My Debts & Various DCA's & Letters

[angry cat]

It is against the OFT Guidelines!

 

Physical/psychological Harassment

 

2.5 Putting PRESSURE on debtors or third parties is considered to be OPPRESSIVE.

 

2.6 Examples of Unfair Practices are as follows:

 

...b. PRESSURISING debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further borrowing, or to extend their borrowing.

 

AC

[angry cat]

Definately CB!

...or to extend their borrowing.

 

AC

[angry cat]

you are not extending your credit, you are using credit that has already been extended to you.

 

Semantics Kraken.

 

Paying by Credit Card will inevitably cost more money, thus extending the borrowing...

 

transactions/debits are applied prior to credits, that is if the debtor can afford to credit/ make the required payment, which would be extremely unlikely!

If said debtor could indeed afford to make the required payment, they would not be in the position of being pursued by collection agents.

 

We all know now that the use of Credit Cards is not an intelligent manner is which to look after ones money, especially a general consumer who is in debt, or being pursued for an alleged debt.

 

DCA's should not be requesting payment by Credit Card(s), it is against the OFT Guidelines.

 

AC

[angry cat]

I Quote:

 

How To Pay:

WHY NOT PAY ONLINE?

VISA;

MasterCard;

AMERICAN EXPRESS;

Diners Club International;

All major Credit Cards accepted.

 

What would you call pressure?

some brute standing on ones doorstep, threatening all sorts;

taking a granny up to the ATM;

trying to embarass one in the work place;

phoning up the neighbours.

 

PAY UP OR, ELSE!

 

No cash, so how else will they pay?

 

AC

[angry cat]

Another view Re: DCA's requesting payment by,

Credit Card is;

 

'conspiring to commit fraud by the taking on of more borrowing'

 

Let us not forget that many vulnerable debtors do not have the means to repay the existing borrowings, leta alone further borrowings!

 

AC

Edited June 26, 2009 by angry cat
error

[angry cat]

In post 36:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2249476.html

 

I posted the OFT's view.

 

I later posted another view and not simply my own:

 

Pressurising a debtor to pay by Credit Card could amount to;

conspiring to commit fraud, by the taking on of more borrowings.

 

That comment/view, clearly hit the spot!

 

AC

Edited June 26, 2009 by angry cat
spelling

[angry cat]

 

like all the conspiricy theories that signatures are being lifted from letters and placed on agreements - it has as much substance as a constipated jelly

 

Clearly, you do not know what you are talking about re: the above statement.

No personal disrespect intended.

 

AC

[angry cat]

Quite obviously, you are still learning about Consumer Credit Law, that is not surprising as it is constantly being amended...

 

I note that you bypassed the following comment:

 

: like all the conspiricy theories that signatures are being lifted from letters and placed on agreements - it has as much substance as a constipated jelly [End Quote]

 

Perhaps, if you have had sight of some of the 'blue peters' that have met my eyes! then your opinion would no doubt differ.

 

Together, with some of the appalling 'demand for payment' cards & flyers, which most certainly could not be classed as 'Benign' being aimed at vulnerable consumers, once again your view would differ.

 

But, I guess that it depends upon what side of the fence, one sits.

 

I do not wish to enter into pointless argument, however, I do believe that some merit does lie in;

 

DCA's who are pressurising vulnerable debtors to make payments that they cannot afford by means of Credit Card;

could be viewed under Common Law as;

conspiring to commit fraud by the taking on of more borrowings.

 

A vulnerable consumer, who has no cash, no job, possibly ill and/or, on benefits, paying a debt by use of credit card (running account credit) borrowings;

increasing his/her borrowings.

 

The DCA's know full well this practice is wrong but of course, they do not care, as it is only about the money.

 

Shameful Unfair Practice.

 

AC

[angry cat]

You did. I can attest to that. You then went on to interpret this and read into the OFT's statement a meaning that some of us don't think is actually there.

