me & the OH's debt

[lickthewallfatboy]

give it a shot-I know I would

 

and it also may be worth adding to the "stop harrassment" template letter the fact that if the letters are ignored,the other party will become financially liable for any costs you have to outlay to stop them

[lickthewallfatboy]

piece about companies which claim to get your loans "written off" and how dodgy they are

 

contributor actually got a chance to mention how pre 2007 agreements need to have certain things contained in them to be enforceable,and how there were websites which give you the relevant info for free....

 

never thought I'd ever hear the words "unenforceable agreement" on tv

[fermi]

Just saw that as well.

 

No reference to genuine help though online.

 

BBC News | 'Misleading' debt firms shut down

 

One hundred companies offering to write off debts or secure personal injury compensation have been shut down by the Ministry of Justice since April 2007.

 

MoJ spokesman Kevin Rousell said they had been guilty of making misleading claims and using high-pressure sales tactics to get people to pay huge fees.

 

"People desperate for a way out of their financial troubles can be vulnerable," he said.

 

Consumers were warned to be wary of offers that seem too good to be true.

 

The BBC's Colette Hume said many claims management firms targeted people who owed large sums to credit card or loan companies.

 

And with the industry growing quickly it was becoming increasingly difficult to police, she added.

 

Cold calling

The MoJ said some of the firms shut down had been using misleading advertising, claiming credit card debt could be written off within six weeks or that 80% of credit agreements were unenforceable.

 

In other cases, companies ignored requests for information from the government's claims regulator or were run by people who had convictions for fraud.

 

“ There has been a trend towards high-pressure cold calling from call centres ”

 

Kevin Rousell, Ministry of Justice

 

Rules state that firms must not cold-call potential customers in person and must allow a cooling off period of at least 14 days for anyone considering taking up an agreement.

 

But instead, some were found to be forcing already debt-ridden customers to pay large up-front fees only for the service to later fall through.

 

Mr Rousell said most claims management companies were operating within the rules.

 

"However, some companies choose to flout those rules and some also target consumers who find themselves in debt," he said.

 

"People desperate for a way out of their financial troubles can be vulnerable to the misleading marketing that the Ministry of Justice Claims Management Regulator is continuing to tackle.

 

"There has also been a trend towards high-pressure cold-calling from call centres, including making unsubstantiated claims and encouraging people into handing over fees there and then - a decision they regret later."

 

Mr Rousell said claims companies must give customers accurate information about the realistic chances of success and the costs involved in taking up their services.

 

They must also not pressurise anyone into making on-the-spot decisions or handing over money without properly considering the facts.

[teaboy2]

give it a shot-I know I would

 

and it also may be worth adding to the "stop harrassment" template letter the fact that if the letters are ignored,the other party will become financially liable for any costs you have to outlay to stop them

 

I totally agree.

 

as well as the cost of equipment. lets also charge them for the time we waste answering the phone to them or walking in from the garden to answer the phone. just for it to stop ringing as your reach for it. i think my going rate will be £1 for every call missed and £1 for every minute spend on the phone to them. Avearge call of listening to them being rude and making threats is, say around 5 mins (if you go along with them before telling them to F off), say 7 calls a week. Thats a grand total of £35 a week just for time wasted listening to them talking on the phone. then say 10 missed calls same week comes to £10 so makes a grand total of £45.

 

Lol if i wasnt disputing the debt with yorkshire bank id have it paid of in no time after charging for the calls made to me. only i wouldnt tell the debt collectors that id paid the bank back, so then they will still be chasing me, so i could carrying on charging them for the calls they make to me.

 

Ahhh what a lovely dream that would be.

[lickthewallfatboy]

thought just occurred to me

 

if a DCA doesn't get the message that civilised human beings don't appreciate getting hassle,especially not for SB debts,has anyone considered going for a court injunction to clip their wings?

 

if you were to get one,and they viloated it,wouldn't they run the risk of arrest and possibly jail-and maybe open to having to compensate you?

 

your thoughts and opinions welcome!

[2Grumpy]

I get calls from DCAs looking for my son.

