me & the OH's debt

[lickthewallfatboy]

We're all aware of the lowlife banks and CC companies referring us to experian and equifax and the like when we miss payments etc....

 

Is there anything to stop us doing the same to them when they reject firstly our request for repayment,secondly the LBA and the fact that they have had to be taken to court because they have defaulted?

 

If everyone here could do that it would really wind them up.Don't know if it's viable,but it would be a right laugh if we could.....

[jo5ephedward5]

I would love to do this!

 

something tells me we would need to be member of experian etc to register stuff...

 

though maybe a group membership from this site would work

[lickthewallfatboy]

Despite repeated letters to CITI to stop phoning us,the calls persist and we have had enough.Trading Standards have been alerted,but we would like to take legal action against them.

 

Which court do we use?Small claims,county??

 

We have been logging calls to use against them,and I know we will have to lodge a complaint with the police,but if anyone can give us any legal pointers,that would be a great help.

 

thanks

[zootscoot]

As this is a criminal offence the criminal courts will apply. You need to notify the police who will make a decision as to whether or not to prosecute. If they do not then you can bring a private prosecution in the magistrates court.

 

See Malcontent's post in this forum entitled reporting harrassment for further details (last post 23rd July)

[lickthewallfatboy]

thanks-it's off to the cop shop then.....

[ian.bjj]

Hi everyone,

 

thanks for the info.. you may be interested to know that HFC are up to the same tricks!!

 

A sect 40 AoJ act 1970 complaint can only be made via Trading Standards and OFT, as they have the enforcement role.

 

useful link at OFT

http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/50F06527-9FC5-4610-B385-999D6E2A8950/0/oft664.pdf

[thecornflake]

I'll be interested to see how you get on. When I missed payments on a GE Money loan they had an autodialer call me hourly every day (yes weekends as well) from 8 in the morning till 8 at night. When I picke dup the phoen it just said 'We have an important message for you..." which of course sounded like a [problem] call so I just hung up. It took me a while to work out it was them and then they got some serious grief. I told them it was illegal to use autodialers and call outside normal hours (not sure how true this is and I wasn't aware of the harassment laws until after) and it stopped them doing it. They still never completely left me alone until the debt was repaid though.

[ian.bjj]

Hi all,

 

Harassment of debtors is a criminal offence in England and Wales under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and in N. Ireland under the Judgment Enforcements (NI) Order 1981. The offence is committed when a person uses certain methods to try to force another to pay an alleged debt. The possible offences are listed below:-

 

A) in England and Wales, it is unlawful for a person to harass someone with demands for payment in a way that is calculated to subject her/him or members of her/his family to "alarm, distress or humiliation". This includes the frequency, manner or occasion of the demand as well as any threat or publicity that accompanies it

 

B) it is an offence to represent falsely that criminal proceedings will follow if the alleged debtor fails to pay

 

C) it is an offence for a person falsely to represent her/himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment

 

D) it is an offence to produce any documents which appear to have some official character when they have not, or to make false claims that documents have some official character when they do not

 

The offence applies both to the person(s) who undertakes the illegal debt collecting practices and to someone who arranges for or conspires with others to do this.

 

 

The penalty for the offence is a maximum fine of £5,000. It is triable in the magistrates' court only.

(Note ... it can also result in the removal of their Consumer Credit Licence.)

 

If a person believes that a creditor or debt collecting agency is committing an offence, s/he should report the matter to her/his local trading standards department which has an enforcement role.

 

The above is taken from the CAB advice guide at Citizens Advice corporate website - Home

[andrew1]

I had an interesting conversation with a manager at Bank Of Scotland this morning. Basically we had a credit card that we made an arrangement on to pay £5 per month. Recently, with the knowledge from BAG I have been claiming everything back which I have been penalty charged for and this account has just that. Theres just over £200 left and they have taken about the same in charges plus interest of course and therefore they effectively owe me more than I owe them so I lodged my claim to them and stopped paying.

 

The phone calls have been coming almost hourly from that damned automated system 08780 503 492. when I do answer I have given the 'communications Act' bit and told them I don't want the calls etc.

