Roxburghe/Hutchison 3g Debt Collection - Confused!!!

[buzby]

I don't think it would be a [problem] - more often incompetence.

 

Since you are in a better position than most you can tell the DCA as an Orange employee, the last thing yuu would have was a handset from a competitor. You've probably been linked incorrecctly with someone who has a similar name and they've been using 'inelligence' to match old addresses with you, and you have come up as a close match.

 

TWO things you need to do -

(1) Check your credit file from the two 'E's' to verify there is no default from 3UK showing. Armed with this, my summation above will be what has happened.

(2) WRITE to the DCA denying knowledge of the debt, and confirming your credit file is clear - which it would not be if their suspicions were correct.

 

You COULD also ignore them, and also refuse to provide any information, but this just elongates the problem and makes a speedy resolution impossible.

[buzby]

OnlyYOU get your 'bill' - it is laid out specifically for your to see the various elements that make it reach the final total. These days, firms do not keep copies of the actual bills (as they have no need or requirement to do so). However, even if you HAD got a bill, how would this have helped? Since you are disputing ever having entered into any contract with the network, the bill aspect is pointelss, what you are looking for is a copy contract or confirmation of your name and address confirming that the debt is indeed yours. As you know it isn't, it will be might difficult for them to provide it.

 

I'd tell them you cannot assist in their enquiries, that you have never taken out a phone with this network, and will assist the network in resolving this should THEY wish to contact you. In the meantime, you are unable to assist the DCA.

[buzby]

THAT'S pretty much going to leave the OP liable for firther action, on a fresh instance of issuing a cheque fraudulently (knowing it would be cancelled)/ As for CC, the fact any debt may be SB is irrelevant, it doesn't disappear - it is STILL a debt.

 

By making a payment, it creates a whole new game, and the original reasons for the debt become immaterial. A payment was made, then recinded. You you think a court would care? Perhaps, but that isn;t the issue before it. If it is paid, that's an end to the matter. It is also an admission that the debt existed. Duress and Harassment needs to be extreme, not someone giving you a hard time at the door.

 

If you don't wish to pay, DON'T. Anything else isn't a half-way house, but a kick-start to more aggravation.

[buzby]

What the OP thought is irrelevant. If they can prove a debt was outstanding (IRRESPECTIVE if the date it was accrued) then it remains a debt. The pre-pay card is a debit card, so no refund will be possible as the payment has been made.

 

The only option left is to put the DCA to proof - by raising a Moneyclaim against them, THEN getting them to prove the original debt existed. However there is no guarantee of success as if they can, this will be a costly mistake.

[buzby]

Statute barring does not prevent debt collection - it just means court action is impossible. It would be more sensible to pursue 3UK and get them to agree you had no SIM and could not make calls - however, because you've left it so late the data may not be available.

[buzby]

Only if you have nothing better to do, You're not playing letter pingo-pong. They'll take at least 21 days to process inbound mail and do anything useful with it - if at all.

[buzby]

You could of course totally confound them - by paying 3 for any money that is due to them (as the debt was incurred and due to them). Then you need have no dealings with the DCA and it is up to Hutcvhison to pay the DCA (if they want), and you can tell the DCA no debt exists.

[buzby]

Sorry, the above is wholly inappropriate for mobile phone disputes and a waste of £10.

 

If the debt is recognised, it should be paid to the company that it is due to, nobody else.

[buzby]

Yeah, the only thing stopping me from paying is that 3 seem to think I broke the contract, whereas I stopped paying for it as they broke the contract by not providing me with a fit for purpose handset with comparable functionality to the handset I originally bought. I gave them plenty of time to resolve the issue (around 3 months). Couldn't make calls, texts didn't work at all, had no service most of the time (in a large city) etc etc....sure you've heard it all before.

 

 

Your contract has nothing to do with the handset, so your claim that they broke it first won;t work. Your only claim for a faulty handset is under SOGA or DSR, not your service contract which covers other things. If you can find any mention in your contract that they have to provide a handset that is fit for purpose, you would have a viable dispute. But there isn't, and as a result, you don't.

 

This is where most people's complaints fail - and where (if you were lucky) you got a sympathetic judge you might be able to turn this to your advantage. But you'll not get a chance to get to court, as unless you are in for some serious money, they sell the debt and move on. Cutting their losses and searching for more profitable customers. This of course leaves you with a CR file in tatters, but as they see it, you told them you could and that's the way they (all) do business.

 

This leads most the the conclusion taking out a legally binding contract for phone service is a pretty silly idea, especially when things start to fall apart. and the damage it can cause your financial affairs.