 

Of course I can't give them his number - data protection & all that, but I would like to be able to take some action against any DCAs that don't get my message of "don't call my number again - ever"

[WelshMam2009]

The only problem as I see it is, if you obtain an injunction the debt will probably be sold to another company and then you have to start the process all over again???

[Stephan56]

I would think it depends on the injuction. Injunctioncs can be permanent and prevent a DCA ITSELF taking any action AND prevetn them selling on the account to anyone else. It just depends on what a judge is willing to order.

[WelshMam2009]

I would think it depends on the injuction. Injunctioncs can be permanent and prevent a DCA ITSELF taking any action AND prevetn them selling on the account to anyone else. It just depends on what a judge is willing to order.

 

 

That's a lovely thought Stephan although I doubt a Judge would restrict trade in such circumstances.

 

Does anyone know of any successful injunctions??

[sillygirl1]

I'm working on the wording for one now for Robinson Way, had enough of these clowns and now just waiting for Anne Widdecombe to present my case to the CSA, if they don't shut up after shes been at them I will go for the jugular, it'll cost £75 but it will give me satisfaction (and costs.... 16 letters from them which have all been replied to and various telephone calls, all at £9.25 per hour... comes up to FAR more than the alleged debt)

[WelshMam2009]

I'm working on the wording for one now for Robinson Way, had enough of these clowns and now just waiting for Anne Widdecombe to present my case to the CSA, if they don't shut up after shes been at them I will go for the jugular, it'll cost £75 but it will give me satisfaction (and costs.... 16 letters from them which have all been replied to and various telephone calls, all at £9.25 per hour... comes up to FAR more than the alleged debt)

 

Best of luck with that SG...let us know how you get on if you do have to proceed...

[Stephan56]

That's a lovely thought Stephan although I doubt a Judge would restrict trade in such circumstances.

 

Does anyone know of any successful injunctions??

 

Agree, perhaps unlikely to happen. However, I do not understand "restrict trade" issue. If OFT Guidlines say debts in dispute should not be sold on, then it seesm perfrectly reasonable for a Judge to order the debt NOT to be sold on. Maybe he "softens it a bit" and says it could only be sold on IF an Enforceable Agreement is produced.

 

I just do not understand why judges/others need to be so "DCA friendly" and why they cannot clamp down ont hese people who are wasting court's time (ot to mention peoples') by chaing patently unenforceable agreements

[NailPost]

Why wait for Ms Widdecomebe? She's going to try and knock the heads of the CSA off first. Well that won't take long but then what? Is she then going to demand talks with OFT, FOS, TS officials etc. By the time she's met everyone Gordon will have called an election

[lickthewallfatboy]

I think this should be seriously looked into

 

if someone is getting hassle and aggro,especially for no valid reason,then it must be possible to get the damper put on them

 

I am not au fait with the England and Wales legal system,but I'm sure there are members here who would know the score

[WelshMam2009]

Agree, perhaps unlikely to happen. However, I do not understand "restrict trade" issue. If OFT Guidlines say debts in dispute should not be sold on, then it seesm perfrectly reasonable for a Judge to order the debt NOT to be sold on. Maybe he "softens it a bit" and says it could only be sold on IF an Enforceable Agreement is produced.

 

I personally don't believe that any Judge would interfere in the business practices of a DCA unless they were considered unlawful. Prohibiting companies from selling such debts may make them financially unstable and also breach the principles of free trade.

 

What is more relevant to Judges is s77/78 of CCA which states that a creditor is not entitled, whilst the default continues, to enforce the agreement.

 

However, in my experience, the creditor will dispute the fact that the account is disputed/in default!!

 

Secondly, the meaning of the word "enforce" is also open to legal interpretation and has been the subject of much discussion on this forum.

 

OFT guidelines are just that...guidelines although failure to adhere by a DCA should be taken into consideration far more strictly by OFT in my opinion.

 

PS...where does it say in OFT guidelines that the debt shouldn't be sold on?? All I've come across is that no debt collection activities should be undertaken...thanks!

