Jump to content

nturkes

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by nturkes

  1. Almost there! :)

    You do not need a contract to request a SAR. These days, there is no requirement for the actual contract to exist in any tangible form. The firm can assert the contract exists, but it is the payment the consumer makes that confirms his acceptance of the terms of the contract that prevail. What are these? Well, they may have been provided to the consumer at the time, but the company can refer to the 'specimen contract' which will be available to view online. Now, supposing the contract then is not the same as it is now? This is were consumers have been sidelined, as the contracts used since the early 1990 refer to the T&C being updatable on 30 days notice - so even if they do change, it is always the latest T&C's that will be deemed to be current. (And therefore, the customer is said to have accepted them).

     

    The contract has nothing to do with payments - unless there is an issue of a breach, where the customer has not complied with those terms. So, if there is a breach, and the service is discontinued, then even if the debt is sold on to any number of firms willing to take on pursuit, they (the DCAs) do not require to hold any data on the debtor. Just that there is money owed and their job is to collect it. It would be a serious breach of the DPA if all your dealings with the network were passed on (payment records, correspondence, itemised calling lists etc) so if there is any dispute about how much is owed, this needs to be resolved with the network (the organ grinder, not the downstream monkeys).

     

    How - show me where in 'law' that a debt cannot be treated as a commodity and traded? The OP's no more entitled to receive a 'Notice of Assignment' as he is to receive an invite to the DCA Xmas Party. There will supposedly have been an interruption to service or non-compliance so it won't come as a complete surprise that something is wrong. Most (all?) of the big network contract T&Cs state they reserve the right to sell on not only the service, but any accrued debt.

     

    All of this is in addition to a default on a credit file - which is by far the more serious action that needs to be addressed and resolved if at all possible (especially if there has been an error). Even if a debt has been sold on - if there was no justification for it (say a billing error) it is the network that cancels it, by telling the downstream chasers to stop.

     

    Some DCA's get above themselves and will in addition to chasing the debtor, enter the debt erroneously on their credit file - a DPA breach - as only the original creditor can do this. Some customers have found their files had a network default AND a DCA one. Two black marks for one debt! It's not cricket, but at least this can be corrected.

     

    What is needed is to identify those that have the power to resolve the problem. If the debt does exist and the money is owed, then you're stuffed - but for those who are suffering at the incompetence of others, it is worth pursuing.

     

    All very true I'm sure. A default was originally logged by 3 but disappeared for a couple of years. HFO Capital have recently re-logged the default in their name, which according to Experian they are able to do as the new creditors. Surely I should be notified of such a change, if not by 3, by HFO in 2007 when they apparently purchased the debt, or in 2009 when they re-logged the default?

  2. I could just amend to cover both possibilities

     

    However, no substantive proof has been provided of any contract I have made with Hutchinson 3G UK, nor of Hutchinson 3G UK’s authorisation for HFO Capital Limited or Roxburghe (UK) Limited to collect the supposed debt on their behalf nor of a Notice of Assignment of such debt from Hutchinson 3G UK to HFO Capital Limited. Indeed, neither HFO Capital nor Hutchinson 3G UK have made any attempt to contact me regarding this matter.

  3. No proof of assignment is required. (only in CCA regulated agreements) so take this out, you are now asking for proof that Hutchison has authorised them to collect the supposed debt on their behalf.

     

    As for 'written evidence' this is gobbledegook - saying 'substantive proof' is more accurate.

     

    Thanks, amendments made:

     

    You have contacted me on the 23rd February with your response to my request for proof of liability under the account listed above. I have received a breakdown of charges, and some dates of a supposed contract with ‘Hutchinson 3G UK’. However, no substantive proof has been provided of any contract I have made with Hutchinson 3G UK, nor of Hutchinson 3G UK’s authorisation for HFO Capital Limited or Roxburghe (UK) Limited to collect the supposed debt on their behalf.

     

    I am afraid that your response is not satisfactory and does not constitute the substantive proof of such debt being owed by myself which I have requested on two occasions previously. I would again like to point out that I have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to HFO Capital Limited, or Roxburghe (UK) Limited.

     

    In addition to my above requests, I would also ask that an explanation be provided as to how the original balance has been calculated, what the terms ‘Charges’ and ‘Misc Charges’ and their corresponding monetary values relate to, proof of your ability to charge interest on such debt and the rate at which interest can be charged.

     

    I am familiar with the ‘Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance’ which states that it is unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question. I would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods. Furthermore, ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

     

    I would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above accounts unless you can provide substantive proof as requested above to confirm my liability for the debt in question.

     

    I look forward to your reply.

  4. This is what I have come up with.....any suggestions appreciated:

     

    You have contacted me on the 23rd February with your response to my request for proof of my liability under the account listed above. I have received a breakdown of charges, and some dates of a supposed contract with ‘Hutchinson 3G UK’. However, no proof has been provided of any contract I have made with Hutchinson 3G UK, nor proof of assignment of this supposed debt to HFO Capital Limited, a company whom has made no attempt to contact me regarding such debt previously.

     

    I am afraid that your response is not satisfactory and does not constitute the written evidence of such debt being owed by myself which I have requested on two occasions. I would again like to point out that I have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to HFO Capital Limited, or Roxburghe (UK) Limited.

