him an overdraft of £20 on its usual terms as to interest and other charges. In deciding to honour the cheque, the Bank by implication accept the offer. This constitutes a regulated small consumer credit agreement for unrestricted-use, fixed-sum credit. It is a debtor-creditor agreement, and falls within section 74(1)(b) if covered by a determination under section 74(3).

Facts. F (an individual) has had a current account with the G Bank for many years. Although usually in credit, the account has been allowed by the Bank to become overdrawn from time to time. The maximum such overdraft has been is about £1,000. No explicit agreement has ever been made about overdraft facilities. Now, with a credit balance of £500, F draws a cheque for £1,300

Analysis. It might well be held that the agreement with F (express or implied) under which the Bank operate his account includes an implied term giving him the right to overdraft facilities up to say £1,000. If so, the agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement for unrestricted-use, running-account credit. It is a debtor-creditor agreement, and falls within section 74(1)(b) if covered by a direction under section 74(3). It is also a multiple agreement, part of which (i.e. the part not dealing with the overdraft), as referred to in section 18(1)(a), falls within a category of agreement not mentioned in this Act.

Facts. Under an oral agreement made on 10th January, X (an individual) has an overdraft on his current account at the Y bank with a credit limit of £100. On 15th February, when his overdraft stands at £90, X draws a cheque for £25. It is the first time that X has exceeded his credit limit, and on 16th February the bank honours the cheque.
Analysis. The agreement of 10th January is a consumer credit agreement for running-account credit. The agreement of 15th-16th February varies the earlier agreement by adding a term allowing the credit limit to be exceeded merely temporarily. By section 82(2) the later agreement is deemed to revoke the earlier agreement and reproduce the combined effect of the two agreements. By section 82(4), Part V of this Act (except section 56) does not apply to the later agreement. By section 18(5), a term allowing a merely temporary excess over the credit limit is not to be treated as a separate agreement, or as providing fixed-sum credit. The whole of the £115 owed to the bank by X on 16th February is therefore running-account credit.

Facts. The G Bank grants H (an individual) an unlimited overdraft, with an increased rate of interest on so much of any debit balance as exceeds £2,000.
Analysis. Although the overdraft purports to be unlimited, the stipulation for increased interest above £2,000 brings the agreement within section 10(3)(b)(ii) and it is a consumer credit agreement.