 

This morning I'd had enough and told the caller they were committing a criminal act by phoning ( I had confirmed in writing too )and could I speak to the manager.

 

He told me that harrassment kicked in after 15 calls a day Can anyone recall any legislation which spells Harrassment out in numbers?

 

The only way to stop the calls is to pay - to me that's harrassment.

 

I told them I wanted them to write - "they do they send a statement" he says!

 

"The terms and conditions allow them to telephone if I owe money so they will continue until I pay"

 

I paid the monthly due amount just to stop the calls but this is not the way this ought to be done.I'll claim it all back anyway but that's not the point. It was plain that both he and the RBOS I also spoke to on Friday have no instructions what so ever or any knowledge of these laws which protect us. Or come to that, the whole issue of unlawful charges.

 

Mind you I have actually convinced both to look at the CAG website and both actually said that it would be beneficial in understanding the effect this was having to customers and they way they treat them. Isn't that's what Management should be doing?

 

Once they have read it they'll both probably look for jobs in another profession !

[ian.bjj]

Oh Dear,

 

when will they finally get the message that to continually make telephone calls is a criminal act under sect 40, Administration Of Justice Act 1970.

 

The law does not actually specify a set number of times they can call, only that it ammounts to harrasment if it leads to alarm, or distress.

 

 

Our local trading standards office are already dealing with 2 sect 40 complaints on my behalf iro Citi & HFC and the matter has been referred to the OFT as part of a SUPER COMPLAINT. Trading Standards and the OFT have already indicated that they are not happy and are investigating...but it will take time. just look at how long it took them to deal with the whole unlawful charges issue.

 

The key to getting this dealt with is that EVERYONE who gets these calls should make a complaint to Trading Standards, when enough complaints are recieved then they will deal with it in a more proactive way.

 

A more practical solution is to use the BT number blocking service. Here you can ask for specific numbers to be barred. mind you there is a small charge for this ~£3 - £4 per month... but the peace and quiet until after the legal action is over makes it worth while. Dont forget to tell the court about it as you can claim it back as a legitimate expense in connection with your case.

[lickthewallfatboy]

why don't we start our own DCA's,and buy up all our debts for 10p in the pound and then bin them!!

 

DCA's seem to be able to buy them for that rate and then proceed to make everyone's life a misery.....

 

let's set up our own and wipe out a ton of debt!!

[citizenB]

Fantastic idea, I will sign up to it :grin:

[fuzzybobble]

Are our debts worth as much as that then?

 

To me a debt without a CCA is worthless lol.

 

Good idea though, and what is there to stop us?

No laws to adhear to from what the dca's have been telling me recently.

When you're a DCA, you're above the law and can do as you please.

[lickthewallfatboy]

LACORS - Subject Content Details

 

this is the text of the download file on the site-

 

Information Commissioner's Office - England

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

 

 

9 March 2006

 

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Information Commissioner's Opinion re: Unenforceable Credit Agreements and Credit Reference File Default Entries

 

LACORS (the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services) provides advice and guidance to help support local authority regulatory and related services. It was set up in 1978 to coordinate the enforcement activities of trading standards. Since 1991, LACORS has also worked on food safety and is currently responsible for a range of other regulatory and related services.

 

LACORS is a local government central body created by the UK local authority associations which comprise of the Local Government Association (LGA), Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA), Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) and Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA).

 

LACORS Consumer Advice and Education group is seeking clarification of the Information Commissioner's opinion on the issue of defaults being noted on credit reference files where a creditor has accepted that an agreement is unenforceable.

 

A specific example of this type of case would be where a catalogue company has supplied goods to a consumer on credit without entering in to the required credit agreement with the consumer. The consumer has made some repayments (certainly enough to cover the cost of the goods received but not enough to cover all interest and charges) but has been advised that the agreement is unenforceable and has therefore informed the trader that she will not make any more payments on the account. The trader has conceded that there is no enforceable agreement but is threatening to make a default entry on the credit reference file.

