Debt Clear Recoveries - proof that they're MBNA

[transparentspoon]

Just been looking for hard evidence that Debt Clear is owned by MBNA and finally found it on the Bank of America web site (link is to a PDF):

 

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9ODY0OXxDaGlsZElEPS0xfFR5cGU9Mw==&t=1

 

Debt Clear is listed as being one of their "dormant shell companies".

 

I suspect that Debt Clear have probably misrepresented themselves in some of the letters they've sent me so if anyone is having a problem with them this might be a useful lever to fight back with. If anyone is with PayPlan or another debt management service then finding out who the payment is really going to will confirm whether Debt Clear are managing the account (probably not fradulent) or have bought it (probably fradulent if MBNA are taking the payment).

 

Also, apart from the "I just printed this out of my inkjet" letterhead they don't appear to be signatories to any trade body or association so I will be asking them about which code of conduct that (might) subscribe to in my next letter.

 

Hope that helps - good luck if you're dealing with them!

[ScarletPimpernel]

A most interesting discovery.

 

This part may also be of interest:

 

EBL uses securitisation activity as a source of capital efficient funding.

 

'EBL' is the trigram used in the document to denote MBNA Europe Bank Ltd.

 

There is a list of quite a number of 'securitisation vehicles' at page 35 of the document. These companies do not appear on the OFT's consumer credit licence database - which I suspect could have serious implications.

[alfwithhair]

I suspected this for sometime, now there is proof

[transparentspoon]

Thanks for the feedback - now I just need to learn what a "securitisation vehicle" is!

 

A quick glance through some of the names suggests that there must be some fairly elaborate off-shore tax-avoidance setup going on as well - in the unlikely event that I suddenly become immortal I might try and work out how all the pieces fit together

[cerberusalert]

now I just need to learn what a "securitisation vehicle" is!

 

Securitization often utilizes a special purpose vehicle (SPV), alternatively known as a special purpose entity (SPE) or special purpose company (SPC), reducing the risk of bankruptcy and thereby obtaining lower interest rates from potential lenders. A credit derivative is also sometimes used to change the credit quality of the underlying portfolio so that it will be acceptable to the final investors. Securitization has evolved from its tentative beginnings in the late 1970s to a vital funding source with an estimated outstanding of $10.24 trillion in the United States and $2.25 trillion in Europe as of the 2nd quarter of 2008. In 2007, ABS issuance amounted to $3,455 billion in the US and $652 billion in Europe Securitization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[transparentspoon]

I think you've mistaken me for someone that has a brain

[ScarletPimpernel]

This thread may shine some light for you, TS. Essentially it's a method of assignment that lenders use to obtain money to lend by selling the future value of the debt.

 

It means that the company managing the account may not actually own the debt, and so may not be entitled to collect a debt upon it.

[transparentspoon]

Thanks again for the advice

 

On the basis that ignorance is bliss, I try not to go near anything that mentions 'securitisation vehicle' but I'll make an exception in this case.

 

Just checked my letter from Debt Clear which says they haven't received this month's payment yet but my DMP clearly shows that all previous payments have been made to MBNA (no mention of Debt Clear anywhere) so will write back asking them again for proof of their entitlement to collect the debt.

 

Oddly, MBNA told me exactly who they sold my other debt to but have been all coy about this one. In my book this is a straightforward case of blatant misrepresentation (especially so if the company is 'dormant', though I'd probably need to do a Companies House check to confirm this) so will write again and see what they've got to say for themselves.

[transparentspoon]

Just found some more info on them:

 

DEBT CLEAR RECOVERIES & INVESTIGATIONS LIMITED, company number 02877251, credit report, annual accounts and free company monitoring

 

According to this site, the status of the company is dormant (GBA10 status, non-trading). It also says that the company was incorporated in 1993 and continued to return non-trading accounts up until 2002, whereupon it started to submit trading accounts even though it's dormant (which obviously makes sense, right?)

 

Also thought the following was interesting, found here:

 

The only allowed transactions of a dormant company are:

 

 

-payment for shares taken by subscribers to the memorandum of association

 

 

-fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for a change of company name, the re-registration of a company and filing annual returns

 

 

-payment of a civil penalty for late filing of account

If I can find out where this is mentioned in the Companies Act then Debt Clear might be in trouble

[pompeyfaith]

subbing

[transparentspoon]

Official guidance from Companies House can be found here:

 

Guidance - Dormant Companies (GBA10)

 

Here's what I've written so far - any comments please?

 

I note with interest that your company does not appear to be a member of any recognised trade bodies or associations, nor is it a signatory to any recognised code of conduct governing this sector. I also draw your attention to Chapter 3 of guidance note GBA10 (issued by Companies House) which details the restrictions that apply to dormant companies (of which your company is currently registered as being thus). In particular, it appears that only the following accounting transactions are permitted if a company is registered as being dormant:

 

- payment for shares taken by subscribers to the memorandum of association

 

- fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for a change of company name, the re-registration of a company and filing annual returns; and

 

- payment of a civil penalty for late filing of accounts

 

I therefore suggest to you that it is not commensurate for your company to be handling financial transactions on behalf of a third-party if it is registered as being dormant.

 

Taking the above points into account, I would be grateful if you could clarify your position.

 

Love and hugs,

 

Mr Wibble xxx

Edited August 8, 2009 by transparentspoon
My being illiterate

[ScarletPimpernel]

The use of dormant companies is very widespread in the debt industry - many of the banks' in-house DCAs are dormant. You will almost certainly find that Debt Clear Recoveries is not trading - it's staff will be employed by MBNA (or another company), and they are just using the name (and consumer credit licence). This is apparently legal.

 

I've always wondered why, if a company is dormant, it feels the need to maintain a consumer credit licence, and maintain its registration with ICO - unless for the purpose of being used to mislead people.

[transparentspoon]

I've always wondered why, if a company is dormant, it feels the need to maintain a consumer credit licence, and maintain its registration with ICO - unless for the purpose of being used to mislead people.

 

Thanks for this - I just checked on the Office of Fair Trading's Consumer Credit Register and Debt Clear are not registered, nor are they listed as a trading name under MBNA's licence. The guidance note from the OFT (which can be found here) suggests that they might not need to have a category F licence as the rules have clearly been fudged about with by the OFT to exempt them from needing it (the rules were stricter in earlier versions). Nevertheless, there might be the possibility of making a claim against a DCA if they've broken these rules:

 

You do not need to apply for Category F:

 

- until October 2008, if you merely collect debts owed to you,

except where the debts have been assigned to you

- from 1 October 2008, if you merely collect debts owed to you,

including debts which have been assigned to you

On first read that section didn't make much sense but the distinction can be found in the use of except and including (up until Oct '08 you did need a licence if the debts were assigned to you, but not any more, at least I think that's what they mean).

 

The document also states:

 

Unlicensed trading is punishable by a fine, imprisonment,

or both.

 

It is a criminal offence to carry out any activity that

requires a consumer credit licence under a name that

is not on your licence.

I shall be asking them whether they've got one or not anyway of course just to make them work more...