[lickthewallfatboy]

I think this is what we need-

 

PROTECTION FROM HARRASSMENT ACT 1997

 

England and Wales

 

1 Prohibition of harassment

 

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

©that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

 

 

2 Offence of harassment

(1)A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.

(3)In section 24(2) of the [1984 c. 60.] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after paragraph (m) there is inserted—

“(n)an offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (harassment).”.

 

 

3 Civil remedy

(1)An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question.

(2)On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment.

(3)Where—

(a)in such proceedings the High Court or a county court grants an injunction for the purpose of restraining the defendant from pursuing any conduct which amounts to harassment, and

(b)the plaintiff considers that the defendant has done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction,the plaintiff may apply for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the defendant.

(4)An application under subsection (3) may be made—

(a)where the injunction was granted by the High Court, to a judge of that court, and

(b)where the injunction was granted by a county court, to a judge or district judge of that or any other county court.

(5)The judge or district judge to whom an application under subsection (3) is made may only issue a warrant if—

(a)the application is substantiated on oath, and

(b)the judge or district judge has reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant has done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction.

(6)Where—

(a)the High Court or a county court grants an injunction for the purpose mentioned in subsection (3)(a), and

(b)without reasonable excuse the defendant does anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction,he is guilty of an offence.

(7)Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (6) in respect of any conduct, that conduct is not punishable as a contempt of court.

(8)A person cannot be convicted of an offence under subsection (6) in respect of any conduct which has been punished as a contempt of court.

(9)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) is liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both, or

(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.

 

 

4 Putting people in fear of violence

(1)A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions.

(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him on any occasion if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on that occasion.

(3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that—

(a)his course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b)his course of conduct was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

©the pursuit of his course of conduct was reasonable for the protection of himself or another or for the protection of his or another’s property.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both, or

(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.

(5)If on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence under this section the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged, they may find him guilty of an offence under section 2.

(6)The Crown Court has the same powers and duties in relation to a person who is by virtue of subsection (5) convicted before it of an offence under section 2 as a magistrates' court would have on convicting him of the offence.

 

 

5 Restraining orders

(1)A court sentencing or otherwise dealing with a person (“the defendant”) convicted of an offence under section 2 or 4 may (as well as sentencing him or dealing with him in any other way) make an order under this section.

(2)The order may, for the purpose of protecting the victim of the offence, or any other person mentioned in the order, from further conduct which—

(a)amounts to harassment, or

(b)will cause a fear of violence,prohibit the defendant from doing anything described in the order.

(3)The order may have effect for a specified period or until further order.

(4)The prosecutor, the defendant or any other person mentioned in the order may apply to the court which made the order for it to be varied or discharged by a further order.

(5)If without reasonable excuse the defendant does anything which he is prohibited from doing by an order under this section, he is guilty of an offence.

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both, or

(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.

 

 

6 Limitation

In section 11 of the [1980 c. 58.] Limitation Act 1980 (special time limit for actions in respect of personal injuries), after subsection (1) there is inserted—

“(1A)This section does not apply to any action brought for damages under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.”

 

 

7 Interpretation of this group of sections

(1)This section applies for the interpretation of sections 1 to 5.

(2)References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress.

(3)A “course of conduct” must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

(4)“Conduct” includes speech.

Scotland

 

 

8 Harassment

(1)Every individual has a right to be free from harassment and, accordingly, a person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and—

(a)is intended to amount to harassment of that person; or

(b)occurs in circumstances where it would appear to a reasonable person that it would amount to harassment of that person.

(2)An actual or apprehended breach of subsection (1) may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question; and any such claim shall be known as an action of harassment.

(3)For the purposes of this section—

“conduct” includes speech;

“harassment” of a person includes causing the person alarm or distress; anda course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

(4)It shall be a defence to any action of harassment to show that the course of conduct complained of—

(a)was authorised by, under or by virtue of any enactment or rule of law;

(b)was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or

©was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.

(5)In an action of harassment the court may, without prejudice to any other remedies which it may grant—

(a)award damages;

(b)grant—

(i)interdict or interim interdict;

(ii)if it is satisfied that it is appropriate for it to do so in order to protect the person from further harassment, an order, to be known as a “non-harassment order”, requiring the defender to refrain from such conduct in relation to the pursuer as may be specified in the order for such period (which includes an indeterminate period) as may be so specified,but a person may not be subjected to the same prohibitions in an interdict or interim interdict and a non-harassment order at the same time.

