They are trying to trace you - probably before writing to you.

Have you moved address since you signed up to your last set of agreements?

I agree that being late is no killer if there is a reason and the candidate is good.

Is is public or private?

My previous employer told me that candidates may be able to ask to see interview notes, hence they keep them written down.

Are you working at a supermarket? I have worked for britains largest sueprmarket and from what I saw this kind of pressure was normal at the store and jobs would go unfinished all the time.

I think you really need to decide what you want to do... quit or stay on.

if you want to stay on will you suck it up or try and push through with Union type stuff? If you are pregnant and have other o ngoing serious issues AND the manager is not being practical/fair then you probably could go forward with some action but you need to decide is it worth it? will you just end up being even more marginalised?

You do not have any power here, they can let you go at any time. So you will have to play by their rules.

If you want to interview elsewhere you will have to pus hit back 2 weeks or get time off.....

If the 1 hour lunch is something you MUST have then just quit and work elsewhere.

A sign makes little difference, its the kind of thing everyone should be expected to know!

As above, I think she will have to chalk it up as a loss.

The only way the club would be liable is if they had been negligent.

Read the OFTs Debt Collection Guidance.

It sounds like there are big breaches that should be reported to your local Trading Standards. It sounds like they are the fault of the PDL company as opposed to the DCA.

I would be thinking about aksing the wife to send over some letters of authorisation. I think you will have this problem with any organisation when it comes to personal information.

If I remember correctly a couple of years ago a PDL had such a lax system that that there was massive dientitfy fraud. So I daresay they are all aware of the issues that might arise.

Chances are your letter didn't make it to Eurocar or they haven't processed it.

The logical thing to do is call up Eurocar and ask wheat is going on.

There is probably no point calling up the department that issued the fine as they will have fined Eurocar. Eurocar then have a contract with whoever the driver is to get the money back from them. Obviously as you are not the driver you need get this message to Eurocar.

I would contract Eurocar and tell them there is a mistake and to call off the DCA. If the DCA keeps contacting you tell them there is a dispute over this debt.

It can be enforced by TS. The vast majority of enforcement work is done by TS.

You can view all civil and criminal enforcement action taken by the OFT and TS on the OFTs website - haven't found one against a DCA yet though. The number the OFT do pales compared TS in general.

I have created this new thread as I was told the discussion on it was detracting from another thread.

So the question is, is it a criminal offence to not comply with a code of practice?

This is an important question, because a code of practice, such as the CSAs is quite onerous and therefore it would be quite easy to commit criminal offences.

The relevant legislation quoted on here is the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which I think people have misunderstood.

5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).

(3) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph if—

(b)it concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if—

(i)the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of conduct, and

(ii)the commitment is firm and capable of being verified and is not aspirational,

So by not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5 you will be breaching the Regulations. But is a breach an offence? The answer is no. This is made quite clear in Regulation 9 which makes everything in regulation 5 an offence apart from regulation 5 3 b.

9. A trader is guilty of an offence if he engages in a commercial practice which is a misleading action under regulation 5 otherwise than by reason of the commercial practice satisfying the condition in regulation 5(3)(b).

Well, my post was really just to highlight the facts as some people were implying tracing of any form was not allowed. I think I have addressed that point.

I am surprised the OFT haven't tried to ban tracing. Though I am not sure they have the remit to do so without primary legislation being made.

Withholding of numbers would probably cause more annoyance - especially to those that are recieving calls and have no idea why and who is calling them

In the other thread, someone was implying that trace activity by phoning neighbours was not allowed at all, hence this post.

The issue of calling the same neighbours multiple times is a seperate one - though I a not sure an offence exists anywhere off the top of my head.

Yes - which is why some companies will be very secretive and will hardly say anything and why some companies use different names to their main business name.

A tracer should do little more than phone someone up and ask whether person X still lives Y address. They should give their company name but it can be done without disclosing the person owes money.

But as I say, there is nothing to stop the call reciever putting 2 and 2 together and working out why said company has phoned.

Its a bit of a flaw in the system.

I have started this thread for two reasons

- I got told off for apparently hijacking someone elses thread

- I want to ensure everyone has accurate information about what is allowed legal and illegal so they know exactly where they stand.

IMO there is a lot of misinformation on this forum which I have helpfully tried to address but get nothing but criticism. Whether the contents of this thread favour the debtor or consumer is irrelevant to me - what matters is a clear position of the law is provided. Consumers reading such information can then be best informed about what course of action to take.

The simple answer is:

DCAs are allowed to phone up people you may know and ask them questions about you. However, they are limited in what they can say and ask.

