Jump to content

theghost

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by theghost

  1. well, legally speaking, you had free choice to buy the items at said price.
  2. the law doesnt require it to be made 'absolutley obvious' if it is reasonably easy to find on there web site - which it is when you look in the terms.
  3. Hmm, firstly, you bought the item at a price you liked - so unless the shop is happy to refund the difference voluntarily then you are stuffed. Or if they have a returns policy, you take all the items back and refund/re-buy them (be aware though they could refuse to re-sell them back to you if they so wish). With regards to your question - how do you know the products haven't been advertised for a certain number of days before being reduced? As to the law, the 28 day thing no longer exists, it is just guidance now - so theoretically you can call soemthing a sale item after a week - but the way it is done is that it mus't mislead the consmer. So there is no blanket rule now unfortunatley.
  4. What do you mean by 'over spending'? Is he getting into more debt by paying his bills/debts ?
  5. they are entitled to ask for more money on a regular basis because peoples circumstances do change - obviously your individual circumstances may or may not change it is poor form to get another DCA involved if you are already in a payment plan with one DCA and it is accepted you cannot pay any more - woudl check the debt collection guidance to see if there is anything in there about that.
  6. Because big businesses are big beasts and very difficult to regulate - even more so if they want to play games - even more so with the complex tax system we have - add in the fact that some have offshire stuff. The simple fact is if big businesses want to play hard ball it could make things difficult for the HMRC, who appear to have lost many skilled legal staff to boot (vital in fighting companies). I think there needs to be a 'cosy' relationship but of course they shoudlnt be letting people off paying by the way the headline is total bollocks - the article itself says so!
  7. I disagree - I have sat in on some county court cases including people fighting over money after their relationship had broken down - and lets just say the judge asked some interesting questions! On those occasions the judge had to make a judegment call becase things were messy. At the end of the day the Court has to follow the law and the CCA 1974 is fairly black and white so if you have a valid reason for paying they SHOULD follow the law and go on your side whether they like it or not. But dont be surprised if they ask the question - and on issues where they can impart their own feelings they probably will.
  8. You have assumed TW have actually told CQ anything - I haven't!
  9. Report TW for not keeping a leash of CQ. What may be happening is that when you phone TW you get through to their normal customer service - but chances are they will have a seperate credit department that deals with money owed that actually communicate with Capquest - so there may be a communication delay - how many days was it before Capquest wrote to you again?
  10. The only thing that could happen there is that they reveal they are a DCA. As far as I am aware as long as they say something like we are XYZ looking for Mr Smith they are OK, if they say somehting like we are XYZ DCAs then they would prob breach the rules. If your way was correct then it would seem to me that trace activity simply wouldnt be possible/legal. It is very easy for them NOT to reveal sensitive data but it is impossible for them to hide the fact they are a DCA.
  11. Well unless OPs friend knows who Link are by name I doubt at the time he would have known what they were calling for - only would have found out if he searced for them online or Op told him later on. Its a nonsense anyway because whilst Link cannot (or shoudlnt) tell the friend they are a DCA, there is nothing to stop the friend from searching and finding out of his own accord. Its a bit of a flaw in the system (but cannot think of an answer) - so either they will have to ban trace acticity of this sort or just accept that people could be 'emarassed' in this way.
  12. I believe they can phone up *anyone* they like and ask quetsions about Op, what they cannot do is give away private details, cause embarassment by revealing he has a debt or ask them to pass messages on. It sounds like they havent done that here, if I have read it right.
  13. Dunno how they got your phone number - the noly sources I can think of is credit files (if you gave your landline to another creditor) or by phoning up someone you know who gave your numbe.r Don't forget with the OFT you may not get any substansive reply as (generally speaking) they do not look into individual complaints and will probably not do anything with your complaint unless they are acticley investigating. Your complaint should be made to consumer direct ideally or direct to your local TS. If the company are a nuisance then your local TS should already be aware.