 

As for the criminal point, I think you might have done this again. I'm definitely on the side of the jelly here. There is some paranoia and conspiracy nutty-ness flying around. Give it a month and we'll find out that there was a dca sitting on the grassy knoll...

 

Err!

I cannot recall mentioning the word Criminal?

 

This has more to do with 'Unfair Trading Practices'

 

Maybe, next month will unveil the identity of the TROLL(s).

 

Kraken, you and DD work well together.

 

Love

AC

 

post script: do not take everything I say as gospel, only throwing my tuppence in, for what it's worth.

[angry cat]

No Kraken, I was not!

Just being as sarcastic as you.

 

I really do not wish to argue but I think that vulnerable consumers do need protection from some DCA's and that, it is unfair for such people to pay debts by use of credit cards, thereby extending/increasing their borrowings/debt.

 

AC

Edited June 26, 2009 by angry cat
Addition

[angry cat]

Yes, ME and many others like me!

So, you will have to drop your pants in Burtons window, diddydicky!

 

By the way, I did not choose my BAG ID because I am an aggressive person, the name that I chose, in my opinion, clearly paints a view about my feeling towards Banks et al in the Financial Industry

 

AC

[angry cat]

Fed Up With All Of This!

 

All that I have attempted to do is to assist.

 

Firstly, I am called a, Rodney;

Secondly, because I selected my user ID, almost 4 years ago, apparently this name has a significant meaning regarding my character and;

Lastly, I am described as: angry, bitter and irrational.

 

Thanks, personal attacks galore...Not On:(

 

AC

[angry cat]

Thank you.. I was just about to close this thread down.

 

 

I think that you should. this sort of situation keeps happening!

V. BAD

 

AC

[angry cat]

Looks like others may agree!?

 

Your Rights against Creditors from Debt Questions

 

:

 

UNFAIR PRACTICES

 

Creditors must not suggest to a debtor to either sell a property or to take out further borrowing in order to pay off the debt to that creditor. For a creditor to request you borrow more money to pay them off is basically requesting you to commit fraud as you are taking on credit knowing you cannot pay the debt back."

 

Don't shoot me, I am only a messenger!

 

AC

Edited June 27, 2009 by angry cat

[angry cat]

 

Agreed!

 

AC

[angry cat]

Kraken!

 

Look it up for youself, I have lost patience with you.

[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

[angry cat]

Precisely the point!

 

If one is a debtor who cannot afford to pay, due to reasons various...

 

It would be extremely unlikely that the debtor could pay by:

Cheque or, Postal Order;

Direct Debit or,

Standing Order. Because they do NOT have any CASH!

 

Thus they are pressurised into paying by Credit Card, which will increase their borrowings plus a charge of 2% may be applicable.

 

Alleged Debtors who are in reduced circumstances due to illness, unemployment, disabilities etc, DO NOT have available CASH to pay a DCA!

 

If they had spare cash, then they would not be in the position they find themselves in. Because, they would be able to pay.

 

My position remains the same;

DCA's should not be pressurising debtors who cannot afford to pay by asking them to pay by Credit Card.

Payment by Credit Card will undoubtedly extend their borrowing, borrowing that they will not be able to pay back!

 

AC

Edited June 30, 2009 by angry cat
spelling

[angry cat]

huh?

[angry cat]

I believe that the point that was being made, was the 2 - 2.5% charge for payment by CC!

 

AC

[angry cat]

Usually it's not one single event that pressures people either, the DCA's whole collection activities are designed and implimented in such a way as to be a continuous and ever increasing form of 'Chinese Water Torture' particularly in the form of their much loved telephone harassment.

 

People who have perfect lives and little or, no money worries are not able to comprehend how desperate consumers feel.

Consumers who have had their lives turned upside down by misfortune(s);

 

Loss of employment;

house(s) that has been repossessed;

long term illness;

disabilites etc...

 

To understand, one has to listen to what is going on; on the street!