     

    In addition to my request for proof of the original agreement and assignment to HFO Capital, I would also ask that an explanation be provided as to how the original balance has been calculated, what the terms ‘Charge’ and ‘Misc Charges’ and their corresponding monetary values relate to, proof of your ability to charge interest on such debt and the rate at which interest can be charged.

     

    I am familiar with the ‘Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance’ which states that it is unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question. I would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

     

    Furthermore, ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

     

    I would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above accounts unless you can provide the written evidence I have requested above to prove my liability for the debt in question.

     

    I look forward to your reply.

  5. Thanks Buzby and DonkeyB. I'm going to send another letter asking for clarification around the charges, interest etc, as well as proof of the original agreement and assignment of the debt which I assume they should have notified me of in 2007 when they purchased the debt for next-to-nothing. The other strange thing is, whoever heard of a contract lasting 14.5 months??!!

  6. Can you post up the 'proof'? Bet we can destroy it completely. Remove any personal details.

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/157910-hfo-services-scaring-my.html

     

    In this case, which HFO gave due to media pressure (Radio 4 and House of Commons), the disputed contract and service WAS relevant in the end - and HFO acknowledged the issue should have been dealt with.

     

    nturkes HAD made a complaint which was never resolved.

     

    And it's about time you asked for some proof of the original assignment to HFO.

     

     

    Thanks for all the responses guys...proof attached.

    Roxburghe Proof.pdf

  7. The phone was provided by a third party, Phones4u I believe. The issue was with the phone and the service. I couldn't make calls in central Leeds at the time the phone was functional, then I had handset issues which '3' arranged the repair of on two occasions....to no avail. They then offered an inferior handset with a 12 month contract entension, which as you can imagine I didn't want to accept. I asked them to provide me with an exact replacement over the original term which '3' themselves declined. At no point was I directed back to Phones4u.

  8. Yeah, the only thing stopping me from paying is that 3 seem to think I broke the contract, whereas I stopped paying for it as they broke the contract by not providing me with a fit for purpose handset with comparable functionality to the handset I originally bought. I gave them plenty of time to resolve the issue (around 3 months). Couldn't make calls, texts didn't work at all, had no service most of the time (in a large city) etc etc....sure you've heard it all before.

  9. Hello again....

     

    Can someone please tell me what to do next with this issue? I'm starting to get really worried by it all :(

     

    Here is a quick re-cap:

     

    Had a letter from Roxburghe demanding payment of a debt owed to HFO Capital Limited which turned out to be for a 3 mobile account back in 2004. I sent a "No Acknowledgement" letter to Roxburghe who have responded with a last payment date and ammount owed but no 3 mobile account information. I dont have any information from the account (dont even know the mobile phone number) so i can not subject access 3 mobile.

     

    i keep getting threatening/demanding letters from Roxburghe but i'm not sure if i am the debtor or if they have any right in making me pay the debt.

     

    So my question is what do i do next? :confused:

     

    I received exactly the same, amount owed, interest, charges, miscellaneous charges, date and amount of last payment in 2004...no account details. I recently sent the prove it letter for a second time after receiving a 72 hour threat.

  10. How can you receive a 72 hour notice on a Saturday, it doesnt make sense... have you got the envelope because if it is sent UK Mail or another service other than Royal Mail it will be three days old already. Keep the letter and the envelope together and then HFO aka Roxburgh will be stuffed in court should they proceed...

     

    To their credit it does say 'You now have 72 hours from receipt of this notification'.

     

    The letter is dated 17th February, however, this is still 5 days (3 working days) after I have proof that they signed for my letter. I just don't understand how they expect you to pay £360 to them for a HFO Capital 'debt' that you have never received notice of. If I hadn't come on this site I wouldn't have known who HFO Capital was, not like they're helping to get their money by sending demands with no reasoning or proof that you actually do owe the money (i.e. who you allegedly originally owed the money to, and how the amount that they are claiming is calculated).

     

    Might be a good idea for me to send them a similar notice.

  11. The Limitations Act 1980 and subsequent case law states that it is the last date of cause of action from the debtor.

     

    That means a payment instigated by you (card/cash/cheque payment, standing order) - direct debit does not count

     

    OR

     

    The date you last acknowledged to the creditor that you owe the money... i.e. you ask for a reduced payment plan / make a final settlement offer etc.

     

    Hope this helps?

     

    So if you've never paid by any other means than a Direct Debit, and have never acknowledged to the creditor that you owe money, you're untouchable??! Sounds good to me.

  12. I have been banking with Abbey since University, when I was lured in by their fantastic offer of a current account, and actually ended up working for their telephone banking service which I am sure you are all rather more familiar with than you would probably like.

     

    Luckily, due to the fact I am a generally pleasant guy, when I have been charged in the past I have managed to get out of it, but I was refunded a £30 charge a couple of months ago, and even then, I had to request a call back from a manager.

     

    Today, I am pretty miffed. Granted, I like to flirt with my overdraft limit, but I am paid weekly, and they know the money's going in. I have just received my statement stating that I have incurred charges of £50, £20 overlimit fee and £30 honouring a £14.99 card payment which took me £1.10 over my limit for less than 24 hours.

     

    I know other people have been hit much harder, but how can they charge me what would be over 16,500% flat rate interest?! Its a joke, I am not happy, and I wish that I was in a position to pay off the overdraft and go elsewhere (but then again, they're all the same aren't they?).

×
×
  • Create New...