Inside a DCA!

[tiglet]

Fatal to whom, certainly not the debtor nor unfortunately the DCA

 

The OFT or the CCA makes no direct mention of there being no right to pursue a debt because of an unsatisfied CCA request but only that a debt that is disputed should not be enforced until it's sorted. That dispute can take the form of a simple letter stating 'I owe you now't mate so bugger off & if you think I do prove it'

 

 

Actually, the OFT guidelines on debt collection do say this in points 2.3, 2.6 h, 2.8 i, 2.8 k, 2.10 a and 2.10 b.

 

Although the above guidelines do not expressly say anything about the Consumer Credit Act 1974, they deal with points which may be raised by a creditor not supplying a copy of the agreement when legally requested to do so.

[The GodMother]

I have found that a CCA request is good with thames credit limited.

 

For 3 years they have been sending letters to my property without a envelope and clearly being able to read the letter. They have ignored countly telephone calls and letters and even ignored trading standards telephone calls and letters telling them the person who they are writing to done a moonlight flip in 2005.

 

They politely wrote back to me sending me my request and money back informing me they cant give me any informtion regarding this debt as i am not the names debtor.

 

I then wrote back and informed them that if they contact the named debtor at this house again i will be suing them for harrassement and pointing out to the judge that the letters have been comming unenveloped and that is a breech of OFT guidelines on debt recovery.

 

I recieved a lovely letter saying sorry for the 3 years of inconvience we have caused you. We should have immediatly acted on the info u gave us but as the person is still electrol roll registered at your address we assume he was avioiding his debt.

 

I think i won that one.

 

He has not been listed as a occupient since sept/oct 2005.

[JonCris]

Actually, the OFT guidelines on debt collection do say this in points 2.3, 2.6 h, 2.8 i, 2.8 k, 2.10 a and 2.10 b.

 

Although the above guidelines do not expressly say anything about the Consumer Credit Act 1974, they deal with points which may be raised by a creditor not supplying a copy of the agreement when legally requested to do so.

 

A request to be 'legal' doesn't mean it HAS to be via a CCA request. The only supposed benefit from a CCA request is that the creditor should stop pursuing you & the debt should not be enforceable until an enforceable agreement is supplied none of which actually happens as the courts ignore such transgression's completely & DCA's continue regardless ........ & that's my point ............. we have to be realists instead of relying on the behaviour of the DCA's, Creditors or the courts to play fair & within the rules ........ because they don't

[tiglet]

I believe you are rather overgeneralising JonCris and I have to say the experiences of many other members of the forum seem to substantially differ to yours - mine included.

[JonCris]

Ok Tiglet name me any number of cases that have reached a hearing which have subsequently been struck out for non-compliance with a CCA request

[JonCris]

Actually, the OFT guidelines on debt collection do say this in points 2.3, 2.6 h, 2.8 i, 2.8 k, 2.10 a and 2.10 b.

 

Although the above guidelines do not expressly say anything about the Consumer Credit Act 1974, they deal with points which may be raised by a creditor not supplying a copy of the agreement when legally requested to do so.

 

We know that, "not expressly" is what you state Tiglet as thats the point I was making. As for what they are supposed to do, what is legally required etc is just so much wind it doesn't happen now & I don't see it happening on the near future either. Instead of being lulled into a condition of false confidence we need to think of new & effective strategem to take the fight forward

[tiglet]

I don't believe I ever said or implied that a case has been struck out because the CCA request was not complied with. I believe the points being made were to show that it is not inadvisable to send a CCA request, which is what you originally claimed.

 

Court cases have, however, been struck out or a notice of discontinuance sent from the other party specifically because there is no enforceable CCA - I would suggest you read through some of the threads on the DCA success sub-forum in order to see for yourself.

[car2403]

Guys, it's ok to agree to disagree you know

 

I can see both points and I tend to agree with Tiglet from a theoretical point of view and JonCris from a "in practise" point of view.

 

[tiglet]

Oh, there's nothing acrimonious between us (at least, I hope not) - it's merely a difference of opinion and I hope we are both big enough people to learn from eachother - that's what this site is all about

[JonCris]

I don't believe I ever said or implied that a case has been struck out because the CCA request was not complied with. I believe the points being made were to show that it is not inadvisable to send a CCA request, which is what you originally claimed.

 

Court cases have, however, been struck out or a notice of discontinuance sent from the other party specifically because there is no enforceable CCA - I would suggest you read through some of the threads on the DCA success sub-forum in order to see for yourself.

 

I don't need to see them as I wrote many myself

Edited June 6, 2008 by JonCris

[JonCris]

Guys, it's ok to agree to disagree you know

 

I can see both points and I tend to agree with Tiglet from a theoretical point of view and JonCris from a "in practise" point of view.

 

 

I agree technically tiglet is correct but I'm referring to the practice. By the time you reach court of course you'll know via all the other processes you can deploy whether or not they have a valid agreement. I'm saying because of what I & others have seen be careful.