 

The opinion of LACORS is that where a creditor accepts that an agreement is unenforceable against a consumer they should not be permitted to 'punish' the consumer by placing a record of the 'default' on their credit reference file. To do so would be unfair and unreasonable. It would also lessen the impact of the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act which make it clear that a creditor should not be allowed to enforce a credit agreement where the agreement is improperly executed.

 

In reaching this opinion LACORS have taken note of the Information Commissioner's instruction (reported in "Which?" September 2003) that On:line Finance Ltd should remove a default notice that the company had placed on a consumer's file despite their decision that it would be uneconomical to take the matter to court.

 

As there seems to be some inconsistency in the advice received from the Information Commissioners helpdesk we feel it would be beneficial for trading standards departments, consumers and businesses to have written guidance from the Information Commissioner on this issue which can be circulated to consumer advisors nationally and ensure consistent advice on this issue in future.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

Margaret Humphreys

Policy Officer – Consumer Credit

LACORS

 

 

I wonder what the response from ICO was.....????

[mrmarmite]

mmmmmmm thats interesting, lets hope we see a response.

 

good find worthy of a tickle

[duncan_disorderly]

Pity the letter was written 2 years ago. I have read this letter many times and always wondered why there had been no update.

 

Surely they got some sort of response from the ICO. May be worth a letter to LACORS to ask what the reponse was, and why it hasn't been updated on their site.

[TheAnalyst]

They got a reply, I'ts on the website:

 

The Filing of Unenforceable Credit Agreements on Credit Reference Files 20/03/2006

 

 

The attached letter was sent to the Information Commissioner in England and Scotland for clarification on the above point. The following email was received from the Information Commissioner:

Dear Ms Humphreys,

 

Thank you for your letter enquiring about our position on this issue. Your letter was directed to the Information Commissioner’s office in Edinburgh and they have redirected it to the main office in Wilmslow.

 

We looked at this issue some years ago now following a report by the OFT on mail order practices. The report was not supportive of the withdrawal of agreements from the credit files but the DTI Minister at the time, Kim Howells, was concerned about the issue and asked us to consider the matter. However the situation was complicated by a number of recent cases which impacted the situation. Furthermore we anticipated that other cases could follow which had the potential to change the legal position again. We decided at that time that we would have to consider complaints on a case by case basis, looking closely at what the consumer claimed about the account. In some circumstances we do ask for defaults to be removed.

 

Your enquiry gives good reason to review the issue. I have therefore asked our legal department to review the legal position so that we can take this and the arguments you have put forward into account.

 

I hope to return to you in the not too distant future. You may also be interested to know that I am rewriting our guidance on the filing of defaults with credit reference agencies. This covers the overall standards we expect to be met before defaults are recorded. I hope to be able to publish in a few months.

 

Regards,

 

Carol Hufton

 

Head of Special Projects

Guidance and Promotions Division.

Information Commissioner’s Office,

Wycliffe House,

Water Lane

Wilmslow,

Cheshire.

SK9 5AF.

DL: 01625 545887

Switch:01625 545700

[mrmarmite]

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr pees me off OFT do, they KEEP saying they deal case by case, so why is it when we complain (it's a case) they sey they dont do individual cases

[lickthewallfatboy]

I came across this while poking around about unenforceable debts on the web....

 

Consumer Debt - UK Business Forums - business help and advice for owners, managers and entrepreneurs of small businesses and startups

 

 

As people may be aware that Banks often sell consumer debts onto other companies such as unpaid loans, bank accounts etc.

 

Now I have been working on this all week and ripping my hair out as it’s still not very clear on what the options are.

 

There is a personal debt with Barclays Bank of which sold the debt to a company called Lowell Group.

 

Lowell has confirmed they have purchased the debt of £18,00 from Barclays in 2005 and have only just informed me of doing so.

 

Now after doing some research, it appears they are only licensed to do the below

 

Registration Number: Z8222569

 

The tracing of consumer and commercial debtors and the collection on behalf of creditors. The purchasing of trade debts, including rentals and instalment credit payments, from business.

