DCA playing games?

[greatburdon]

Thanks ODC I will include the content of the draft you posted in my reply. I will send a letter stating my position in post #70 and will then just wait for a court date if they wish to proceed with their threats. I will not answer any more of their stuff unless/until they produce something of substance.

 

Think this is the way forward.

 

gb

[PGH7447]

If by any chance someone turns up, hand him the above letter and start counting to 10, when you reach 8 start dialing the local police and report a tresspasser, also take photos of him and his car for later use

[greatburdon]

I propose to send a letter along the lines shown below. Just looking for comments as to whether I am on the right lines:

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY ALLEGED DEBT.

 

I refer to your recent correspondence.

 

Your letter dated 11 August 2009 showing a breakdown of an account and enclosed copy of a cheque does not satisfy my Subject Access Request. It has clearly been stated that there is a copy of a signed agreement between me and Mr. XXX and that you have documentary evidence of my liability, all such documents must be produced. I would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you provide documentary evidence as to my liability for the alleged debt in question.

 

I am are familiar with the CPUTR 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading's Guidance on debt collection, 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 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. AND 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 asked for a copy of your complaints procedure which you have failed to send, please send a copy to me by return. I will also be making complaints to the Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards regarding your conduct.

 

You state in your letter dated 10 August 2009 that I ‘failed to respond to our previous notices with payment’. My position has been made perfectly clear, please refer to my letter dated 5 August 2009. For the avoidance of doubt I will repeat it again. There is no such debt owing therefore no payment will be made. Should you take any court action I will vigorously defend and counter claim against this frivolous and vexatious course of action.

 

You also state in your letter dated 10 August 2009 that ‘you will be visited by self employed debt collectors',please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make an appointment with you.

 

There is only an implied license under Common Law for people to be able 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.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so, then you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and civil action will be taken.

 

Again I repeat, no further correspondence will be acknowledged.

 

Your faithfully

gb

Edited August 14, 2009 by greatburdon

[greatburdon]

*Bump*

[PGH7447]

looks good to go

[greatburdon]

Thanks for your help PGH I will send my letter next week and will not respond to anything else unless there is some substance to their letters.

 

gb

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi folks..just catching up after my hols

Reet..wheels are in motion re PC Plod. We're watching the detectives, to quote Elvis Costello..

Just re read, and noticed that the two letters from Plod have different associated companies at the bottom, the other being Investment Marketing Management, which on digging comes up with the web address imm2001.com. Guess what? Its directly linked to the famed Mr Muldoon mentioned earlier..he even gives his myspace page! (myspace.com/real-estate-man)

Tada!

I know that it's Federal Management pursueing now, but I have a feeling that a succinct letter to mr Plod threatening to check his credentials with West Yorkshire Police might persuade him to call the dogs off?

Then I'd write to them anyway!

Let me know what you want to do..happy to draft it for you

Elsa x

Edited August 18, 2009 by Undercover-Elsa

[greatburdon]

Thanks for your reply Elsa.

 

As Fed. Management are now the active party I assume I should deal with them. I am quite happy for them to take court action if they wish as I will be counter claiming against the alleged creditor should they do so. I will send the draft and see what they wish to do.

 

As far as our 'friend' goes I am not sure what steps to take so would welcome your help.

 

GB

[Undercover-Elsa]

Depends really whether Plod or the claimant passed it on to Fed. Think we could get him to bin it if he's the one who passed it on, subject to saying (subtly and carefully) the right things in a letter directly to him as MD. No harm in trying

Have spoken to my friend..passed on all I've found out.

Will have a think re a poss letter to plod and to West Yorkshire Police, then its up to you

[greatburdon]

Perfick, thanks again.

[Undercover-Elsa]

How about something on the lines of:

 

Hello Hello Hello Mr Txxxxr, (sorry couldn’t resist that!)

Re your ref:

 

As I’m sure you are aware I have recently received correspondence from your company demanding payment of a debt that I do not owe. Although I have clearly stated this, and requested documentary evidence, to date no valid evidence has been produced.

 

I am concerned to note that you state categorically that you have a copy of an agreement, signed by myself.

As I am 100% certain that I signed no such agreement, (unsurprisingly, a copy of which has not been provided to me) this obviously raises serious concerns regarding either the credibility of your statement or the validity of the alleged agreement.

 

Having checked your website I note that you are stated as being a retired Police Officer, which makes me all the more surprised at the way this alleged case has been handled and pursued so aggressively without proof.

A basic principle of the OFT’s Debt Collection Guidelines is that the onus is on the Debt Collector to PROVE the debt, not vice versa.

 

Additionally I cannot find any reference to your company holding a Consumer Credit Licence, a legal requirement for a debt collection agency, as far as I am aware.