 

Yes some may even back down eventually but there are many who will fight dirty given the chance & no matter what's supposed to happen it won't because as we have witnessed time & time again the courts are not protecting the consumer against such abuses

[Movingon]

Then WE have to ensure that we present the Court with enough evidence in our Defence that they have absolutely no option other than to find in our favour. Which means following the lines drawn in CCA and OFT guidelines to the letter and doing a formal CCA request (including £1 statutory fee) as soon as possible; to prove to the Court that the very best effort has been expended on discovering whether we are the person who owes the money or not, and whether or not the DCA has a legal right to pursue the alleged debt.

[tiglet]

I completely agree with you, joncris, that you have to be very careful during the legal processes as DCA's and the like can be very underhand, but I firmly believe that if you prepare, as Stonelaughter said, you are very likely to get a good result and even more likely to succeed on appeal if you do not get a favourable judgement first time round.

 

I still believe it is incorrect to advise not to send a CCA request in case a DCA does something underhand with the payment and if they do, as said before, keep your files in order and you can prove it.

[babybear39]

Just finished reading all of this...Very interesting.

[gnatshill]

Hello All! I've never taken the plunge to join a forum but I am now at my wits end! My boyfriend got himself into debt problems (before we met) which he then tried to use an agency to help with- Byrom & Keely in order for us to eventually get a mortgage I took over trying to help him we paid the agency religiously for a year to continually get debt collection letters as well as letters from the various bodies (abbey, co-op, black horse and mbna) it turned out byrom & keely never paid any agency I stopped paying them then sorted out plans with other agencies when they finally wrote with contact details he got a ccj in a court case we were never aware of as everything was dealt through the agency. I've been paying most of them by direct debit for a year and a bit now but have no payment plans therefore no idea when the debt will be repaid and how much for as well as that the names on the dd keep changing one was bucannon clark and wells now apex, and another lowell portfolio who i'm not sure is repaying what and who increased the amount from 120 to 126 without informing me and a new agency has come out of the woodwork demanding money (equifax) for co-op who I assumed was what lowell paid. I am at my wits end and work all the hours god sends already and caan't afford legal help and the CAB is never open or available! I need advice...

[PriorityOne]

Gnatshill... you need to start a separate thread on this issue so people can help you, otherwise you'll only get lost in the maze of this one.

 

[fuzzybobble]

Hi Gnatshill,

 

It's best you start your own thread on here, then it will be easier for everyone to advise you on what to do. Otherwise everything will end up lost amongst the other posts on this thread, and make things complicated for everyone.

 

Send me a private message when you have your own thread going. Then I'll try and sort out what you need to do next. Any chance you can provide up to date info on your new thread , on which DCA has each account, what each one is for (loan, Credit card, catalogue, etc) plus approx amounts and what year the credit was taken out for each one? Doing this will be a big help.

 

Any problems, let me now.

[PriorityOne]

Just found Gnatshill's thread in the Gen. Debt section....

[lindyhop]

this is one of the most interesting threads that i have come across on this site. Personally i account this to OTB.

 

i dont mind about the supposed ego thing and info in installments. i think that it would have finished me off if OTB had 'lumped' everything in one post. i for one would not have been able to read and digest the info if put in that format.

 

for me it is a shame that even more insider(?) info was given before OTB felt the need to 'give up' and close up shop.

 

quite a bit of the information contained in this thread by OTB, i have not come across in other threads (yet) set out so clearly and concisely. i dont doubt that it is out there, but i have yet to find it. i refer specifically to some of the earlier threads and installments.

 

OTB did state in one of their earlier emails that some PM's would be answered on the thread because the responses may be of interest to others. is this really the attitude of someone 'pulling the wool'

 

yes i may be misguided, but i havent made up my own mind yet so am not ready to sit in jugement.

 

plus, if the info given by OTB is known to be wrong and misleading, would not the site team have removed this thread as a 'sticky'?

 

it is not my intention to offend anyone, so please dont attack me for stating my thoughts. if i am misguided it will as they say 'come clean/out in the wash'

 

Regards

[PriorityOne]

OTB was baiting people and that was one of the problems on here. DCA staff often blend in on these forums very well and to be honest, most of what he said, I (and others on here) could have told you myself from the raw experience of dealing with these muppets for years on end.

 

The info. you talk about may not be visible on other threads, but people only have to ask. ... and in some cases, that experience is worth a lot more than an insider viewpoint within the industry who may have never been in debt in the first place.

 

[JonCris]

lindy 'suggesting' to members that offering 70% would be acceptable was & still is nonsense & meant to bamboozle folk into thinking they had to pay because they could be made to pay even if the agreement was unenforceable or even non-existent.

 

& frankly what goes on inside a DCA doesn't mean & thing & if you don't think you can glean all & more reliable information here than from this person gave you need to study the forum more. It's all there

 

Finally much of what was said WAS nonsense & it took the experienced members on here to stop misleading info being fed to the as yet uninitiated ones

[JonCris]

Any debt collector who comes here, whatever their (alleged) noble intentions, & gives false or misleading advice can be expected to be dropped on from a great height by everyone of us who know better

[elizabeth1]

How interesting that OTB's last post in here was 19th April 2008

 

YET thier last activity was 15th July 2008

[veester]

very interesting.

 

Cheeky tactics....

[babybear39]

DCA employees spying...