C/C Harrassment of 60+ Disabled Pensioner

[wellfedup]

This is my first posting, but I hope someone can help me. My mother who is between 60-65 years old, has a credit card she has been paying for years. Due to recent crisis and the fact her husband has now retired, they have no income except her disability payment and his basic state pension. She wrote to the card company explaining her change in finance and that she could no longer pay the minimum payment, and asked if she could pay a much lower amount for 4 months and hopefully increase to the full amount again after this time, but the company refused! She asked them to freeze charges and interest etc and again they said NO! She has not been able to pay the full minimum payments and they constantly harrass her by phone, which frightens her and is affecting her health even more. They have now said they want the card balance in full, including charges they have now added and have said they are applying to make her bancrupt! She is in rented council propertyn and owns nothing. I can't believe they can harrass the elderly like this. The debt is about £8k. Can anyone tell me what to do to help her? Please... I would be really grateful... Thanks

[dx100uk]

who is this? i bet we can guess!

 

i would first off hit them with a CCA request [costs £1 the template is in my sig below]

and p'haps include a telephone harrassment letter too

 

then come back on here and get the doc verified.

 

in the meantime, she is under no obligation to talk to them, just puthe phone down.

 

dx

 

my views are my own...seek legal advice if ness

 

cca template letter:

http://www.consumerforums.com/resour...request-letter

 

Subject Access Request templte letter:

http://www.consumerforums.com/resour...access-request-

 

the myth about writing off debts

http://www.consumerwiki.co.uk/index....ng_Off%27_Debt

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Ministry warns on debt write-offs

[wellfedup]

dx100uk, Thank you so much for your quick reply.

Yes, as you correctly guessed, this company specialises in helping the elderly! I am at my wits end, as they have ignored all my basic suggestions so far.

I will get the letters sent tomorrow by recorded delivery. Does this mean they will have to hold off any bancruptcy petitions, or what do we do if she receives anything in the meantime?

Also, I'm sorry for sounding stupid, but what do you mean by come back on here and get it verified!

Thanks again I'm really grateful.

Wx

Edited June 18, 2009 by wellfedup

[creditcardmug]

Send this re the harassment, dont sign any letters, just type name

 

 

I DO NOT AKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: = xxxxxxxxxxxxx ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing.

 

I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls.

 

I now require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only.

 

You are reminded of the following under The Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

 

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

© falsely represent themselves to be authorized in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

 

I am of the view that your harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

 

If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine.

 

Further to this all calls from your Doorstep Collectors must also cease unconditionally and with immediate effect. I note that there is only an implied license under English Common Law for certain people to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.).

 

Take note, I revoke license under English Common Law for you, or any of your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so without my permission, you will then be liable to damages for a tort of trespass. You would also be conspiring in a trespass if you sent someone to visit me nevertheless. Any trespassers you attempt to send therefore will be dealt with accordingly.

 

Be further advised that any further telephone calls from your company will be recorded.

 

 

I look forward to your reply

 

Yours Faithfully

[dx100uk]

dx100uk, Thank you so much for your quick reply.

Yes, as you correctly guessed, this company specialises in helping the elderly! I am at my wits end, as they have ignored all my basic suggestions so far.

I will get the letters sent tomorrow by recorded delivery. Does this mean they will have to hold off any bancruptcy petitions, or what do we do if she receives anything in the meantime?

Also, I'm sorry for sounding stupid, but what do you mean by come back on here and get it verified!

Thanks again I'm really grateful.

Wx

i would seriously ignore the threat of bk etc they cant do that.

 

when you get the cca request back, scan and post up the results so we can check the agreement is valid.

 

who is the creditor?

 

dx

[diddydicky]

if you can afford it buy you mum a TRUECALL ( you can do it at cost through this site)

 

it will Stop ALL unwanted calls - you can set it up for her in 10 minutes nd then the phone will not even ring to unwanted callers it will play them a message without her even knowing whilst still allowing friends and family to call about 90 quid

[wellfedup]

thanks dx100uk

the agreement as originally with saga who I think then became Liverpool Victoria Saga, who then sold out to Bank of Ireland (I think) last year. Everyone was sent letter telling them they would have to reapply for new cards with new owners, but like lots of others, my mother was turned down for a new card, but is continuing to pay the original card and balance that was left owing on it at the time of the changeover, so she is paying Liverpool Victoria Saga!

Its all very complicated, but she was told this company does this every so often to 'clear out'. Is this Right? Does this change anything?

They made her fill out a form to state her incomings and outgoings recently, before they would finally agree to a reduced payment, which she still cant afford as she only receives invalidity benefit. I didn't know about this and am very angry. Can they do this?