(6)The damages which may be awarded in an action of harassment include damages for any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from it.

(7)Without prejudice to any right to seek review of any interlocutor, a person against whom a non-harassment order has been made, or the person for whose protection the order was made, may apply to the court by which the order was made for revocation of or a variation of the order and, on any such application, the court may revoke the order or vary it in such manner as it considers appropriate.

(8)In section 10(1) of the [1976 c. 13.] Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 (interpretation), in the definition of “personal injuries”, after “to reputation” there is inserted “, or injury resulting from harassment actionable under section 8 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997”.

 

 

9 Breach of non-harassment order

(1)Any person who is found to be in breach of a non-harassment order made under section 8 is guilty of an offence and liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both such imprisonment and such fine; and

(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both such imprisonment and such fine.

(2)A breach of a non-harassment order shall not be punishable other than in accordance with subsection (1).

 

 

10 Limitation

(1)After section 18A of the [1973 c. 52.] Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 there is inserted the following section—

“18BActions of harassment

(1)This section applies to actions of harassment (within the meaning of section 8 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) which include a claim for damages.

(2)Subject to subsection (3) below and to section 19A of this Act, no action to which this section applies shall be brought unless it is commenced within a period of 3 years after—

(a)the date on which the alleged harassment ceased; or

(b)the date, (if later than the date mentioned in paragraph (a) above) on which the pursuer in the action became, or on which, in the opinion of the court, it would have been reasonably practicable for him in all the circumstances to have become, aware, that the defender was a person responsible for the alleged harassment or the employer or principal of such a person.

(3)In the computation of the period specified in subsection (2) above there shall be disregarded any time during which the person who is alleged to have suffered the harassment was under legal disability by reason of nonage or unsoundness of mind.”.

(2)In subsection (1) of section 19A of that Act (power of court to override time-limits), for “section 17 or section 18 and section 18A” there is substituted “section 17, 18, 18A or 18B”.

 

 

11 Non-harassment order following criminal offenceAfter section 234 of the [1995 c. 46.] Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 there is inserted the following section—

“Non-harassment orders

 

234A Non-harassment orders

(1)Where a person is convicted of an offence involving harassment of a person (“the victim”), the prosecutor may apply to the court to make a non-harassment order against the offender requiring him to refrain from such conduct in relation to the victim as may be specified in the order for such period (which includes an indeterminate period) as may be so specified, in addition to any other disposal which may be made in relation to the offence.

(2)On an application under subsection (1) above the court may, if it is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that it is appropriate to do so in order to protect the victim from further harassment, make a non-harassment order.

(3)A non-harassment order made by a criminal court shall be taken to be a sentence for the purposes of any appeal and, for the purposes of this subsection “order” includes any variation or revocation of such an order made under subsection (6) below.

(4)Any person who is found to be in breach of a non-harassment order shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine, or to both such imprisonment and such fine; and

(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both such imprisonment and such fine.

(5)The Lord Advocate, in solemn proceedings, and the prosecutor, in summary proceedings, may appeal to the High Court against any decision by a court to refuse an application under subsection (1) above; and on any such appeal the High Court may make such order as it considers appropriate.

(6)The person against whom a non-harassment order is made, or the prosecutor at whose instance the order is made, may apply to the court which made the order for its revocation or variation and, in relation to any such application the court concerned may, if it is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that it is appropriate to do so, revoke the order or vary it in such manner as it thinks fit, but not so as to increase the period for which the order is to run.

(7)For the purposes of this section “harassment” shall be construed in accordance with section 8 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.”.

 

 

General

 

 

12 National security, etc

(1)If the Secretary of State certifies that in his opinion anything done by a specified person on a specified occasion related to—

(a)national security,

(b)the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, or

©the prevention or detection of serious crime,and was done on behalf of the Crown, the certificate is conclusive evidence that this Act does not apply to any conduct of that person on that occasion.

