Also shows how incredibly cheaply these debts are picked up for.

According to the below piece, Swift is the tracing 'brand' for Ruthbridge - can't see how the letters have been OK'd by OFT as surely posing as a delivery company to solicit information is covered by the OFT section regarding communicating with debtors in a misleading fashion? Not A [problem] - Review of Ruthbridge Ltd, Broad Street, London Swift is in deed the trace side of Ruthbridge Ltd and express delivery letters to the Occupier are from the debt collection side, but these are only sent if the company is unaware of the current occupiers details, this is not a [problem] as there will always be a delivery of some form of correspondence for somebody who probably lived at the address some time before. The reason you may get these types of letters is because the company deals in very old debt and therefore their clients will prob have supplied old information. The tel number quoted for Express Delivery is not a premium line number. Both types of letter have been ok'd by the office of fair trading.

I'm suggesting this applies to some form of agreements - for example if you had paid 36 out of 48 personal loan payments you will have repaid the capital sum plus an element of the interest. This would also apply to some long term credit card holders who had made continuous minimum payments. I am making the distinction between a financial institution facing a capital loss - if you haven't made sufficient payments to cover the amount loaned , over a situation whereby the bank is effectively losing margin. I was also posing the question of whether it is morally equitable for a DCA to have the same powers of recovery as the original creditor, when they have bought the account at a substantial discount knowing it is a debtor and purely to make money from the situation. Surely there is an element of force majeur? It would be like buying a car without an MOT, knowing it doesn't have an MOT and then having the power to sue because it isn't a new car...... On another note, it has been conveyed to me in the past that a DCA didn't care if I paid or not as the bank would claim off their insurance anyway - I don't know if this was bluster or is true. By the way, I'm not condoning anyone avoiding payment or not making agreements to meet their debts, I'm just posing the question (which you also asked) about where the loss is in the system. Is there, or should there be a distinction between a total loss of the capital sum or a bank taking a hit on their profit on the account? And then selling this account for less than they would settle with you for,to a DCA to make money out of who has the same powers of recovery as them? Is this equitable was my question?

Interesting topic - one way of looking at it, say for a £5,000 debt Creditor You have had an XYZCard for years and always made at least minimum payments, your balance and credit limit is £5K. Your circumstances change and you cannot maintain payments. XYZCard has probably been paid back the 'capital' amount and faces losing profit as opposed to capital if you default. The fact that this is unsecured lending is factored into the interest rate you have been paying and probably assorted charges, XYZCard also has no direct route to getting their money back as the sum is unsecured, therefore they will have to litigate and queue with other creditors to force payment. They may try and negotiate with you but XYZCard is not really keen on DMP's as they take too long and are too costly and time consuming for them to bother with. XYZCard then sells your account for a figure based on several factors, age of debt, payment history - say the DCA pays 30% for it - XYZ receives £1,500 - so in probability (this will not be the same in all cases) XYZ has actually collected the original capital sum loaned to you from your payments to date and receives £1,500 from the DCA. In round figures, over the life of the account you have repaid the capital sum (and some probably) plus the payment from the DCA - XYZ card has received £5,000 plus £1,500 = £6,500 - there is no physical loss of money to XYZ Card over the life of the account, only a reduction in margin. I suspect this is why the majority of card companies 'sell' accounts. Clearly this is only the case for long term cardholders - say 5 years. For a recent cardholder XYZ would face a clear loss but then again if a cardholder defaulted so early then XYZ's lending policy would be under question. DCA XYZ DCA buys the above account for £1,500 and now claims the full £5,000 balance or boy will there be trouble, you 'owe' them bigtime you are a feckless fool who deserves all they throw at you......(really...?) XYZ DCA has bought the equivalent of a car with no MOT, without even seeing it....which is reflected in the price. They don't know you from a bull's foot and they don't care - you have no relationship with them. They have bought this account for next to nothing, knowing that you are in financial difficulty and cannot pay the balance. They will use the length of time this has been 'outstanding' as a stick to beat you with even though they have only 'owned' it for 5 minutes. They can take you to court (even though most don't due to either the upfront costs or not actually having the paperwork in place to do this), but they could and some do. So in summary, XYZ DCA can use the full weight of the court - to recover the 'full amount' of a debt 'plus costs' they recently bought for 30% of the value - knowing you are a debtor in the first place - purely to make money out of you - a mark up of over 300%. For a capital sum that (as outlined above) you have largely or completely paid to the original creditor over the life of the account. This doesn't strike me as a very equitable situation.