DG Solicitors -Threatening court action with no credit agreement

[franwilliams]

DG Solicitors have just sent me the following letter regarding an outstanding credit card debt. They failed to supply a Credit Agreement on my request in Aug 07 and have also broken the Data Protection Act by passing my details through to Metropolitan Collections Services Ltd.

 

Despite previous correspondance you have failed to repay this debt.

 

We have been instructed to take legal action against you in the County Court. This may result in a Judgement being entered against you and then an attachment of earnings being issued.

 

An attachment of earnings order may result in money being deducted directly from your wages to repay this debt and as a consequence, your employer may become aware of the debt.

 

The estimated cost of such an order is £275.00

 

IT IS NOT TOO LATE TO AVOID THIS COURSE OF ACTION.

 

Please contact us immediately on freephone 0500 400 400 to discuss repayment of your outstanding debt.

 

Please advise on a response letter.

[rory32]

Thread moved to Debt Collection Industry where you will receive more relevant help and advice on your situation.

[ScarletPimpernel]

The phone number is that of MCS. MCS use DG's letterhead for some of their threatograms; they also have the risibly-named Central Debt Enforcement Agency - again, just a letterhead. They're all subsidiaries of HSBC, and that's how they can pass data amongst themselves.

 

The letter is a standard template. Note the careful wording: This may result in a Judgement and An attachment of earnings order may result... It's true - a County Court claim may result in a judgement, and (where a judgement has been obtained, and the debtor has failed to keep to payments ordered by the court, and an AofE order has been granted), an Attachment of Earnings Order does mean money is deducted from pay.

 

In this case, of course, it's all academic; if HSBC/MCS/DG haven't got the original agreement, they aren't going to get judgement, even if they do go to court. They rely upon people not knowing their rights or the law, and in the same vein they may submit a court claim in the hope that the defendant will ignore it, or not defend, so they can get a default judgement.

 

I'd suggest a simple response noting the content of their letter and drawing their attention to s.78 of the CCA 1974 which states that whilst in default they cannot demand payment, and the OFT guidance on debt collection, which states that failing to suspend collection activity whilst a debt is in dispute is an unfair practice. Make it a formal complaint, and ask for a copy of their complaint procedure.

 

You will probably find, however, that like all of HSBC's creatures, they will come up with some drivel saying that they don't consider there to be a dispute, so they'll be carrying on. What they won't do is go to court. I suspect that the only way to stop them is to make a formal complaint to FOS (and the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors in DGs case).

[42man]

Try this courtesy of Curlyben !!

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Your ref:

 

 

Thank you for your letter of **DATE**, the contents of which are noted.

 

 

As holders of a Consumer Credit Licence you are obliged to comply with the Office of Fair Trading Guidelines on Debt Collection. I would therefore be obliged if you would provide me with an explanation as to why you are attempting to collect on an alleged debt which was disputed with **BANK ** prior to your first contact with me, and has yet to be resolved.

As per OFT guidelines Section 2.8k "not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt."

 

Since this is considered an unfair practice and contrary to the OFT guidelines, you should consider this letter as a formal complaint, and provide me with a copy of your complaint resolution procedure.

I also require you to confirm that you will now comply with the OFT guidelines, and will not attempt any further collection activity whilst the dispute is unresolved.This process may take some time, due to the Office of Fair Trading's test case, but I will try to expedite this issue as a matter of urgency.

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

After taking advice, I am of the opinion that your continued pursuit is in violation of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40, Protection from harassment Act 1997 section 3 as well as breaching a number of the OFT Collection Guidelines.

 

I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities as I see fit.

You have 14 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to

[franwilliams]

I think there was something missing off the bottom of the letter?

 

With regards to my ongoing issue, I served CCA requests to Halifax(Personal Loan) & HSBC(Both Credit Card & Overdraft) in July/Aug 07, none of the managed to produce a sausage. Unfortunetly, i have lost all the correspondance, while moving house. Will i need to start again or is it worth going asking for all there documents under the freedom of information act?

[B3rty]

Missing from letter....

 

I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities as I see fit.

You have 14 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is now a formal complaint.

 

I hope that you will enter into a sincere dialogue with me about this matter and I am writing this letter to you on the assumption that you would prefer to do this than merely respond with standard letters and leaflets.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in writing

 

Yours faithfully

[B3rty]

...

[JOSH_IOU]

rofl a bank comply with oft guidelines lol

[mexico86]

hi, i'm curious to know how the original poster got on with DG/MCS/HSBC, because I also deal with that particular axis of evil.

[master woody]

All got all this S**t from HSBC. In my case they sold the debt on to CL

[ScarletPimpernel]

Since threatening action that cannot legally be taken is contrary to CPUTR, one would hope that the top quality legal people at DG have now stopped using this particular misleading tactic.

 

My breath is most definately not held, however.

[TheChancellor]

 

I'd suggest a simple response noting the content of their letter and drawing their attention to s.78 of the CCA 1974 which states that whilst in default they cannot demand payment, and the OFT guidance on debt collection, which states that failing to suspend collection activity whilst a debt is in dispute is an unfair practice. Make it a formal complaint, and ask for a copy of their complaint procedure.

 

 

Hi SP

 

Just received this from HBOS -

 

"For the avoidance of doubt, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not prohibit collection activity when an account is in dispute."

[palomino]

"For the avoidance of doubt, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not prohibit collection activity when an account is in dispute."

 

This is technically correct but pure sophistry. There is a very fine but clear line between enforcement and collection. In this case if you continue to make payments they can continue to collect them (although I can't see why you would).

[ScarletPimpernel]

Additionally, the OFT Guidance requires them to suspend collection activity whilst a dispute is resolved.

[TheChancellor]

Additionally, the OFT Guidance requires them to suspend collection activity whilst a dispute is resolved.

 

I guess they feel that they have resolved the dispute by sending me these

 

(post #27)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/153374-thechancellor-6-ccas-new-post.html