eBay / Intrum Justitia - is this actually legal?

[kraygerson]

Good morning,

 

Not for the first time, I have been having a good nose around the forums this morning. There is a great deal of useful information here and I look forward to (hopefully!) contributing.

 

For the moment, I have a couple of questions to ask. Your help will be appreciated.

 

I am aware that Intrum Justitia (hereafter referred to as IJ) collect on behalf of eBay/PayPal. I have had dealings with them once before, when I was slightly late paying my fees. Within days of my eBay account being suspended, I cleared the outstanding amount, but evidently not before the matter had been passed to IJ.

 

IJ began calling me and demanding payment of a figure above that owed. I told them:

 

1. It had been paid

2. The figure they were quoting was incorrect

3. Further correspondence was to be in writing only

 

I later received a letter explaining that the increase was due to the addition of their fees.

 

To cut a (fairly) long story short, I was irked by yet another phone call from them (on the very day that the letter arrived!). The matter ended with them saying they would take me to Court and me laughing at them, then telling them to get stuffed.

 

Now, to the present day. We are (hopefully) at the tail end of a tough few months and my eBay fees (just under £34.00) are overdue. eBay suspended my account on the 8th of September and IJ are already on the case. The first call came on Saturday, the second yesterday. Unfortunately for them, I was busy, both times, so kept the conversation short and sweet. I have, however, told them to keep it in writing.

 

Given that I am just about to pay my eBay fees directly, by credit card, I am anticipating a repeat of last time.

 

So finally, the questions!

 

1. Are IJ actually allowed to add charges in this manner? (I seem to recall reading somewhere that DCAs are not permitted to pass on their costs to debtors, except and unless a Court judgment has been obtained)

2. Is there a statutory amount of time that a creditor must wait before passing a matter to a DCA?

 

Thank you for reading.

[ScarletPimpernel]

The answers:

 

1. The OFT guidelines on debt collection, by which all DCAs are bound (because they need a consumer credit licence to operate), are quite specific about DCAs adding charges:

 

Charging for debt collection

 

2.9 Charges should not be levied unfairly.

 

2.10 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

 

a. claiming collection costs from a debtor in the absence of express

contractual or other legal provision

b. misleading debtors into believing they are legally liable to pay

collection charges when this is not the case, for example, when there

is no contractual provision

c. not giving an indication in credit agreements of the amount of any

charges payable on default

d. applying unreasonable charges, for example, charges not based on actual

and necessary costs

e. applying charges which are disproportionate to the main debt.

 

In other words, IJ can't add charges.

 

2. No, but a Court would expect a creditor to allow a reasonable time.

 

 

Part of the problem here is that Ebay is an admin vortex; their own forums regularly feature cases of IJ and Robinson Way (Ebay's other clown DCA) pursuing people for money they do not owe, all due to Ebay's sloppy admin.

[kraygerson]

Thank you for that information.

 

Hmm ... interesting. eBay seem to amend their user agreement every so often. Doubtless, the vast majority do not read it, as in totality it is LARGE. The point being that at some stage, it has changed to include a link to their fees policy. Their fees policy contains the following:

 

eBay requires payment in full each month on accounts with balances of £1.00 or greater. eBay may suspend your account for non-payment of eBay fees. If you have not paid your outstanding eBay fees after our reminders and warnings, eBay reserves the right to refer your account to an outside collection agency for collection of the outstanding eBay fees. Please note that the collection agency will also charge you a proportionate and reasonable fee for the collection of the unpaid eBay fees, which will vary according to the amount owed and which will be payable in addition to the outstanding eBay fees.

Might this constitute express contractual provision? Or would you say it falls short of 2.10 © by not actually giving an indication of the amount payable?

 

Don't get me wrong - I very much doubt IJ will want to press the issue too far, as, at best, they're on shaky ground once the fees have actually been paid. However, I am one of those people who simply likes to know!

[ScarletPimpernel]

The Ebay UA clearly falls short of para 2.10© because it fails to give an indication of the amount.

 

I dealt with a firm called Europol International, on behalf of a client. The client was perfectly willing to pay the debt of £500, but not Europol's £300+ fees. The contract was similar to Ebay's, in that it stated that collection fees may be charged, but that was all. I challenged them under the OFT guidelines and they argued that the fee was based on actual and necessary costs, and was proportionate, but were not willing to provide a breakdown. They told me on the phone that they knew the fee wasn't enforceable, but about 98% of debtors paid without question, so they always added it. Ultimately they waived the fees, but with bad grace.

 

I don't imaging IJ will be any more willing to provide a breakdown of those pesky 'actual and necessary' costs.

[ODC]

Intrum Justita and Legal in the one sentence. Some mistake surely