My Debts & Various DCA's & Letters

[cerberusalert]

[Kraken1]

Don't worry, I haven't lost patience with you AC. I am going to take you under my wing as a project. My job is to educate you I think. Make you think, shed preconceptions, broaden your horizons. I promise I will stick with you.

 

So. Here we go.

 

Further

2. Beyond; additional; as, a further reason for this opinion; nothing further to suggest.

 

I have a credit card. I am given a credit limit of £1000. It is a facility I can chose to use or not, at my discretion.

 

This is like cars - I might have two and can choose which I use, or whether to take the bus.

 

This means that if I use a credit facility that has already been extended to me then this is not something 'beyond; additional'. It is an existing facility that I might chose to use.

 

The alternative, using the car analogy is to suggest that if I use my second car to go to work instead of the bus I am obtaining a further car? No, I'm not, I'm just using the one I already have. Nothing new about it.

 

I do think that extending a credit limit, or taking a new loan or CC would qualify, but simply using an existing credit facility does not.

 

 

I appreciate you are getting frustrated, I know that when I was studying and trying to get my head around vague or unfamiliar concepts it could get me quite cross. There is no shame in changing your mind you know, and no shame in asking for help.

 

 

We are debating what the OFT means. I suggest you contact them and ask them. I'm fairly certain they will say you are wrong. Or ignore you. One or the other.

[ODC]

You really do not seem to have grasped my point.

 

You get your Credit Card statement in with a nil balance

 

Wayne the DCA threat monkey rings you up and demands £100 or he will send the baliffs round to seize your firstborn

 

You decide to give him your Credit Card details so as he can filch £100 from your account.

 

Result is you now owe the Credit Card company £100.00

 

Did they give you this hundred quid or did you borrow it with the intention of paying it back

 

 

I REST MY CASE

[Kraken1]

No need to get stressed. This is an internet forum, where folk debate things. No sense getting stressed just because someone disagrees with you.

 

I see exactly your point, I just disagree with your interpretation and conclusions.

 

I accept that it is borrowing, it is just not new borrowing because the borrowing has already been agreed and the facility exists for you.

 

Further, I doubt the OFT would say that this circumstance would fall under the guidelines because dcas could never know whether it is a charge or credit card, or whether there is an overdraft attached to it. The result of both of these chains of thought is that this practice is not against the oft guidelines.

 

 

I think we need to see what the OFt has to say on the point. We've both presented our arguments.

 

Fancy a wager? If I'm right how about you change your signature for one month to 'Kraken is the CAG king and I am his subject. By they way - Kraken is nothing to do with a dca'.

 

I'm willing to post similar on my signature, suggest something. Then we can both toddle off to the OFT and compare answers.

 

How does that sound?

 

 

 

 

PS - sending the bailiffs around to seize firstborn is against the guidelines, I'm sure.

[cerberusalert]

I accept that it is borrowing, it is just not new borrowing because the borrowing has already been agreed and the facility exists for you.

It's irelevant whether it's new borrowing or not. With a CC agreement you have the facilities to borrow up to a certain amount, until you actually use that facility you haven't borrowed anything ergo if you owe £500 on your credit card & Grabbit & More come along and pressurise you into paying them £300 and accept payment via CC they have encouraged you to extend the amount you have already borrowed. Your original CC debt has risen to £800 + interest.

[ODC]

No need to get stressed. This is an internet forum, where folk debate things. No sense getting stressed just because someone disagrees with you. Om not getting stressed. Believe me you would know if I was stressed

 

I see exactly your point, I just disagree with your interpretation and conclusions.

 

I accept that it is borrowing, it is just not new borrowing because the borrowing has already been agreed and the facility exists for you. Before you paid the DCA threat monkey using your card you owed nothing. After you pay the DCA threat monkey using your credit card you owe something. Now unless the Credit Card company made you a gift of the money you must have BORROWED it and as you know borrowis the inverse of lend

 

Further, I doubt the OFT would say that this circumstance would fall under the guidelines because dcas could never know whether it is a charge or credit card, or whether there is an overdraft attached to it. The result of both of these chains of thought is that this practice is not against the oft guidelines. Wrong again!! When the DCA threat monkey enters your card details into the card reader it displays whether it is a Credit or debit card

 

 

I think we need to see what the OFt has to say on the point. We've both presented our arguments.

 

Fancy a wager? If I'm right how about you change your signature for one month to 'Kraken is the CAG king and I am his subject. By they way - Kraken is nothing to do with a dca'. I am not the CAG king and never pretend to be but there are many others I would vote for before you

 

I'm willing to post similar on my signature, suggest something. Then we can both toddle off to the OFT and compare answers.

 

How does that sound?

 

 

 

 

PS - sending the bailiffs around to seize firstborn is against the guidelines, I'm sure.

