DCA and OC caught out in Fraud

[Pinky69]

I'll let you read it for yourselves - it needs no comment from me. Since I will be taking the DCA concerned to court I won't mention their name for now.

 

I received a letter from one of the CRAs about a default entry made by the DCA in September 2003 on my credit reference report held by the CRA. I wasn’t going to bother about it as it falls off very soon but the CRA decided to made an enquiry of the DCA when I mentioned to the CRA that the DCA's entry was unlawful as they had no documentation of any kind. I expect the CRA thought they would push the DCA into collection activity as a favour. In fact that enquiry has landed the DCA in deep doo doo. The DCA's replies to me and the CRA have revealed not only appalling breaches of consumer law and the Data Protection Act by both the DCA and OC but blatant fraud by both.

 

 

The DCA wrote to the CRA “We have supplied the consumer with the application form (agreement)" - the CRA quoted the DCA's exact words in their letter to me. I expect the DCA didn't expect them to do that.

 

 

At the same time the DCA wrote to me “We have made several requests for a copy of the agreement from the OC. However, as the account was opened in 2001, the OC no longer holds this documentation.” They had told me this before.

 

 

I have written to the CRA giving them the DCA's response to me, the exact opposite of what they said to the CRA, and I go on to say "I am afraid the DCA have lied to you, a damning indictment of their modus operandi. Why, I wonder, do they still have a consumer credit licence? In response to a request made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a copy of the agreement I received no documentation of any kind from the DCA in relation to this alleged account – not a single scrap of paper. There is no application form or agreement, no Terms and Conditions, no evidence of transactions – nothing – they simply don’t exist and they admitted that to me in writing. They also wrote that they considered the alleged debt to be uncollectable and I never heard from them again until you wrote to them.

 

Enclosed with their letter of (date) I received a “representation” of a Notice of Assignment that was supposedly sent me on (date) 2002 from the OC telling me of an absolute assignment to the DCA and a “representation” of a letter from the DCA telling me they alleged debt had been assigned to them. “Representations” are meaningless and can never have any authenticity because the originals don’t exist to compare them with. I can assure you no such Notices were sent to me or received by me in 2002 – I have everything the DCA ever sent me on file. More lies. In addition Notices of Assignment from the original creditor must be sent by Recorded Delivery to comply with the Law of property Act 1925 S136.

 

There was another submission in their letter – statements they state in their letter are from the DCA and OC. The statement purporting to be from the OC dated (date) 2002 is in breach of the Companies Act 1985. The OC's copywrite at the bottom of the document giving the OC's corporate details is dated 2007! In addition the OC's corporate details are not on the alleged statement but skewed to the left on another piece of paper. It is a very bad cut and paste job.

 

I never paid the DCA a penny in connection with this alleged account but I now know that the OC did. The OC sold the alleged debt to the DCA without any agreement or a Default Notice and that means that on selling the alleged account the OC breached Section 87 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, causing unlawful rescission. So the DCA bought an alleged account that no longer existed. But the statements the DCA sent to me in their recent letter show they received payments thereafter from the OC. For 5 years the OC collected the payments and passed them to the DCA after they had rescinded and sold the alleged account to the DCA without either party informing me the alleged debt had been assigned. How do I know this? Because I was in a debt management programme with CCCS all that time and CCCS made payments to the OC right up until I came out of the programme in October 2007 – I have the closing statement from CCCS. So the OC are the only ones who could have paid the DCA. I certainly didn’t and CCCS obviously didn’t know the OC had sold the alleged account to the DCA. The OC obviously didn’t inform CCCS as my agents or CCCS would have been sending the payments to the DCA. In addition, I have statements for another alleged account that the DCA had and payments by CCCS on those statements are shown as “Third Party Bank CCCS”. Payments on the statements for the alleged OC account are shown as “Vendor Payment” – payment by the seller. The OC is already well known to the OFT. I knew nothing of any of this until I got the statements in the recent letter from the DCA.

 

The DCA bought an alleged account that never had an agreement, didn’t exist at the time of purchase and fraudulently received payments from the OC who collected them fraudulently after they sold the rescinded account to DCA. Then the DCA lied to the CRA to cover up a default entry they had made unlawfully and which will have sat on my credit reference reports for 6 years in September 2009.