The rule of law in this country is that you can (generally) do whatever you want unless there is a law that says you cannot. There is no law that says you cannot phone up strangers and ask them questions about other people.

DCAs have 2 limits placed on them by law. The first is the Data Protection Act (DPA) and the other if the OFTs Debt Collection Guidance (DCG). There may well be other bits of law but these are the 2 main ones to consider.

DPA - quite straight forward - they shouldn't release any personal data about a person without their permission - so this means they should not discuss financial information etc

DCG - the DCG doesn't have a specific section on tracing (although tracing is mentioned) - the DCG is more broad and basically prevents DCAs from doing things that would embarass the debtor - for exmaple, revealing there is a debt and asking people to pass on messages to the debtor.

The 2 pieces of law combined are the reasons tracing agents are very secretive if the person they call starts aksing questions. They shouldn't reveal they are looking for the person in realtion to a debt which obviously means they cannot say much at all.

They should give their company name - but there is nothing they can do if the call reciever does their own research on the internet and finds out the company is a DCA.

So, to sumamrise, tracing agents can call anyone - but they are restricted by what they can say or ask by the DPA and DCG.

--------------

2 points have been raised to suggest tracing is not allowed,

1) The OFT have told off a company about tracing so it is not allowed:

http://oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2009/58-09

Well all the OFT have told them off for is asking people to pass on messages. As mentioned in the DCG, this is now allowed. They have not tried to prevent them from tracing activity.

2) The OFT does not specifically condone tracing actvity.

Well they don't need to. Their main job is to tell companies what is NOT allowed, which they have done via the DCG. The DCG mentions tracing agents so quite clearly the OFT have accepted they exist and are happy for them to continue.

If tracing was not allwoed why would so many DCAs do it? Why would the CSA have a leaflet published on it? Whilst some people might think the OFT are inefficient, they are not so bad they they would allow something so blatant to contune - were it outlawed.

Be interested in any other views.

Of what?

I have read the whole of your post and the Regulations!

You can turn a 'code of conduct' breach into an offfence.....this is taken from another thread.

 

I suggest you look at Regulation 9.

Once a Formal complaint is made to a company they must answer the complaint and or

provide a copy of their company complaints procedure.

SIMPLE.

And which statute specifically binds private companies to do that?

i.e apart from bits of legislation that say companies should adhere to codes of practice - which are at the bottom of the enforcement pile.

As GTFA above says, if they dont play ball then OPs recourse is to sue them, if he has a case.

I think you'll have to to agree to disagree with everyone else, Ghost. You have expressed your opinion, and others have expressed theirs; it is for the OP to decide which to take on board.

 

You are now in danger of pulling another thread off topic in your quest to prove your point - this is likely to attract moderation if it continues.

 

Incidentally, the OFT said:

Well clearly you don't want to allow me to respond, so I won't.

I have written to lots of companies and have often waited weeks for resposnes. They may well be very busy and so on. If Op wants a proper investigation into his complaint it may take a while. As a private company I don't believe they are under a duty to respond - so don't necessarily be surprised if nothing comes back - especially if the company is dodgy.

Anyway, we will see whether they respond within his further 10 day deadline.

No they haven't... SPECIFIC things are unnacceptable practices. But not the practice in general.

Show us the law where telephone tracing is banned - I think you will find if you contact the OFT they will tell you its a legitimate practice and they have no power to stop it (unless they change their Debt Collection Guidance).

The facts say otherwise.

Whether the time passed is reasonable - who is to say - possibly if the company is very large - I dunno

Your complaint is quite wordy, so if you want a proper in depth response it might take a while for them to respond in detail. Either that or they just won't be bothered to respond.

I've clashed with various people here about this - but I'll say it anyway.

There is nothing illegal about them phoning your neighbours. They are just retricted by the OFT and ICO in what they can say - i.e revealing sensitive info or aksing messages to be passed on.

If they have established that you live somewhere then maybe the contact is excessive. Have you been giving any DCAs the run around? If so they might be wanting to be sure before they contact you.

Which company? Read the whole thread and all should be clear!

What I mean is, is HFO 'the business' gone dow nthe pan or are they just re-jigging their corporate structure? The latter is all too common - especially amongst questionnable businesses! But obviously it means they will still be trading, just under a different Ltd company.

They have been pretty smart TBH.

That said, the way the FCA works will really depend on how the Govt sets it up at the start - quality, pro-active regulation requires a lot of staff and money. The Government may talk the talk and talk about FSA failings but I am not so sure they will back it up with an aggresive regulator. It is oen thing making the law but its another thing paying for lots of staff to do the job properly.

Is this 'company down' as in

a) they are just reshuffling or b) they have gone out of business