 

 

Now it does not mention purchasing of consumer debts, and this now as me thinking…..if they are not licensed then both Barclays (for allowing, and Lowell for Purchasing ) have acted illegally.

 

And if my understanding is correct, this means the debt is now considered legally (not recoverable)

 

 

Information Commissioners - Data Protection Register - Entry Details

 

(Lowell's registration at the ICO)

[dannyboy660]

Interesting that in amongst those posts there is a suggestion that the general advice when dealing with Lowell Group is to ignore them, because their "Legal" department is probably "Illegal" and they very rarely act on their threats anyway.

 

When I complained to OFT/TS about Lowell's dubious tracing methods (some time ago now), a guy from OFT told me 'off the record' that I could have just ignored them completely and it would have done me no harm. I still can't quite fathom exactly what they meant by that, it seems such an unusual thing to say,.... but then the circumstances of my brush with Lowell were quite unusual.

 

There is something incredibly strange about Lowell Group. They make no secret of the fact that their Call Centre is used for such things as 'Comic Relief' where they take donations by Credit Card and process people's data, and at the same time they are tracing and pursuing people for alleged debt which they claim to have bought?? Surely a conflict of interests, and if they use or store any data gained for anything other than processing a charitable donation, it would be very illegal. Why are they allowed to do this?? Why are they piddling about with people's CRA files and holding them to ransom?? They could theoretically pin a debt on anybody they wanted to and then extort money from them, accidentally or otherwise.

 

Nice to see business/legal forums are taking an interest in them too. Lowell seem to be of the opinion they operate under totally different laws and procedures to most others. They seem to be doing a fairly good job of getting up the noses of just about anybody who has contact with them and it can only be a matter of time before they trip up big style. I'm convinced there must be an enormous store room somewhere full of complaints from people who have had the pleasure of dealing with the many faces of the Lowell Group.

[lickthewallfatboy]

something must be able to be done if they are not licensed to pursue an individual's debt

[ScarletPimpernel]

Having recently spoken to the Information Commissioners Office about a company whose registration did not match the activity they were involved in (not debt, but sensitive medical data), I regret to report that their reaction was predictably flaccid. If reported, the only action they would take is to ask the offender to amend their registration to reflect the true position.

 

They also said that their online database could not be relied on to be completely accurate.

[lickthewallfatboy]

why is it that it seems that all "protective legislation" ends up protecting the wrongdoers while hanging the consumer out to dry?

[lickthewallfatboy]

 

A statutory demand must show a named person or persons from the Creditor or their agent/solicitor whom you can contact directly. This is Rule 6.2 of The insolvency Rules 1986.

This means that if the statutory demand doesn't give the name of a person you can speak to then it is not valid. If you try to contact the named person and they won’t put you through then it is also invalid.

Be aware that named people on accompanying letters are not part of the Statutory Demand - only those on the Demand itself are valid.

Important - make notes of dates/times you try to call the named person on the statutory demand, togerther with the name of the person that you spoke to and a note of what was said.

 

Statutory Demand

 

 

 

 

I don't know if this has been picked up on before,but there you go.Found it on an insolvency website

[Michael Browne]

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/insolvencyprofessionandlegislation/legislation/uk/insolvencyrules.pdf

 

6.2.— Information to be given in statutory demand

 

(1) The statutory demand must include an explanation to the debtor of the following matters—

 

(a) the purpose of the demand, and the fact that, if the debtor does not comply with the demand, bankruptcy proceedings may be commenced against him;

 

(b) the time within which the demand must be complied with, if that consequence is to be avoided;

 

© the methods of compliance which are open to the debtor; and

 

(d) his right to apply to the court for the statutory demand to be set aside.

 

(2) The demand must specify one or more named individuals with whom the debtor may, if he wishes, enter into communication with a view to securing or compounding for the debt to the satisfaction of the creditor or (as the case may be) establishing to the creditor's satisfaction that there is a reasonable prospect that the debt will be paid when it falls due.

In the case of any individual so named in the demand, his address and telephone number (if any) must be given.

 

Looks good to me