Crown Litagation Services - AOL - Advantis Credit

[nowayjose]

Im not having a good day, (see other thread 1st credit)

 

I have also received today letter from Crown Litigation Service acting for Advantis Credit for an old AOL debt from 07. They state that I owe £700 ??? - £880 after costs... the letter is asking me to pay within 10 days or they will issue proceedings.. If I dispute liability I must contact them in writing, supplying documents in my defence, and they have the right to produce the letter in court.

 

Is this agreement covered by a CCA

 

Thanks

NWJxx

[supasnooper]

What is the nature of the AOL debt and is it regulated under the CCA 1974 ?

 

By the way - your link to your other thread doesn't work but I'm presuming it's this one ?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/120308-received-statutory-demand-1st.html

Edited April 28, 2009 by supasnooper
link

[DonkeyB]

AOL? Jeez, that's a lot of on-line time!

 

Think you need to adapt the 'prove it' letter - it's up to them to prove you owe the debt, not for you to prove you don't. And if you mark your letter 'without prejudice' they have no right to reproduce it in court. They are, basically, telling lies to intimidate you and should be reported to the OFT.

 

This one courtesy of Curleyben - adapt to suit:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

 

I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

 

I am/we are familiar with the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

 

Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

 

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

 

I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and consider informing the OFT of your actions.

 

I/we look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

[nowayjose]

Donkeyb

 

The debt has gone up from £500 this is the first amount they asked for and now its gone up to 700 quid... It was for an internet/phone package.. when my husband lost his job we fell into arrears and they terminated the agreement, still dont know how they came up with the original figure... seemed to just pick it out of the air...also noticed that the debt is under MR with my christian name..

 

NWJ x

[mr.ton]

Do not supply them with any documents whatsoever.

None of their business what your defence is.

Simply tell them to get lost & to take you to a county court if they dare..were they'll be lucky to receive a £1 per month back.

It will cost them money to take you there also.

[DonkeyB]

Try the 'prove it' letter and see what response you get. If they don't come up with statements or a list of charges (some of which may well be bogus) as well, then they're going to struggle to get anything from you.

 

Incidentally, DCAs are not allowed to add their collection costs to your alleged debt, so they're already trying it on!

[babybear39]

Subscribing...

[nowayjose]

Will send the prove it letter Donkey, didnt know DCAs werent allowed to add charges to the debt.. I think thats happened with all my debts:?

 

Thanks

NWJxx

[DonkeyB]

Well, they're not allowed. They try it on. May be worth looking over any debts you have to see what's been added - it's more ammunition to throw back at them.

[nowayjose]

I will thanks

[babybear39]

Unfortunately, DB you're wrong. DCAs can add on interst and such that is set out in the original T & Cs.

 

But without a CCA they're screwed

[DonkeyB]

Sorry BB, you're right: I meant what they can't do is add their own costs - and most of them try with 'collection fees', 'referral fees', 'admin charges' etc.

 

I've yet to see any original CCA that has any significant reference to anything other than interest charges. Some DCAs even try to foist their own T&Cs on people (HFO, eg), even though they're bound by the original T&Cs (a) if they have the agreement, and (b) if it's properly assigned.

 

Gawd, I hate these people...

[babybear39]

Moorcrap are one of the worst allegedly They more than double the amount often...

[Helios]

moorcroft are one of the worst allegedly They more than double the amount often...

 

Moorcroft added their own £300 admin charge to the egg card i had but since they can't find my agreement and i'm not paying them anything

 

moorcroft are stuffed

[babybear39]

Moorcroft added their own £300 admin charge to the egg card i had but since they can't find my agreement and i'm not paying them anything

 

moorcroft are stuffed

 

They often are, allegedly

[angry cat]

Good God!

 

That is a bit of an iffy name;

Crown Litigation Services...conjures up images of the Crown Prosecution Services...

 

Crown Litigation Services is a Trading Name of;

Wescot Credit Services;

Wescot have several trading names.

 

eyes roll

 

AC

[babybear39]

The name of the company should be discussed with companies house as it would deceive people into thinking thy're something they're not with more legal authority than they have

[nowayjose]

I know what you mean bb I thought it was a court letter when I opened it:?

[babybear39]

Apparently companies house are fine to talk to and take complaints very seriously so might be worth giving them a shout NWJ.

[nowayjose]

I may well do that;)

[angry cat]

Treat consumers fairly.

 

If a general/regular consumer was to recieve a communication from;

Crown Litigation Services, they would be under the impression that this must be from a government body authority.

 

Devious, covert, unfair business practice...

 

AC

[DonkeyB]

I'm going to start a DCA called County Kurt CJJ Crown Persecution Services. Can't see a problem with that, can you?

[angry cat]

Realistically you cam call a company whatever you like.

But it is unfair to mislead the general consumer...

could be against the OFT guidelines, also!

 

AC

[babybear39]

Realistically you cam call a company whatever you like.

But it is unfair to mislead the general consumer...

could be against the OFT guidelines, also!

 

AC

 

It is against OFT guidlines and the CPUTR 2008.

[DonkeyB]

Damn. I'd better stick to Epsom Courty Count, and hope no-one notices.