Problem with Ultimate Credit Services Ltd

[ScarletPimpernel]

In harassment, the action taken by the alleged harasser, and its frequency, are immaterial; it is how the behaviour is percieved by the target that matters.

 

In general, behaviour that is percieved as hostile or intimidating for the target could be viewed as harassing. What some of us may see as the feeble threats of impotent DCAs may be have a much more serious effect on others.

 

Very recently I spoke to the compliance manager of a DCA, who told me that they take (at his level, anyway) any allegation of harassment seriously. He was very clear about the perception angle, and said that his staff are instructed to cease all activity and refer to management if harassment is mentioned. Now, I don't believe that happens in every case, with that particualr DCA or any other, but I suspect it illustrates that DCAs are aware that they tread a fine line.

[brokebutnotbeatn]

Hi BabyBear (love your 'handle btw!), for me the harrassment came with the refusal to correspond in writing and deal with my appointed 3rd party. The fact that they rang every 2 hours from 0800 to 2100 whilst we think is harrassment is apparently 'lawful' and used computer sumulation that were frightening to the children. Frankly, it's enough to threaten the threat monkies as they're as ignorant as Jo public really. They hate the thought of being recorded. I might have found it 'easier' to get it stopped because I was offering a payment plan which was more that a token payment. ...

[brokebutnotbeatn]

Sorry SP didn't see your post until after I finished my reply (quick meeting break in between writing and posting!) - you're right of course. Certainly they responded immediately when I quoted harrassment and my rights, so your comment is interesting.

[ukbloke]

well, just as I thought, a phone call from these lot just came through. Unfortunately I didn't take the call, my other half did, but she said that they tried to get her to confirm my details, divulge my email address, and when she told them that I'd expressly said contact me in writing, they told her that they only have standardised letters that they send, and that they don't correspond in writing!!!

 

Oh the joy. I think it may constitute harrassment now that they are refusing to communicate in writing even though I have now repeatedly requested so.

[bigandyuk1]

Harassment refers to a wide spectrum of offensive behaviour.The term commonly refers to behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and, when the term is used in a legal sense, it refers to behaviours which are found threatening or disturbing.

[brokebutnotbeatn]

also against data protection....I think as DD says on other threads, you need to understand what your objectives are. For me it was to stop the calls!

[babybear39]

Just quote Furguson V British Gas Trading at them if they harass you and see how quick they pass it on

[babybear39]

In addition to the last post, to clarify, even though you may owe an alleged sum it soesn't make it right for them to harass you, and BGT had to pay a LOT of damages in the mentioned case

[buzby]

Just quote Furguson V British Gas Trading at them if they harass you and see how quick they pass it on

 

And watch them laugh in your face? This will become a red herring for those that thik this case will do anything for them. This was a private pursuit that required the customer to use ther life savings to seek redress. If you're prepared to take the same risk, it is a useful pointer - nothing more. It does NOT mean that BG cannot continue to pursue debtors that owe them money.

 

Harrass = pursuit? Only a court can decide.

[babybear39]

No one said anything about pursuing debtors. What has and is being discussed is whether or not their action constitutes harassment.

[buzby]

What? Read your message # 25. You quoted the 'rules' and this clearly mentioned debtors.

 

If you think you can divorce the two - you'll living a fairy tale. It is you who are asserting harassment. You'll be telling us next a creditor isn't entitled or allowed to try and get his money back from a debtor?

 

One goes hand in hand with the other - and the severity of the pursuit is ample mitigation for any claim that the debtor is being 'harassed'. What next? The creditor being able to complain his trust has been abused by this ne'er'do'well debtor?

[babybear39]

In harassment, the action taken by the alleged harasser, and its frequency, are immaterial; it is how the behaviour is percieved by the target that matters.

 

In general, behaviour that is percieved as hostile or intimidating for the target could be viewed as harassing. What some of us may see as the feeble threats of impotent DCAs may be have a much more serious effect on others.

 

Very recently I spoke to the compliance manager of a DCA, who told me that they take (at his level, anyway) any allegation of harassment seriously. He was very clear about the perception angle, and said that his staff are instructed to cease all activity and refer to management if harassment is mentioned. Now, I don't believe that happens in every case, with that particualr DCA or any other, but I suspect it illustrates that DCAs are aware that they tread a fine line.

 

Exactly

 

Now find fault with that busby

[mr.ton]

You'll be telling us next a creditor isn't entitled or allowed to try and get his money back from a debtor?

 

They are not without going through the proper legal process 1st

[babybear39]

DCAs can no longer threaten to send the boys around so they engage in psychological warfare techniques.

 

How else do you describe a poster that was forced to go hungry for 2 weeks when a DCA took all her money???

