Power2Contact have NO INTENTION of sending people round as they state in their letter - Phone recording inside

[Yorky2008]

Excellent!

 

MODS - Can we have a dedicated forum where CAG members can place recordings for us all to listen to?

 

Yorky

[Drexl Spivey]

There are some useful soundbites here :

 

http://www.realmofdarkness.net/pranks/victim-soundboards-3.htm

 

to use on the phone with these debt collectors .

[phil_nottingham]

Yep it would be good to have this, can someone contact the mods to arrange this?

[Drexl Spivey]

Anyhow , that woman is outright wrong if her position is that no date was specified as to when they may call shunning their obligation to make a clear and explicit declaration of the time and nature of such a call . OFT guidelines says right here :

 

Debt collection visits

 

2.12 Examples of unfair practices are:

 

a. not making the purpose of any proposed visit clear, for example, merely

stating that collectors or field agents will call is not sufficient

 

g. not giving adequate notice of the time and date of a visit [/i]

[vint1954]

Yep it would be good to have this, can someone contact the mods to arrange this?

Try the Bear Garden

[tinkerbell20]

The thing is I never told her I was recording from the start, to make it admissible as evidence I did need to tell her from the start it was being recorded. I knew if I did this however the call would have gone differently.

 

 

The recording is admissible at discretion of court. You do not need to have warned them the conversation is being recorded.

 

It is likely the court would allow a recording in if it sheds light on the issues before them.

[diddydicky]

it makes no difference really whether the court would or would not allow the recording as evidence (they probably would on the basis that the debtor is always at a disadvantage ) since you would simply place a word for word transcript in your defence as to what was said/admitted in the conversation and this would be available to the other side prior to the court hearing.

 

This then places them between a rock and a hard place since when you ask them in court if they agree that this is a true representation of the conversation that took place or of their admissions etc they have only two choices

 

a to admit that this was what was said OR

 

b to deny it

 

if they elected b/

 

the next question would be to ask them- since they deny the facts if they would therefore have any objection to the court hearing the actual recording.

 

Now what are they going to say? heads you win- tails they lose

[gezwee]

I spose you realised the reason she had trouble hearing was cos the handset was tucked under her left cheek so you could hear the sh*t that was coming outa the vocal end of her body

[diddydicky]

having said that- and having listened to the recording again- i cant see anything in the recording that would be any assistance in a defence in court

 

-only evidence to support a complaint to regulatory authorities

[hillards]

So the DCA's always claim that they have bought debts legally and have the power to act to recover the money owing, they insist that you deal with them, not the original company. So how was it possible for 2 DCA's to be dealing with it, and why go back to the original company, who simply don't want to know once they've palmed it off onto a DCA?

 

How many people are intimidated by cards through the door, saying someone will call? Not many are CAG aware and realise it's not going to happen, it's just part of the tactics to force people to contact them and pay. They should be made to give people a complete list of the scaremongering they'll do at first contact, like "we will send you between 3 and 6 letters that threaten to have you strung up if you don't pay, hoping you don't notice the use of MAY, COULD and IF, following which we will suggest that someone will call at your door to collect the entire amount or take your children as deposit, following this we will bodge up a letterhead that looks like it's from a solictor's and threaten court proceedings. We will call you several times a day on your home, mobile and work numbers and if you don't answer we will call your boss and tell him to fire you because you've not answered the phone to us."

 

Even packets of corn flakes have a warning 'may contain nuts'

[diddydicky]

So the DCA's always claim that they have bought debts legally and have the power to act to recover the money owing, they insist that you deal with them, not the original company. So how was it possible for 2 DCA's to be dealing with it, and why go back to the original company, who simply don't want to know once they've palmed it off onto a DCA?

 

How many people are intimidated by cards through the door, saying someone will call? Not many are CAG aware and realise it's not going to happen, it's just part of the tactics to force people to contact them and pay. They should be made to give people a complete list of the scaremongering they'll do at first contact, like "we will send you between 3 and 6 letters that threaten to have you strung up if you don't pay, hoping you don't notice the use of MAY, COULD and IF, following which we will suggest that someone will call at your door to collect the entire amount or take your children as deposit, following this we will bodge up a letterhead that looks like it's from a solictor's and threaten court proceedings. We will call you several times a day on your home, mobile and work numbers and if you don't answer we will call your boss and tell him to fire you because you've not answered the phone to us."

 

Even packets of corn flakes have a warning 'may contain nuts'

 

i'm not sure that two dca's were dealing with it- i may be wrong but i got the impression he "Made up" the second DCA to frustrate the lady on the phone call