I am furthermore extremely concerned to find that your letters cite affiliations to companies directly connected to an individual based in Spain who has had numerous fraud allegations against him.

 

I therefore write to inform you that I fully intend to take my concerns to West Yorkshire Police and The Office of Fair Trading if you do not put an end to this spurious claim for a debt I emphatically do not owe, and which would not, as you must be aware, stand up in court.

 

I am aware that you have passed this on to Federal Management, but I’m sure, in the circumstances, you will inform them to cease action and also inform your “client” that this claim is without merit.

 

I look forward to receiving your confirmation that this matter is closed by xxxx date otherwise I will have no alternative but to proceed with my complaints to the relevant authorities.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

I'd send it personally addressed to him, at the Wakefield Office, as MD.

 

Any other thoughts on this appreciated, it's just my opinion, as ever.

 

Elsa x

PS..Just in case the website magically goes down (no pun intended!) I've taken screen prints.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Undercover-Elsa

[ODC]

I thought First Credit were such a super collection company that they would not have needed to call in the Feds

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hehe you'd think so wouldn't you?

Maybe it's cos they realise that, like super bugs we get immune to them...

[ODC]

He after all is the one who boasts on his website of his former police credentials and his no cost debt collection. I wonder who is paying the Feds. I find it hilarious that a former member of a small provincial force has had to seek help from a company called Federal

[Undercover-Elsa]

Maybe he's got the DA on his back...

[greatburdon]

Just received the postcard below by post. i rang the number as there is no indication who it is from and found out it is from federal management. I did not answer any of their reference checks but got a return phone call moments later stating that as I had not gone through their data questions I would be getting a call from their bailiffs later in the day, even though I had the kettle on no-one arrived.

 

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/FedManpostcard.jpg

 

Firstly their assertion that they 'visited while you were out' is a blatant lie. Are there rules governing this sort of thing? The reverse of the card is completely blank.

 

I have also been told that they are following this thread so maybe you can answer them directly (will save on postage)

 

greatburdon

[cerberusalert]

I have also been told that they are following this thread so maybe you can answer them directly (will save on postage)

 

Kiss my gnome.

 

[greatburdon]

Thanks cerberusalert, I assume that is a legal term!

 

gb

[PGH7447]

Report them for sending out a postcard saying that someone wished to speak to you, and not giving a reason for the so called call, - unless of course they include the postie as a part of their so called debt collection company,

 

I dont know, ex cops; current postmen, get the fire and ambulance invloved then you wil have the full set

 

also using a 087 number for incomming calls thats a no no as well, dont know much about this business do they, must have been a sh*te Debt collection course he attended

[ODC]

Report this sad git and his sad company to TS, the OFT and your MP. He is not fit to hold a dog Licence let alone a credit licence. The card is A intimidatory tool to get you to ring his telephone threatmonkeys. As to him sending his balliffs round any former policemAn with half a braincell should realise that he is talking verbal diahorrea

[mr.ton]

Ask what time the bailiffs would like to turn up as you wish for your local police force to be in attendance when they do...

[mr.ton]

Usually these cards are simply delivered by the postman anyway.

The DCA's like to play silly beggars & design them in such a way to intimidate you and make it look like someone has tried to knock when most of the time nothing could be any furthur from reality

[greatburdon]

Received today a "proposal" for bankruptcy from Federal Management as follows:

 

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/FedMan5Oct.jpg

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/propforbankr1.jpg

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/propforbankr2.jpg

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/propforbankr3.jpg

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/propforbankr4.jpg

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/propforbankr5.jpg

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/propforbankr6.jpg

 

They state in the particulars of debt that I provided the creditor with a cheque that had been dishonoured which is absolute garbage. I have never done so, the creditor paid for my services and that was the end of, no refund, no amount due.

 

Anyone seen anything like this? It states that 'if you dispute the demand in whole or in part you should: contact the individual (or one of the individuals) named in part B immediately'.

 

I assume that is what needs doing as this obviously is not at a court stage just the 'proposal' stage?

 

greatburdon

[PGH7447]

This is just a statutary demand made up to look far more intimidating that it actually is.

 

What you need to do is to get it set aside, there are several ways to do this, this first being that you phone the muppets up and ask to speak to the named indiidual on the stat demand, if he refuses to speak to you then thats it - you have your set aside grounds, the second is that the account is in dispute and has been since "date" and also that their facts on the stat demand are wrong re the cheque, for instance why would you pay them for services rendered by you

[greatburdon]

Thanks PGH ... Who/where do I apply for a set-aside and on what other grounds? I have just attempted to speak to the individual named on their notice but he's out to lunch.

 

GB