[buzby]

They are not without going through the proper legal process 1st

 

What rubbish!

 

The Legal Process is what is used AFTER everything else fails. After all, would you want your debt increased by £100 when,instead of reciving a few phone calls, you've got to appear in court? What would be next? Complaining to the Judge that being called to court is harassment - and they shouod have contacted you first?

 

You couldn't make it up!

[buzby]

DCAs can no longer threaten to send the boys around so they engage in psychological warfare techniques

 

Ah - so calls from a DCA saying 'What are you going to do about this money you owe?' is OK, but "sending the boys round" is harassment?

[brokebutnotbeatn]

I think this is getting silly. The guidelines clearly state what might be considered harrassment. If someone writes to a creditor and speaks to them several times, going through the security questions, and advises that they will only conduct the discussion of financial issues in writing and the creditor refuses to so so but rings 7 times a day to verbally bulley someone out of money they haven't got then its clearly harrassment. We all know this is what happens. The discussion here is really what can be done to stop this. I am a believer in doing things sensibly first. If that doesn't work then other measure should be taken - including seeking prevention through the courts if necessary! Mind you, blowing a whistle down the phone or playing them music for hours is a cheaper and quicker way of achieving the same end! In my case the 'phone callers' stated they refused to talk to my appointed 3rd party as "they are not the ones with the debt". The guidelines and law are there to protect both sides if followed correctly afterall!

[buzby]

The 'security questions' thing is a subtle change - and I agree this has hamstrug a good many DCA's because if you don;t supply the details they cannot proceed and as the call is not marked as successful, it scheduled for a callback because the computer knows no better.

 

If the caller provided the information, then having identified themselves as the recipent, then told the caller that they wished all calls to stop and the matter dealt with in writing, this would at least end the impasse, but then open the door (metaphorically) to home visits and letters in the mail. All of which, one would assume, stop the moment the debt was paid.

 

Believe me, I lost a harassment claim against a DCA rep who stood on my doorstep and spoke so loudly the neighbour at the end of the street could have heard. His tactic was to gain entry to discuss the 'problem'. Since he didn;t plan on moving, I let my (rather large) dog out and he moved on. The Sheriff accepted the visit was not harassment was it was required to ascrtain my reasons for non payment.

[brokebutnotbeatn]

But it would have been harrassment if you'd written, stated no home visit and spoken BUT the DCA continued to ignore you? I don't care about letters - its my choice to open them or not (or pass onto my appointed 3rd party wihtout opening them); the kids can ignore them. They can't ignore repeated and intrusive phone calls and computerised message that can't pronounce your name properly. OR if the person, having called once, kept knocking on your door every 2 hours....

[mr.ton]

There's no difference between being harrassed by an individual or if its a company doing it.

They must stop if instructed to by the individual.

Thats were the police step if they dont.

[Christianronaldo]

How many calls or letters constitute harrassment?

 

One letter from Ultimate Credit Services addressed to a previous resident was delivered to my address back in June. I wrote to UCS asking them to remove my address from their records as the resident has moved on.

 

Yesterday I got home to another letter from UCS addressed to the same previous resident.

 

Today I am writing to UCS telling them to stop writing to the previous resident at my address, and I am seeking legal advice for their harrassmsent of me.

 

I feel harrassed by them. I wrote to them back in June explaining that the person no longer lived there and giving details of how long I have lived there. I have had enough trouble in the past with bailiffs calling because of this particular previous resident, and if UCS can't remove my address from their record when I tell them to then anything after that is harrassment in my opinion, because I am the one dreading going home to find an escalation of the situation because they are ignoring me.

 

I am also writing to Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, and the Information Commissioner. I want this nipped in the bud and will ask anyone and everyone who can offer help of any sort.

 

This forum has been invaluable in keeping me calm and determined, so thank you all. No doubt I will be back with the next instalment of the ignoramouses at UCS.

[buzby]

They're not harassing you. They're trying to contact a debtor - whom you admid was previously at their address. The fact you may have told them that the person isn't there means they are trying to effect recovery of a debt - which is allowable. It's not you they want. By telling the postman these letters are not for you will ensure they are returned and they may well take notice of this (as anyone can SAY they're not the intended recipient).

 

Has to how many calls etc equal harassment - probably a good many more than you expect. People's sensitivity to what seeks harassment is variable, but the courts have strong views, unfortunately phoning or writing trying to trace a former resident that's not there is seen as incompetence, and that is allowable.

 

You may get soothing noises from the agencies you've contacted, but in reality, there are no sanctions worth talking about available for something like this.

[babybear39]

Just quote Furguson V British Gas Trading to them if they persist and report them to TS and the OFT. Also may be a good idea to ask your MP to help out.