 

 

I have demanded the return of all payments made to the DCA by the OC and compensation for damage to my reputation plus statutory interest. I don’t know how any of the credit reference agencies can ever believe anything the DCA tells them. A court of law will not believe a word they say now they have been caught out lying to a credit reference agency and I fully intend to sue if necessary. What does it take for the regulatory authorities to put an end to this unlawful behaviour once and for all? I am seriously considering reporting both the DCA and the OC to the police for fraud if the regulatory authorities don’t take action against both for this fraudulent [problem]. I expect the age-old excuses will come trotting out but nobody believes them anymore."

 

 

End of letter. What can you say? Idiots. I won't give you the details of what I have written to the DCA's Company Secretary for now but I have told her/him that the DCA is not fit to shovel dung never mind collect debt.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Pinky69

[DonkeyB]

Hi Pinky

 

Sadly, DCAs telling lies is no surprise any more, is it?

 

Remember also that the CRA is, according to the Information Commissioner's Office, a 'joint data controller' for your data. They are as liable as the DCA for ensuring its accuracy - there's a thread on here somewhere in which a Cagger got confirmation from the ICO about this.

 

So you can have a go at the CRA as well!

[angry cat]

Hi Pinky

 

Sadly, DCAs telling lies is no surprise any more, is it?

 

Remember also that the CRA is, according to the Information Commissioner's Office, a 'joint data controller' for your data. They are as liable as the DCA for ensuring its accuracy - there's a thread on here somewhere in which a Cagger got confirmation from the ICO about this.

 

So you can have a go at the CRA as well!

 

 

Quite Right;

both would be considered to be, joint Data Controllers!

 

Trouble is, you really have to bang the table to get the ICO to enforce.

[Pinky69]

Thank you very much for that both of you - that is good to know. That informs my next course of action.

[angry cat]

Check out the ICO; DPA Technical Guidance;

Filing Defaults with Credit Reference agencies.

 

AC

x

[Pinky69]

Thanks Angry Cat - I will. It looks as if I am going to be very busy with complaints to the ICO and court action!

[spark1]

Pinky69

 

Don't want to put a damper on things but have a look at my letter below, just read the bit about Experian being a Data Controller and what course of action is acceptable under the DPA in the eyes of the ICO.

 

 

Spark

[Pinky69]

Thanks Spark. I've already had a look at the guidelines and decided there is not much I can do about the CRAs recording the defaults. The strength in my case is against the DCA who told the CRA a deliberate lie in response to an enquiry by the CRA. I am going to sue them for taking money for a non-existent debt over a period of 5 years and damage to my reputation in entering defaults on my credit reference reports for an alleged debt that had been rescinded by the OC when they bought it. The OC took money for the alleged debt after the agreement was rescinded and they had it sold on. I'd love to get them for damages too but looking at theft cases, which is what it is, compensation looks as if it is usually limited to the amount of the theft and I am going after the DCA for that.

 

All advice appreciated.

[Deb T]

Hope you don't mind, would like to subscribe to this..

[spark1]

Pinky69

 

1, Money took under force pretences.

 

2, Defamation of character.

 

3, Breach of the DPA unfairly processing your data.

 

Don't forget compounded interest on the money they took.

 

If you get all your facts in place, I would imagine the companies involved would settle up, or you could get a no win no fee solicitor.

 

Spark

[Pinky69]

I've been through a few legal sites and I am beginning to focus on the OC's selling an alleged account which they had unlawfully terminated to a third party, which action led to an unlawful default entry on my credit reports and damage to my reputation.

[bigegg]

Just a quick aside, and apologies if you are already aware of the below:

 

Your first post makes it appear that you believe the CRA are some sort of "official" agency who are spotless and scrupulous in their application of your personal data.

 

THEY ARE NOT!

 

They are private companies, sponsored, financed and controlled by various banks, insurance companies and DCAs for their own benefit.

 

DO NOT expect them to treat you any differently to something they have just stood in - because I would be very surprised if they do.

To the point where I would expect the CRA to write to you apologising for the "incorrect" information in their letter to you.