 

Take a family of four for example:

Mother, Father and two young children;

the Father, a builder lost his job;

the Mother had a part time job working for Woolworth: Job Lost.

the two young children have to be fed and clothed;

the family as a whole have to survive on Benefits and/or job seekers allowance.

 

All the priority bills have to be met, after that there is little or nothing left!

Most certainly, there will be 'NO CASH' available.

 

However, the DCA's will press, harass and torment the parents for payment of existing debts. The DCA's do not care, why should they, the situation that the whole family finds itself in, is not the DCA's problem and...all that the DCA(s) want is, payment(s).

 

There are many other scenarios such as consumers who once had perfect credit ratings but due to illness found themselves in financial difficulties.

 

Generally speaking these members of the public will have no ability to pay Debt collectors CASH, thus their only other recourse when being intimidated and pursued for money, is to ask a friend to pay on Credit Card, or use their own Credit Card, which has been kept for emergencies BUT almost maxed out!

 

Out there on the street is a very hard and difficult world:

£5 - £10 makes all the difference.

 

Therefore, we come back to the following:

 

"Putting pressure on debtors is considered to be oppressive;

 

pressurising debtors to raise funds by further borrowing or, to extend their borrowing"

 

must be considered to be UNFAIR PRACTICE"

 

Anyone who thinks that it is not, needs to understand what is happening out on the street.

 

AC

Edited July 1, 2009 by angry cat
error

[angry cat]

Taken in isolation;

 

2.5 Putting pressure on debtors oe third parties is considered to be oppressive.

 

2.6 Examples of unfair practice: a b c d e f g h i j;

 

 

each case must be considered on its own merits;

 

The OFT is not aware that an offer of receiving payment by credit card breaches any regulations."

 

Love the wording, 'an offer of receiving payment by credit card'!

 

AC

[angry cat]

and an amazingly fast and almost detailed reply from OFT on this issue below:

The use of a previously agreed credit limit or facility would not appear to be further borrowing or an extension of existing borrowing. Taken in isolation, accepting a debit or credit card payment would not be considered to be an unfair business practice. That said, each case must be considered on its own merits and the OFT would consider other factors such as whether consumers were being asked to exceed a previously agreed credit limit or facility or where the debt collector was applying unreasonable pressure on debtors (see paragraphs 2.5-2.6 of the OFT's Debt Collection Guidance).

 

The OFT would not normally consider that contacting or writing to a debtor to request payment would amount to undue pressure, although as noted above, each case must be considered on its own merits.

The OFT is not aware that an offer of receiving payment by credit card breaches any regulations.

 

 

That statement should make for an interesting discussion on this.

 

Could you please scan and post up the reply, please.

[angry cat]

Gotta love the OFT haven't ya

 

LOL, Semantics!

 

Obviously, they cannot/will not give a straght answer;

as every case differs...

what do these bluddy civil servants do all day?

 

The Consumer, may well come back and bite them on the Derriere, come next May!

 

AC

[angry cat]

I just got a standard response back - can't intervene, published guidance, here's a list of advice agencies etc. . I take it that you found your email add for 'm'? Do you want to circulate a little wider?

 

AC - based on the answer I got, the above seems really quite straight and fairly clear. Not sure what you mean about next May as the oft is part of the civil service and therefore not elected.

 

Kraken1, the purported response from the OFT is far from: "quite straight and fairly clear".

 

Yes, the OFT is part of the 'civil service' and not elected. However, please bear in mind that we have a non-elected PM!

Undoubtedly, the Gov. will change, as will the Ministers & MP's...the electorate are, not happy and (they) cannot toy with the electorate!

 

Please do not misread/twist my words as argumetative, they are above board; just plain and simple words.

 

The subjects/citizens of this country are tired of, civil servants etc., answering questions with semantics and/or, a question????

 

Personally, my view remains the same.

 

Why, don't you email the OFT yourself about: the lateral of members thinking?

 

AC