Yes but it dosent forbid it in the OFT guidelines. On second thoughts they are welcome to mine as he would be better giving them hassle than giving it to me

[Kraken1]

You're not going to persuade, me, I'm not going to persuade you. Sometimes that is the nature of a debate.

 

Will no-one take my wager? I really can't see either of us persuading the other unless we get the oft to comment. I can't approach them myself, I dare say that you wouldn't believe the answer... I'm happy to do it but need a partner in crime. I think they are also less likely to ignore more than one letter.

 

As an aside -

 

I doubt that a card machine tells a dca whether the owner of that card is using their overdraft or not, though.

 

A bailiff cannot seize children, and you can't get a WoE without a ccj, so that would breach the guidelines - threatening to take legal action they can't.

 

 

Back on topic, how about a new spin?

 

Borrowing would be defined as a finance facility under a regulated agreement. Under s10 of the act running account credit is defined and being stuff supplied up to an agreed credit limit. Therefore using an existing card is not further borrowing as it is not a new agreement or new facility, nor is it an amendment of an existing limit.

 

The other option is that we can agree that:

 

1. it's poor practice and shouldn't happen

2. we can't be certain whether it is against the oft guidelines, only they can comment on this but there are arguments, to a greater or lesser degree, each way.

[ODC]

You're not going to persuade, me, I'm not going to persuade you. Sometimes that is the nature of a debate. Yes so we will agree to disagree

 

Will no-one take my wager? I really can't see either of us persuading the other unless we get the oft to comment. ]I can't approach them myself, I dare say that you wouldn't believe the answer.Now that is utter nonsense.. I'm happy to do it but need a partner in crimeIm sure diddydickey your alter ego would oblige. I think they are also less likely to ignore more than one letter.

 

As an aside -

 

I doubt that a card machine tells a dca whether the owner of that card is using their overdraft or not, though.

 

A bailiff cannot seize children,Of course they cant but that is just one of the threats PAUL from LINK uttered and you can't get a WoE without a ccj, so that would breach the guidelines - threatening to take legal action they can't.

 

 

Back on topic, how about a new spin?

 

Borrowing would be defined as a finance facility under a regulated agreement. Under s10 of the act running account credit is defined and being stuff supplied up to an agreed credit limit. Therefore using an existing card is not further borrowing as it is not a new agreement or new facility, nor is it an amendment of an existing limit.

 

The other option is that we can agree that:

 

1. it's poor practice and shouldn't happen

2. we can't be certain whether it is against the oft guidelines, only they can comment on this but there are arguments, to a greater or lesser degree, each way.

Yes

[Kraken1]

Ok. I'll drop them a note when I get a chance. If I compose the email for your would you be willing to send it to them? I do think they'll need a few before they answer the question. Pretty please? Do us a favour, be a sport etc? Even though we have basically agreed on a position (as above) it would be nice to know what they thought. At the very least we would then know if it was worth sending complaints or not.

 

By the way, you are not suggesting that DD and I are the same person are you? If so, it really isn't true.

 

I'm not sure I follow your bailiff point?

 

I said: sending the bailiffs around to seize firstborn is against the guidelines, I'm sure.

You said: Yes but it dosent forbid it in the OFT guidelines.

I said: it does.

You said: Of course they cant

 

apologies if I missed the sarcasm, it is late.

[ODC]

Ok. I'll drop them a note when I get a chance. If I compose the email for your would you be willing to send it to them? I do think they'll need a few before they answer the question. Pretty please? Do us a favour, be a sport etc? Even though we have basically agreed on a position (as above) it would be nice to know what they thought. At the very least we would then know if it was worth sending complaints or not. Thanks, but I am more than capable of emailing the OFT

 

By the way, you are not suggesting that DD and I are the same person are you? If so, it really isn't true. I never said that but hey if the cap fits

 

I'm not sure I follow your bailiff point?

 

I said: sending the bailiffs around to seize firstborn is against the guidelines, I'm sure.

You said: Yes but it dosent forbid it in the OFT guidelines.

I said: it does.

You said: Of course they cant

 

apologies if I missed the sarcasm, it is late.

Yes you missed my tongue in cheek remark

[Kraken1]

Thanks, but I am more than capable of emailing the OFT

 

Will you?

[diddydicky]

Yes you missed my tongue in cheek remark

 

 

[EDIT]

 

I have made the decision to try where possible to stay clear of threads that are being contributed to by ODC Mr Ton and Angry Cat (who are far more likely to have the same IP address than myself and Kraken) which i accept may be to the disadvantage of some genuine posters but thats what happens when posts get hijacked by people whose only interest is in making personal insults

 

(sorry citizen B i know i promised - but sometimes it just has to be said)

Edited June 28, 2009 by Rooster-UK

[Rooster-UK]

This has gone on, far too long!