Please help!

Edited June 19, 2009 by wellfedup

[wellfedup]

Thank you very much diddydicky for the info on Truecall.

 

I have a feeling I know lots of people who will be glad to know about this!

[blueda]

Hi wellfedup, you have excellent advice above, if your Mother has not already done so, get her to destroy the card.

[dx100uk]

thanks dx100uk

the agreement as originally with saga who I think then became Liverpool Victoria Saga, who then sold out to Bank of Ireland (I think) last year. Everyone was sent letter telling them they would have to reapply for new cards with new owners, but like lots of others, my mother was turned down for a new card, but is continuing to pay the original card and balance that was left owing on it at the time of the changeover, so she is paying Liverpool Victoria Saga!

Its all very complicated, but she was told this company does this every so often to 'clear out'. Is this Right? Does this change anything?

They made her fill out a form to state her incomings and outgoings recently, before they would finally agree to a reduced payment, which she still cant afford as she only receives invalidity benefit. I didn't know about this and am very angry. Can they do this?

Please help!

 

well to me it looks like they will have stuff all chance ofhaving the original agreement, so i think that might be the end of it.

 

now you could ofcourse be really cheeky & SAR them laster and claimback all the charges, now i bet thats some!

 

dx

[wellfedup]

Thanks again dx100uk.

We have sent the CCA request and wait to hear what they throw at us next!

We don't want to SAR them because it's not a case of trying to get out of paying the debt, it's a case of just trying to get them to accept a payment my mother can actually afford!

Also, they have put a default on her credit file, even though they accepted the unreasonable reduced payment they forcd her to agree to! Will they have to remove this if they can't provide a valid CCA?

Are we following the right route, as we are not trying to get out of paying, just lower the monthly payment?

[diddydicky]

Thanks again dx100uk.

We have sent the CCA request and wait to hear what they throw at us next!

We don't want to SAR them because it's not a case of trying to get out of paying the debt, it's a case of just trying to get them to accept a payment my mother can actually afford!

Also, they have put a default on her credit file, even though they accepted the unreasonable reduced payment they forcd her to agree to! Will they have to remove this if they can't provide a valid CCA?

Are we following the right route, as we are not trying to get out of paying, just lower the monthly payment?

 

you should have no qualms about whether you pay or not- if there is no agreement or an unenforceable one then that is that- they had no qualms about registering a default against your mum did they?

 

TWO parties signed to say they would accept the terms of the agreement one of those terms 9the main one) is that both parties agreed to be bound by the consumer credit act

 

if the consumer credit act says they have botched it up and not entitled to be repaid then that's what they must abide by- just as if it were you on the receiving end the other side would insist on you abiding by it

 

this is what the author of the consumer credit act has to say about it:-

 

 

The man who wrote the Consumer Credit Act 1974 explains all;

 

As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson

for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on*Wilson v First County Trust

Ltd*[2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97.

Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section

127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company

couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in

the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have

power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament

without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed

that nobody’s human rights were infringed.

167*Justice of the Peace*(2003) 773.

 

and have a read of this:-

 

17. Firstly, I make reference to an excerpt of case law from the case of Wilson v Robertson’s (London) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1425 (Ch),

 

In Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816, [2003] 4 All ER 97, the House of Lords explained that the 1974 Act was, like the Moneylenders Act 1927 before it, designed to tackle a significant social problem. The activities of some moneylenders have given the money lending business a bad reputation. Something had to be done to protect the borrower, who frequently, indeed normally, would be in a weak bargaining position. Protection of borrowers is the social policy behind the legislation. Part of that policy is to be achieved by setting stringent rules, which have to be complied with by the lender if his money lending agreement is to be enforceable. The strictness of the discipline imposed on lenders is illustrated by the following passage in the speech of Lord Nicholls:*

 

18. Undoubtedly, as illustrated by the facts of the present case, section 127(3) may be drastic, even harsh, in its adverse consequences for a lender. He loses all his right under the agreement, including his rights to any security which has been lodged. Conversely, the borrower acquires what can only be described as a windfall. He keeps the money and recovers his security. These consequences apply just as much where the lender was acting in good faith throughout and the error was due to a mistaken reading of the complex statutory requirements as in the case of deliberate non-compliance. These consequences also apply where, as in the present case, the borrower suffered no prejudice as a result of the non-compliance as they do where the borrower was misled. Parliament was painting here with a broad brush.

 

19. The unattractive feature of this approach is that it will sometimes involve punishing the blameless pour encourager les autres. On its face, considered in the context of one particular case, a sanction having this effect is difficult to justify. The Moneylenders Act 1927 adopted a similarly severe approach. . . .