(2)In subsection (1), “specified” means specified in the certificate in question.

(3)A document purporting to be a certificate under subsection (1) is to be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, be treated as being such a certificate.

 

 

13 Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland

 

An Order in Council made under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the [1974 c. 28.] Northern Ireland Act 1974 which contains a statement that it is made only for purposes corresponding to those of sections 1 to 7 and 12 of this Act—

(a)shall not be subject to sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) of paragraph 1 of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament), but

(b)shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

 

 

14 Extent

(1)Sections 1 to 7 extend to England and Wales only.

(2)Sections 8 to 11 extend to Scotland only.

(3)This Act (except section 13) does not extend to Northern Ireland.

 

 

15 Commencement

(1)Sections 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 to 12 are to come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.

(2)Sections 3 and 6 are to come into force on such day as the Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.

(3)Different days may be appointed under this section for different purposes.

 

 

16 Short title

This Act may be cited as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Edited September 7, 2009 by lickthewallfatboy

[Stephan56]

I am writing in response to WelshMam2009's points:

 

personally don't believe that any Judge would interfere in the business practices of a DCA unless they were considered unlawful. Prohibiting companies from selling such debts may make them financially unstable and also breach the principles of free trade.

 

While I understand where you are coming from on this, if a debt is in dispute, and there can be no efoccment while in dispute, we all know they just sel them on and then ANOTHER DCA attempts to enforce them. They are trying to get aroudn the "no enforce" issue by selling them on. I think a judge would be perfectly within his rights (and indeed should) step in to stop this. And, so what if that makes DCAs "financailly unstable". The whole "industry" is inherently financially unstable and relies on duplicitious behaviour. It has no reason to exist and there is no public policy reasons for taking any steps to ensure it does exist.

 

Also, I agree that there is no OFT rule saying debts should nto be sold on. That said, as per my point above, selling them on is just a way to get around the "no enforce" guildelines (and who knows if a debt is really "sold on" but they just say it has, and then have some kind of "revenue share agreement" between the two DCAs. As in dispute, DCA 1 cannot enforce - but sell it to DCA 2 and then let them try - and then split any proceeds.

 

I guess I am pretty cyncial and think these DCAs shoudl be "roped in" by any means possilbe

[lickthewallfatboy]

it's a dirty low down skanky "industry" that needs toppling by fair means or foul

[lickthewallfatboy]

anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Huff&Puff]

There was this case recently:

 

Debt collection can be harassment: British Gas ruling sends warning to all suppliers | Pinsent Masons LLP

[gezwee]

Just concerned that an injunction costs £150.00 in county court just to set the ball rolling.......never effected one myself but got stuck behind someone having theirs checked through last month (for the best part of an hour) and overheard the cost.

 

Can't see its an option for most people on here given their financial circumstances.

 

What about recovering all our £1.00's we send the dipsh*t DCA'a that never respond to CCA requests? 14 quid wasted in the last year alone

 

I've been saving all proofs of delivery and on line bank statements so when the times comes that my old debts are settled I can start chasing them. How to turn a £1.00 fee into a £300.00 damages claim in 1 hour. Petty I know but F*** 'em .......lol

[lickthewallfatboy]

£150.....I know it is a lot for a lot of people,but imagine the smile on your face when the directors of some DCA's get arrested for violating the terms of an injunction

 

as the ad says......."priceless"

Edited September 8, 2009 by lickthewallfatboy

[WelshMam2009]

Have a read of this link....

 

Crunch victims use anti-stalking laws to challenge 'greedy' banks - Home News, UK - The Independent

[lickthewallfatboy]

I wrote to them previously to remove 2 consecutive month defaults issued by Co-Op Bank,who sent no default notices,and who don't have a valid agreement into the bargain

 

this wasn't even acknoeledged,so next stop court for £1000 per default as per Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society

 

then Equifax and Experian are next

[lickthewallfatboy]

I'm at the LBA stage with call credit,and I intend using Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society £1000 per default for 2 defaults placed there with no valid agreement to begin with,and no default notices issued for either......

 

then it's Experian and Equifax turn