do you have a link Michael McIntyre refused to do if so i can add it to Terry Alderton wiki page, the more shame -ing the better

do you have a link Michael McIntyre refused to do if so i can add it to Terry Alderton wiki page, the more shame -ing the better

There's this link - http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/12/06/comic-michael-mcintyre-refuses-to-perform-for-debt-collectors-and-loses-28k-fee-115875-21875927/

or one on the CAG site - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?236893

but not very complimentary at http://johnsrant.co.uk/user.asp?page=394

just updated his wiki page, thanks for the link

I have to say though, if I were one of those comedians, I'd be tempted to take the gig and then carve them a 3rd bum hole to go with the 2 they already have... I'd consider being heckled off the stage by a bunch of bottom-feeders an honour.

I'll even do his scriptwriting for free...

So, you guys deal in debt eh? Right, before we go any further, I want my fee, now, in cash, no cheques.

Which one of you swines keeps calling my Auntie Mavis then? Telling her you'll take her budgie as it's her only possession worth anything, yet she's never had a soddin' credit card in her life, you've got the wrong woman you cretins.

I used to have a credit card, the bank sold my debt on to one of you lot. How many trees did you have to cut down to send the endless stream of letters? Then I heard about the Consumer Action Group.

Thank you and goodnight, you were a crap audience....

And on their forum.

 

Consumer Action Group... what's the problem?

 

8)

Funny thing is. despite all their moralising about the possible source of usernames containing the charactors Q and C.....

CAG didn't help create this!

Guess my opinion on them.

Just read that link to johnsrant.co. uk in earlier post.. What planet does John of the rant live on? He talks about Michael McIntyre and others in debt spending 'other people's money' but the fact is we didn't . Banks create £10000 of debt or loans from deposits of only £1000. They create money that never existed and generate huge interest profits and more from lending money that never existed. So we may not have made the correct decisons, or may have suffered reduced income but we really didn't abuse the savings of our prudent depositors. The banks did.

As for people not living within their means, the banks did this spectacularly , then ran bleating to the taxpayer to bail them out. And they're still doing it. Makes me mad when the moral card is placed at the general public's feet, and the financial instiuitions are made out to be unsuspecting extremely moral victims. Unfortunate that some people might read John's rant and perhaps be misled by it.

Oh well that's my rant over

OFT updates on debt collection guidance

The quality of data provided to debt purchasers will form a major part of new guidance on debt collection being drafted by the Office of Fair Trading.

Speaking at the Credit Services Association (CSA) conference in Birmingham, Rita Hall-Hughes, head of the debt collection team and consumer credit group at the OFT, told delegates that the topic was one of the largest areas of complaints received by the OFT.

She said: "The quality of data provided to debt purchasers is a major area of concern. This is one of the largest areas of complaints we receive.

"There has been significant growth in this area since the last guidance was updated. The current guidance only contains one paragraph relating to the quality of data provided to debt purchasers, so we want to ensure there is more clarification to all licence holders in this space."

Hall-Hughes also said the OFT’s next step in developing the guidance would be to write to Leigh Berkley, chairman of the Debt Buyers and

Sellers Group (DBSG) and CSA head of compliance Claire Aynsley, to ask them to provide their opinions on how people can stop being pursued for debts they do not owe.

She added: "We intend to include a definition of what a vulnerable debtor is and we intend to include a definition of unfair business practises. We also intend to clarify how correct data should be passed between different departments of companies that deal with debt, and we also consider that all debt collection agencies are responsible for updating accurate data so hopefully an individual pursued in error will not be pursued again.

Credit Today has also learned that a working party set up by the Civil Court Users’ Association (CCUA) and involving the OFT will seek to resolve the issue of debt guidance, so that the OFT does not resort to enforcement action against the industry.

A further update on the status of this partnership is expected later in the year, while the OFT is expected to issue its consultation document around the end of September.

Link to original article - not that many DCA's will understand what the OFT are saying...

I see they don't have an email address where we can complain to.

TOTAL SIIMEBAGS

cheers

jimbo

I see they don't have an email address where we can complain to.

