Jump to content

theghost

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by theghost

  1. No legislation says the AJOA does not apply to debt collection. When the CPUTR were introduced they amended the AJOA to say that if something that was previously covered by the AJOA falls winthin the scope of a 'commercial practice' within the CPUTR then the AJOA no longer applies for that case. In the last thread I pointed you to the law commisions website where they had a document which suggest the CPUTR applies to both contractual and non contractual issues. Therefore a DCA chasing the wrong person would fall within the scope of the CPUTR even though there is no contract. S 40-1 of the AJOA therefore quite clearly (and it says it in black and white within the legislation) 'does not apply' where the CPUTR can apply.
  2. If you wanna carry on the debate on harassment then start a new thread. Will be happy to contribute.
  3. I stated the AOJA offence no longer applies to any for of consumer debt collecting and I believe the Law Comission backs me up on that. ANYWAY - OP are you going to report the DCA on this occasion?
  4. Is the purpose of CAG not to contain decent advice for readers? One of the Ops questions was whether the DCA were allowed to do what they did - I suggested they could possibly - depending on what was said.. If posters want to accuse the company of illegal acts then they should be able to back up their claims instead of potentially providing shoddy info for the Op to take action on.
  5. You better tell the OFT then - they have granted credit licence to a business whose sole function it is to trace debtors - mostly by use of the phone - what would be the point if they couldnt ask some of the questions you have said are unlawful? I said if the CPUTR applied and a regulation 26 offence was not being commited then a AJOA offence couldnt be comitted. So yes, if the number of contacts is not unjustifiable there is no offence or 'harassment'. We probably have different views on what a justifiable number of calls is. The Op says they sent in a CCA request 3 days ago. Presumably the DCA has called and or written to her before with no positive response - hence calling the neighbour. We don't know if the Op has contacted them previously - and if the CCA is her first contact back and it was only sent 3 days previously then perhaps CQ havent recieved it yet? Depending on the timeline it could be a tad hasty on Capquests part to send a letter to the Op and then call the neighbour within say a week - which wouldnt give the Op much time to respond. We dont know the timelines though based on what has been posted in the Op.
  6. Only thing is - I didn't actually say that - though I will not bother going over it again in this thread.
  7. Most of my posts are not concerned with what we think is right or wrong - its about what is legally allowed and what is not legally allowed. DCA, like any citizen, can do whatever they wnat as long as they are not brekaing any laws or rules (which could affect their credit licence). There is nothing illegal about phoning someone up out of the blue and asking them if thy know where their neighbour is. The main piece of legislation they can breach is the DPA by giving away information about the debtor. They will tend not to do this - rather they will try and verify if the person is still at that address. disclosing or threatening to disclose debt details to third parties unless legally entitled to do so acting in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor either deliberately or through lack of care Theregotr they can get away with phoning someone up and asking if someone lives next door. What they cannot do is tell them they are a DCA and chasing that perosn. if that person does a 1471 and realises its DCA it is questionnable whether the DCA can be held to account for that. The DCA cannot withhold their number. If you have any statement to the contrary I will be happy to admit I am wrong. EDITED TO ADD - if they HAVE breached the DPA then the OP should report them. But only if sure of course. Make sure your neighbour remembers the exacted wording that was used.
  8. If the way you have described it is accurate then it sounds like they are in breach of the DCG. Could it be that because they are phoning you and you ot picking up they are still trying to trace you by calling your neighbours. How and when did you tell them to write to you only?
  9. I believe they can phone up your neighbour and ask them if you live next door or where you are now. They should not ask your neighbour to pass on a message. They should not tell your neighbour that you owe money but if your neighbour does a phone number check then there is not a lot they can do. I am fairly sure I read somewhere that the ICO or OFT had cleared the way for DCAs to ring neighbours as long as they were cautious with what they said. If you are sure the DCA broke the rules then report them to Consumer Direct.
  10. You sue whoever the contract was with. If he went into Carpetright and they gave him an invoive with carpet and fitting in one price then they are liable for their contractors/workmen. If he paid a carpet amount to carpet right and a seperate contract exists for the carpet insaller then he sues the carpet installers. By the sounds of it the carpet installers turned up expecting to be paid on the day so it sounds like he should go after the carpet installers. If that is the case and the carpe is already in your home then I guess carpetright have no further liabilitiy.
  11. If they have a genuine cock up in their system - i.e IT problems then a couple of signs on each aisle should set them clear It is a bit dodgy if its a known problem (i.e mroe than a couple of days) and they are doing NOTHING to make their customers aware With regards to the website, you would expect a banner or a message as you enter the website I would suggest