Reasoned debate is fine. That is what CAG is all about.

We also accept that people have different ideas and opinions. Life would be very dull if we were all the same.

This thread has degenerated into nothing more than a vehicle for hurling insults and sniping.

Quite a lot of leeway has been given on this thread but it seems, still, to be a problem.

If this constant bickering and sniping continues then I will have no alternative than to close the thread, which would be a pity, considering its potential.

 

Thank you for your co-operation.

 

Rooster-UK.

[willtheywontthey]

Well I'm going to email OFT for further advice anyhow.

 

over and out until the OFT reply (if ever).

[ODC]

Well I'm going to email OFT for further advice anyhow.

 

over and out until the OFT reply (if ever).

 

If and when they give you a definative answer we will see their views. In the meantime we will have to agree to disagree over what is further borrowing and if using a Credit Card is in fact borrowing.

[diddydicky]

Yes

 

this post brought me into a dispute that i left of my own accord ages ago

 

if you are going to EDIt the posts then i would be grateful if you would be even handed with your censorship and edit me out of this one as wqell

 

dissapointed- seems to be there is some old pals act going on here

[diddydicky]

odc and i have no resolved our differences in private

 

what god has put together let no poster put asunder!!

[diddydicky]

should be NOW (not no)

[clemma]

This is ridiculous......there are far to many personal attacks being made! Agree to disagree on this one as there does not seem any way for ODC/Kraken/DD to come to a resolution. People are entitled to their opinions, entitled to voice them, but please can you all refrain from insulting each other!

 

As for my opinion - If you are struggling to make payments on ANY debt and you then use a credit card (regardless of the credit limit available to you), then are you not creating MORE debt for yourself? Not only would you still owe the DCA the random amount they say you do, but you will now have the CC company on your back demanding re-payments. Also, using a credit card when you know you do not have the means in which to pay back any of the balance owed is surely wrong, and immoral (IMHO).

 

Therefore, using a CC to pay anyone (whether it be a DCA or even a grocery store) is creating MORE debt for yourself, furthering your borrowing.....If you don't spend on your CC then you owe nothing - spend on it, and you increase your borrowing from zero to £xx. No matter which way you look at it, this has furthered your borrowing as you are indebted to yet another creditor.

 

Getting into debt to pay a debt is not a good way to manage your finances either - so even on that point, this should never be a way for a DCA or OC to ask for payment.

[Kraken1]

I thought I was being fairly nice

[ODC]

odc and i have no resolved our differences in private

 

what god has put together let no poster put asunder!!

 

This is ridiculous......there are far to many personal attacks being made! Agree to disagree on this one as there does not seem any way for ODC/Kraken/DD to come to a resolution.

Clemma see above post by diddydicky.

 

We do not agree as to whether the use of a Credit Card is further borrowing. I say it is and have clearly stated my reasoning. DD and Kraken take the opposite view and have also given their reasons. Until someone can get a definative answer from the OFT we will have to continue arguing the merits of our reasoning only without the personal remarks

[citizenB]

Well I'm going to email OFT for further advice anyhow.

 

over and out until the OFT reply (if ever).

 

I hope you dont get the same mashed up reasoning which doesnt actually answer the question.. as I have just received from the ICO in respect of a different question

[angry cat]

I hope you dont get the same mashed up reasoning which doesnt actually answer the question.. as I have just received from the ICO in respect of a different question

 

Indeed!

 

Also, one has to bear in mind that the OFT guidelines on Debt Collection are not the Law, they are simply guidelines and open to interpretation.

Remember, an opinion, is only an opinion.

 

One really has to look now at the CPUTR's 2008 with came in on the back of a European Directive: UCPD.

 

Debt collectors have to treat consumers fairly;

they have to follow Codes of Practice.

 

Thus, pressurising debtors to borrow funds via credit cards when they are unable to repay said monies back, must be 'Unfair Practice.

 

This is only an opinion.

 

AC

[willtheywontthey]

IF an Original Creditor does default you and terminate the account why then would they still send you statements as normal?????

[willtheywontthey]

I seem to recall somebody posting a very detailed response from OFT on an issue last week or so (I keep losing good posts on here despite subbing.. maybe I sub to too many). Each and every time I ask OFT a question I either get the standard reply or I get a copy/paste job of an existing regulation or guideline. Last time I was asking about phone calls to a neighbour and whether doing this intiially without a. writing to me or b. checking with oc /files or even c. electoral roll was acceptable. All I got was that the guidelines did not specify this! Honestly - what are they actually for?

 

Is there a special 'hot line' or email to the 'M' type person at OFT???

 

 

Anyhow - I have asked them about the cerdit card issue and definition of borrowing / furter borrowing so will await and see. It's quite surprising nobody else has had a clear answer on this before to be honest?

 

and less personal attacks is good.