 

TOTAL SIIMEBAGS

 

cheers

jimbo

Thanks to This CSA page Claire's contact details are revealed as 0191 2718043 or [email protected]

If you take a peek at This page you can find out how to reach Rita at the OFT as well...

instead of messing around pussy footing, invioting comments ertc, which inevitably simply produces the lowest threashold of a solution, the OFT should simply say: "this is the standard of proof you need. get it wrong, and we'll remove your licence. Its up to you to do the job correctly, not for us to moddle codela nd hold you hand and help you get the cheapest solcution that meets the lowest standard of proof."

I am quite sure, if the OFT took that stance, and took a enforcement stance rather than persuasive stance, they would all comply. It would only take one licence to be removed to send a shock-wave through the so-called industry.

Do the police say to motoring groups and car makers "what propposals do you have for helping motorists to not speed?" Or to the alcohol indsutry "how can we help you help motorists to not drive when they're drunk?" No, they say "this is the speed limit, if we catch you breaking it, we prosecute and you get this fine, and these penalty points" or "this is the blood alcohol limit. Were not going to say how much you can drink and still comply with the law, its up to you to make sure you don't. If you break the law, you'll get this fine and these penalty points"

By asking for solutions from within the industry, they will get the minimum the industry wants to do, which will be to have the lowest cost solution that excludes the minimum number of people.

At the end of the day, youre either the person they want, or youre not. Unless they are 100% sure yu are, they shouldnt be revealing details of someone elses debt to you even if they have the same name,

I couldn't agree more, HeftyHippo. That's the only way.

I totally agree! Why bother having a Government Department without giving it the authority and cahones to act upon its own authority?

By the same token, the OFT should never have been in the position of having to pursue a court case with the banks on bank charges. It's a government department FFS, they should have had the power invested by Government to simply state the charges ARE unfair. End of.

Grrrr

Elsa x

Any freedoms possessed by any normal citizen are long gone, we are now governed by unelected europeans (small letter "e") who are controlled by the world banks and big businesses.

There is no way whatsoever that any government department will ever act against them unless it has been pre-approved so as to minimise the fallout. the old maxim about the need for Justice to be seen to be done, has now superceded any actual requirement for real justice.

Look at the whole CCA enforceability thing, the law is clear, written in black and white and demands that those lending monies must perform certain duties or face losing any right to collect, right down to how the paperwork should be handled.

The CCA is rewritten and the relevant bits reworded so that they can make up their own versions of a legally binding contract and submit it as proof of liability.

Look at the whole Bank charges thing, the OFT were doomed from the start, the government department cannot even rely on their own courts to support them.

A certain Ken Livingston once wrote "if voting changed anything, they'd abolish it"

I'd never hear that quote Spam, nice one... well, not "nice", but you know what I mean.

Pssst, Elsa, the correct spelling is "cojones" with the "j" pronounced soft from back of throat. signed: Bookie, pedantic even at that time of the morning.

I think that this is of great credit to CAG. Without this site and its contributors, the debtors would just roll over and give in to these bullies. The OFT would be none-the-wiser and the whole sordid "industry" would just steam roller over the law without any come back. With CAG, they can't get away with it anymore because we have empowered ourselves with help and assistance to use the law to take the "industry" on. Maybe the OFT could hitch themselves to those they SHOULD be protecting, not to the "industry" it is supposed to be controlling.

I'd never hear that quote Spam, nice one... well, not "nice", but you know what I mean.

 

Pssst, Elsa, the correct spelling is "cojones" with the "j" pronounced soft from back of throat. signed: Bookie, pedantic even at that time of the morning.

Arghhhh trust you to spot it before I went back and edited, you meanie!

Would you believe I chose to use the URBAN spelling?

Or that I'm half Irish, half Dutch so that's the Dush version?

Or that I was trying to sidestep the swearbot?

Wish now I'd just put bollocks.....

Elsa x

This is quite spectacular news. Do we have a government that is actually on the side of the normal person now?

No, we don't now have a government on the side of the normal person.

Despite their spin it was proven the least able in society will carry the heaviest burden as detailed in the June spending review.

Add to that the impending increase of 2.5% to VAT which will also hit the poorest hardest.

Same old, nothing changes.

No, we don't now have a government on the side of the normal person.

 

Despite their spin it was proven the least able in society will carry the heaviest burden as detailed in the June spending review.

 

Add to that the impending increase of 2.5% to VAT which will also hit the poorest hardest.

 

Same old, nothing changes.