  12. No its not http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/102/contents/made To cut a long story short, big shops like Tesco will be required to 'unit' price' for many items. On top of that if the unit prices are wrong they can be comitting offences for misleading consuemrs. Some people use the unit prices to compare goods - hence it could affect their decision to go wit one product over another
  13. Although I am not an expert on CRA I believe they were borne out of the need for creditors to have somesort of database where they could check out potential debtors. Therefore it is no surprise that when they find people are not paying they will refer to the CRA. Whether the Government and other public bodies should be accessing CRA files is another matter I spose.
  14. Its nothing new and merely a tool to prevent or investigate crime. I know of one particular CRA that offers its service to law enforcement agencies and you get access to a shedload of data. I doubt you will get very far with the ICO.
  15. My guess is to 'investigate' the crime they will somehow need to track down who has the mobile phones that the victim called - to get that info is outside the remit of the BBC I would guess - even the cops would have a faff with it because you have to go through lots of form filling - even then number may not be a firm link to anyone
  16. Which sounds incorrect - criminal action can take place alongside civil action and indeed does all the time.
  17. I believe what you have already spent must stay on the interest rate you had before. Only NEW spending will come in at the higher interest rate - it sounds to me liek you should not spend on this card anymore. I believe they are right in saying they could in theory close your account and demand all their money back so I would just play it cool, pay off what you owe and find a better card supplier. Someone will be able to confirm...
  18. I had this discussion with someone on another thread but got told to shut up as it was derailing the thread.. but in essence 1) S40 of the AOJA no longer applies for business to consumer debt collection activities 2) the harassment Act will amlost certainly never be used by Trading Standards who are the main enforcers of thing type of crime as there are more relevant pieces of legislation that they would use first 3) In reality this is extremley small time and its not harassment whatever you want to call it - just based on what we have been told no action would ever be taken by any enforcement authority. The Op doesnt feel harassed enough to stop her daughter taking her phone to school everyday does she? The facts of what happens in reality is not the same as what is said on here, like I say if the Op took the complaint as it stands to a regulator they would not be interested unless she had actually picked up and told them to stop calling her (although writing a letter is fair enough) but they would also question why she is so reluctant to pick up the phone when she knows who the caller is. Its not like she is being called 10 times a day when she has cetegorically told them she doesnt want to speak on the phone (lets assume the letter is lost).
  19. Its worth pointing out that the missed calls you havent picked up wont really be classed by the DCA regulators as excessive until you pick one up and tell them you dont want to communicate by phone for whatever reason (or they recieve your letter of course). The way the regulator will look at it is that they phoned you but you were not available.
  20. It all depends on the facts of the case. What was the deposit for? Had you already agreed to buy the car and were going to pick up the car and pay the balance? If so in my opinion a contract has been concluded and you have cancellation rights under the DSR. If however the contract was not concluded until you actually go and pick up the car then as you say there is no contract and the dealer has no reason to keep your money. The other way of looking at it is that the money you have paid was a deposit to hold the car and that alone is a seperate contract. Arguably that is a seperate cotnract with DSR rights (but these rights end once you give the go ahead for the service to start - i.e straight away) Therefore you are not entitled to any money back. Liek I say it all depends on what was said. To me it sounds like you have DSR rights as it was a part payment towards the car - unless the dealer specifically said otherwise.
  21. I think I read a link elsewhere on the forum of someone being paid a large daily rate while they contracted for the FOS - so they obviously want the compalints dealt with as quick as possible. The simple fact is to have staff of the calibre to deal with the massivley complex range of issues that the FOS no doubt deal with would take a significant amount of investment, and I am guessing no one wants to pay for it. Things would probably be a lot worse without the FOS.
  22. Whats the alternative to the FOS? IIRC it is paid for by the financial institutions. If they removed their funding what would be left?
  23. Which crime are you talking about? The fraud against the bank? They prob wont do anything unless the bank complain..... That said its probably too complex for the average copper to bother with so you would need to get it reffered to somesort of specialist team I would have thought.
  24. when/where did they say that? do you have any record of it?
  25. I am pretty sure its no longer an offence if not done within 30 days. The agreement is just not enforceable after 12 days.
×
×
  • Create New...