THEY WON'T DROP A FINANCE COMPANY IN IT IF THEY CAN AVOID IT.

[Pinky69]

I know what the CRAs are and I don't expect anything from them at all. The OC and DCA have dropped themselves in it without any help from the CRAs.

[angry cat]

I note that spark1's ICO letter pretty much tallies with the DPA technical guidance; interesting.

 

Pinky, take a look at the part; Unresolved Disputes; sections 42-45 and;

the sale or assignment of debts on defaulted accounts; sections 52-54.

 

AC

Edited August 23, 2009 by angry cat
spelling

[babybear39]

Subscribing...

[Pinky69]

I have had a look at the sections you drew my attento to Angry Cat. I think there are are a couple of things I can use there. Firstly, the DCA did not announce they were going to file a default. I knew nothing about it until April this year. There was no Notice of Assignment from the OC and no letter from the DCA. Secondly, neither the OC nor the DCA sought a court order of any kind and ICO considers that to be important - if they didn't why not? Simples - there is not a scrap of paperwork for the debt. The debt was sold (albeit it was rescinded on sale) so I no longer owed the OC any money but unbeknown to me the OC kept receiving money from the CCCS, who, as my agents, were also not informed the debt had been sold and kept paying the OC. Had CCCS known that the debt had been sold, they would have made payment to the DCA. The OC continuing to receive payment they were no longer entitled to receive, knowing they had sold the debt, is theft. The OC then passed the payments they continued to take to the DCA and the DCAs records show that this was the case.

 

It's an absolute [problem] and I am going to sue them both. I am sure parties colluding to deprive someone of money to which they are not entitled must be forming a fraudulent scheme.

 

I am not bothered about the possibility of the CRA changing their story. They have quoted from the DCAs letter and the quote is longer than I printed here. If they try any funny stuff they will end up in the fraudulent scheme too.

[spark1]

Pinky69

 

This thread is becoming more and more interesting now your refering to theft.

 

Theft is a criminal offence and these type of offences have two parts; first there needs to be a guilty act and second a guilty mind.

 

This bit is taken from my study book (the open university) " you may be interested to know that motive is irrelevant with regard to guilt or innocence if the intention was to commit an offence"

 

Have ago and fill in "guilty act" and "guilty mind"

 

No trickery Im just interested.

 

Spark1

[babybear39]

Spark1, McNae's gives the same deffinition re: theft.

[spark1]

Spark1, McNae's gives the same deffinition re: theft.

 

Ive seen amazon have a few Mcnae books. The books issued by the OU are written by a course team for academic course study, for students studying law.

 

Spark1

[Dorabell]

subbing

[babybear39]

McNae is aimed at journalists but still VERY GOOD REFERENCE

[Pinky69]

Well I finally got there after some searching and decided to demand the money the OC took fraudulently from CCCS (payments taken plus 8% interest) from the OC and demand compensation (capital plus 8% interest) for damage to my reputation from the DCA, who made the default entries. The letters are all prepared and ready to be sent tomorrow - luckily I bought a new speedy printer yesterday so that helped! I've sent copies of the letters to the ICO and OFT. I've lit the blue touch paper so now we stand back and hope for a big bloody explosion!! There is no way out of this for the DCA- busted.

[car2403]

One thing to think about is "misrepresentation" instead of the accusations made here.

 

To prove fraud, you have to prove the act and the intention.

 

To prove misrepresentation, they have to prove they didn't and you can counter with alternative arguments.

 

There's threads on the Misrepresentation Act, so I would repeat the arguments here, but just wanted to give a nudge in the right direction.

[Pinky69]

Thank you Car - it is all very helpful. The fraud I think is reasonably easy. Both the OC and DCA took money they shouldn't have - the act - and their intention was to receive payment for an alleged debt they weren't lawfully entitled to receive payment for. I will have a look at the Misrepresentation Act.

 

Everyone has been very helpful - thank you.

[car2403]

Yes, Pinky, but you need to convince a Judge that they committed fraud - what I'm saying is that Misrepresentation is easier on you, as the Judge will expect them to disprove it, rather than having you prove it. You'll see what I mean when you look at the Misrepresentation Act