Actually although OT the VAT rise of 2.5% was probably the fairest way of managing the simply HORRIBLE debt the previous so called "Prudent" guy had left -- I'm basically APOLITICAL --just stating the facts which are 100% in the public domain.

Poorer people tend to spend more on food which itself doesn't have VAT added on (supermarket etc food rather than Restaurants / take aways), and a higher proportion of their income goes on Gas, Electricity, water etc -- where the 2.5% increase doesn't apply.

I wouldn't worry over how much extra a Ferrari would cost --those people in that market wouldn't know or care anyway.

Big companies will probably in tight market conditions and competition absorb most of the 2.5% VAT rise so I doubt whether the average consumer would notice any significant difference -- even bigger items like Gas stoves, dryers or even LCD TV's aren't bought very often - maybe once in 5 years.

Putting up Income Tax isn't any good as there are too many loopholes for the better off to get round.

You only have to see on THIS forum what people can do with the CCA of 1974 in tying up DCA's and other lending institutions into knots -- now try and imagine how some really smart lawyers with horrendously complicated taxation rules would thrive.

The Court system would be totally bogged down too with endless appeals etc etc.

Raising VAT aslo raises money quickly too -- the other option of putting up National Insurance DEFINITELY hurts the poorer more and in the current situation NOBODY should be even THINKING on putting a tax on jobs.

However back to the point --the whole DCA industry should be cleaned up and I'd like to see the BUYING and SELLING of debts outlawed. The OC should always OWN the debt even if it hands this stuff out "for collection" by third parties.

Cheers

jimbo

I would also love to see the selling of written off debts outlawed, after all they have already been offset for tax purposes, so the OC has lost out in noway whatsoever. The fact that repeatedly, the government of the day have gone to great lengths to legitimise the bottom feeders in the debt collection business would lead one to believe that as with so many other things, any subsequent government will fail or refuse to undo all that that has been done. Instead of telling them to sort it out, they invite those who break the law to discuss other ways they can get around it.

This lot will do as a host of others have done before them and simply change the laws to prevent the little man from getting too far above their station

The current herd of politicians is no more or less corrupt than those who went before, and will never act in the best interests of the general public if it goes against the wishes of their party or its contributors

we are now governed by unelected europeans

Too true. We should kick the EU into touch.

Too true. We should kick the EU into touch.

I dont think the present situation with debt collectors and irresponsble and inept lenders has anything tyo do with europe. Nothing has been learned since Nick Leeson's day. The banks stil carry on in the same way and then come to the taxpayer to be bailed out.

Earlier this year, it was considered to change UKs debt collection statute to that of europe - 3 years to chase a debt, not 6 as at present. Not surprisingly, the government caved in. Not EUs fault, just a gutless government that doesn't have a clue. There is plenty of representation for the industry, but none for the guy in the street.

I made a complaint to the ICO a month ago about the fact that they haven't started to investigate the complaints about debt collectors breaching the DPA. Those complaints were made in Feb and March this year. They haven't even been allocated to a team to investigate yet. Today, my complaint to the ICO was acknowledged - they promise to give an answer within 28 days, or to send a holding letter within that time if they cannot answer the complaint. Part of my complaint was that 2 months ago I wrote to the ICO asking them to confirm if statements should be supplied as part of a SAR because 2 banks have refused to supply them saying they are not included as part of a SAR.

The ICO are totally useless, the OFT gutless and the well oiled and funded debt collection business makes sure that the government hears how unpaid debts are crippling the economy!

It is not the fact that my lenders want me to pay the money back that I object to. I understand that and dont have a problem with their objective. What I object to, with every fibre of my body, is the way they go about it. Threatening, harassing, breaking every rule, guide and law that should protect us, lying, refusing to admit they are wrong, and ignoring their own associations code of conduct whilst at the same time talking utter tripe about how professional and responsible they are, knowing that consumer complains will never amount to anything because no one is interested.

Now that you have a Tory government, I can see the debt collection businesses using the courts far more than they were.

Just a gut feeling that the various people involved are not as independent from politics as they should be.

You only have to look at who owns DCA's and to draw your own conclusions. These are people that would be fairly well connected.

I dont think the present situation with debt collectors and irresponsble and inept lenders has anything tyo do with europe.

Nor do I, I just made that as a general comment. I agree with you about the ICO etc., all of the regulatory bodies in this country are simply worthless. They are not on the side of the consumer at all. I don't expect things to change under this government either.