  14. I would be surprised if BT were selling ex directory numbers as routine - I am sure that the whole poitn is that they are not made public directly via BT - perhaps they have called one of your family members and got it that way? Its not too hard to ocmplain - just phone up Consumer Direct and give them the details - will prob take all of 5-10 minutes Like I say though - it is better to provide full facts and get the story straight with AK and ideentify exactly what breaches of codes/law there have been first.
  15. So hopefully by now the OP has reported this to TS and something may have happened??
  16. Either way, it is worth estbalishing whether a debt is owed or not - at this stage a complaint wont mean much unless that fact is confirmed. If TS wnat to take any atcion then it is the first thing they would have to work out anyway. As the account went into arrears it may be that charges were added on which were not cleared... ?
  17. The fact that your number is ex-directory is just that - it wont go in the phone book but once it is 'out there' it can be passed around as long as it is done for a legal purpose. You dont have a valid complaint for TS unless they are doing something wrong. They are entitled to chase for a SB debt until you tell them you wont be paying - so if you know it is SB you need to take positive action by telling them so. If they keep contacting you after it is declared SB then you can report it.
  18. Misread your post as your Mum being chased, not you. In what way are they threatening your mum? they shouldn't be discussing the details of the account with her unless you have provided authorisation. As regards to you not being able to talk to them - what details don't match up? Your DOB or your adress?
  19. Not really sure how this makes any difference when it comes to the bottom line. The overriding principle is if you borrow money you pay it back - plenty of british companies and employees benefit from DCAs clawing money back on their behalf - its a spurious argument to say DCAs have less of a right to collect money because they are based abroad. I spose there must be a reason they are passed around and it must produce results. With regards to insuring against losses - I am not really sure it makes much difference to the end debtor. I have a debt with a bank, why do I care what they are doing behind the scenes?
  20. As mentioned throughout the forum - they don't really have powers to do much if they visit in person - but obviously they could pressure your mum into paying. Has your mum taken any steps to actually verify and confirm that no debt exists? You say verified debt - is there paperwork to show the debt is settled and is it clear that it is the same debt that is being chased for? Effectivley, 2 things will happen - they will either give up, or keep trying until your mum shows she owes nothing or pays the outsanding amount.
  21. Perhaps when a DCA recieves an account from a creditor they dont always know it has been tried by someone else before them? From a creditors poitn of view presumably they must think different DCAs have different strengths - which iswhy they pass them around and dont only use one. there should be a limit to the amount of passing around that can be done IMO - max of 3 DCAs or something.
  22. if you definitley dont have any debts then it will be ID theft, or mistaken identity as above, confirm nothing to do with you first by checking CRA file.
  23. So has the OP notified the DCA that they consider this harassment? Don't forget - the debt collection guidance etc mainly says what you CANNOT do - DCAs are within their rights to visit and call debtors to get money back. They are also within their rights to keep visiting a premise if no one (appears) to be there to try and make some contact. It may well be harassment if they continue to door knock when the debtor has a valid reason for not wanting them to (or has told them not to) - but that doesnt seem to be the case in this situation.
  24. IMO (and backed up by people who know their stuff) it wont be harassment if they keep contacting you but you keep ignoring them. You have to contact them first and tell them you cannot pay (if that is the case). You can continue to ignore them if you want - as long as you are happy to keep recieving the calls/visits. The way it looks at the moment (and would be defending in court) is that they were trying to contact a debtor who was refusing to admit/pay their debt and was deliberatley being evasive. The first question the OFT/TS will ask you is why didn't you respond to the DCA - don;t forget they are not there to stop genuine debtors from engaging with DCAs, so you will get very little protection/assistance from them. To add, I appreciate that the view on here is that if you admit the debt it will mean even more hassle - so you may not want to do that - but I don't think you can have your cake and eat it with regards to ignoring them and expecting them to get into trouble for trying to contact you.
  25. Well it is not definite that nothing will be done - but given the time lapse, possible difficulty in proving forgery to a criminal standard and the fact they would get off with very little punishment - its probably not worth the time and money it will cost to bring the case. I have seen far more serious issues end up with little punishment - whilst costing the public tens of thousands per case.
×
×
  • Create New...