 

20. Despite criticism in the Crowther report I have no difficulty in accepting that in suitable instances it is open to Parliament, when Parliament considers the public interest so requires, deciding that failure to comply with certain formalities is an essential prerequisite to enforcement of certain types of agreements. This course is open to Parliament even though this will sometimes yield a seemingly unreasonable result in a particular case. Considered overall, this course may well be a proportionate response in practice to a perceived social problem. Parliament may consider the response should be a uniform solution across the board. A tailor-made response, fitting the facts of each case as decided in an application to the court, may not be appropriate. This may be considered an insufficient incentive and insufficient deterrent. And it may fail to protect consumers adequately. . . ."

 

21. The message clearly from the case of Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1425 (Ch), is that the Consumer Credit Act is clearly enacted to protect consumers such as myself and therefore the claimants failures to supply the information and their behavior in this matter should be noted accordingly giving consideration to the case law and the facts as set out within this defence.

 

22. The House of Lords clearly considered it the will of parliament that where a lender did not comply with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Subsequent regulations then the lender does not have any recourse, they cannot side step regulation by any other means and whether it is considered right or wrong for the debtor not to have to repay an unenforceable debt becomes irrelevant where the requirements of the CCA 1974 and regulations are not met.

 

23. Since the judgment of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead clearly sets out that without a credit agreement the claimant's case cannot succeed.

[Enron]

It does seem stupid, as part of the banking code institutions are meant to help individuals who are in trouble who ask for help.

 

Defaulting her is pretty poor on their part, but then again banks have a way of operating as a law unto themselves the majority of the time.

 

Payments have continued, so its a poor show on their part.

 

Alot of these institutions threaten you, but I doubt that it'd go to court as your paying something towards it, and even if the worst came to the worst and you stopped making payments - a judge would only order repayments on the basis of what could be afforded.

[kurvaface]

HI wellfedup

 

I think it could be worth your while getting in touch with trading standards

 

08454 040506

 

The new Consumer Protection Against Unfair Trading Regulations , I am pretty sure, covers areas where the elderly are being dealt with by business. I am fairly sure that Unfair treatment of the elderly is not received well.

[wellfedup]

Hi

 

Thankyou everyone for your help and suggestions so far.

 

Does anyone know if now we have requested a CCA for her, should she continue to make the payment she agreed to (even though they forced her to and she can't afford it), or should we offer what she can afford, or stop paying altogether until they have produced a valid CCA?

 

I don't want to mess things up or do anything wrong and make them hound her even more, which I know by what they have done so far, they will!

[diddydicky]

Hi

 

Thankyou everyone for your help and suggestions so far.

 

Does anyone know if now we have requested a CCA for her, should she continue to make the payment she agreed to (even though they forced her to and she can't afford it), or should we offer what she can afford, or stop paying altogether until they have produced a valid CCA?

 

I don't want to mess things up or do anything wrong and make them hound her even more, which I know by what they have done so far, they will!

 

she should keep making payments for now

 

post up on here (less personal details) what is received from them in reply

if you get nothing after say 16 days from when you posted the letter (recorded delivery) then come back also and let us know and we can advise you from there

[diddydicky]

sorry get her to pay what she CAN afford (even a couple of quid) NOT what they tell her to pay - just so that she can show that she is trying

[havinastella]

Hi

 

Thankyou everyone for your help and suggestions so far.

 

Does anyone know if now we have requested a CCA for her, should she continue to make the payment she agreed to (even though they forced her to and she can't afford it), or should we offer what she can afford, or stop paying altogether until they have produced a valid CCA?

 

I don't want to mess things up or do anything wrong and make them hound her even more, which I know by what they have done so far, they will!

 

I am under the impression that if they have placed a marker against her, NOT to pay!

 

What more can happen???

 

Jogs

[diddydicky]

I am under the impression that if they have placed a marker against her, NOT to pay!

 

What more can happen???

 

Jogs

 

nothing but if the matter goes to court it looks better if the moral high ground is with the debtor.

 

i suggest even if it is only a token one pound payment- she continues to pay something until such time as she is legally entitled not to pay anything

[dx100uk]

nothing but if the matter goes to court it looks better if the moral high ground is with the debtor.

 

i suggest even if it is only a token one pound payment- she continues to pay something until such time as she is legally entitled not to pay anything

agreed

 

dx

[havinastella]

nothing but if the matter goes to court it looks better if the moral high ground is with the debtor.

 

i suggest even if it is only a token one pound payment- she continues to pay something until such time as she is legally entitled not to pay anything

 

Yes sorry, I totally agree with the token payment bit.

 

Was rushing my response as was helping on another thread!

 

My bad

 

 

JOgs