[buzby]

if you look again i said it should be sent to 3/hutchison...showing what is owed on the debt ...i specificly mentioned do not pay a red cent to HFO but he still needs to send the letter and 10.00 to see the statements and to see what he has from them in way of proving he had been supplied a service that was inopratable .....this is a debt in dispute so 3/h should respond to his dispute HFO will not take him to court withought a genuine assignment and as we all know that is unlikely they have one the debt has been transferred with additional charges which i am more than sure these extra charges do not exist nor individually agreed by nturkes or has it

so how on earth can you say PAY THE DEBT when it is in dispute and he needs data to clarify that

 

Because the OP didn't dispute the 'proof' or say it was in error or fabricated? There's already been an admission the money is owed, and a statement that the bills were not paid because of handset problems - something that is irrelevant for a service contract like this. This meant the mitigation is erroneous, the only ability is to pay what is due, but not additional fees due to third parties. So trying to negotiate down heir fees is a bad move. Jus pay what was contractually owed and move on.

[buzby]

if you cannot get that airtime due to the area reception not being good enough then you have a valid complaint but if their are calls logged then forget it just pay

 

Again - no. This is a service contract. No guarantees about coverage are made, and as they do not promise 100% coverage, lack of service is no reason to expect a waiver on the contract. There IS the 'unwritten' rule that if you return to the shop with your handset within 10-14 days, and your complaint is that there is little or no coverage, then they will cancel the contract, making you pay only for the calls made.

 

After this period, no such claims are entertained, and you are stuck with what you've got.

[buzby]

Swipe me!

 

(1) They don't have the correct name of the firm that was supposedly owed the money.

(2) They look at figures and say these 'suggest' a debt is owed?

 

'Suggest' another interpretation.

 

[buzby]

No proof of assignment is required. (only in CCA regulated agreements) so take this out, you are now asking for proof that Hutchison has authorised them to collect the supposed debt on their behalf.

 

As for 'written evidence' this is gobbledegook - saying 'substantive proof' is more accurate.

[buzby]

Sorry - all the above is so inappropriate as to make the request laughable. There is no 'CCA' agreement - so why ask for it to be supplied? It makes the requestor look a prat.

 

Secondly, a SAR and the fee of £10 is a waste, especially where the firm has nothingf other than a name, address, and an amount to pursue. The SAR needs to be sent the the network, nobody else.

[buzby]

Are you sure Buzby?

 

Certainly I'm sure. This situation is already covered within the original service agreement, where the network advises the consumer that they can assign the debt. Whether notice has to be given will depend on the wording of the contract, but it is not a requirement (as it would be under the CCA).

 

It is very common for debts to be cascaded down a list of firms, losing a bit of its value on the way (to the previous owner). This is an industry on its own, and nothing to do with the original phone service. I it assumed that if there were problams at that stage, the consumer would have dealt with it at that time.

[buzby]

patrickq1 - Feeling better?

 

I helps if you quote correctly - you're quoting back text of mine as if it is your own. All very confusing. As is your second sentence which I don't understand.

 

You are confusing separate issues. The only people to SAR are the Network, to whom a contractural relationship exists. Anyone else will happily take your proffered £10 and give the (probable) one line of data they hold on you. (The details I mentioned in Msg 89).

 

You make flying assumptions (incorrect ones at that) that a DCA has no right to pursue a debtor, yet I've already told you it is part of many contracts that debts can be sold on to anyone the initial company wishes. No need to seek the subsequent permission of the debtor. A letter to advise this has taken place would be courteous, but no insistence in the day and age.

 

As to your Message 93. Why use lots of words to pad out your letter, giving them advice on what to do with your communication? Who is it you are writing to? I would have thought (being a reasonable sort of person) a SAR would have been set to the firms Data Controller, who has a legal responsibility to process such requests. Why should you write to someone else, then suggest they 'pass it on to the person responsible'...?

 

If you're going to waste a tenner, at least send it directly to the person whose job it is, not some unspecified monkey on the corporate ladder.

[buzby]

Almost there!

You do not need a contract to request a SAR. These days, there is no requirement for the actual contract to exist in any tangible form. The firm can assert the contract exists, but it is the payment the consumer makes that confirms his acceptance of the terms of the contract that prevail. What are these? Well, they may have been provided to the consumer at the time, but the company can refer to the 'specimen contract' which will be available to view online. Now, supposing the contract then is not the same as it is now? This is were consumers have been sidelined, as the contracts used since the early 1990 refer to the T&C being updatable on 30 days notice - so even if they do change, it is always the latest T&C's that will be deemed to be current. (And therefore, the customer is said to have accepted them).

 

The contract has nothing to do with payments - unless there is an issue of a breach, where the customer has not complied with those terms. So, if there is a breach, and the service is discontinued, then even if the debt is sold on to any number of firms willing to take on pursuit, they (the DCAs) do not require to hold any data on the debtor. Just that there is money owed and their job is to collect it. It would be a serious breach of the DPA if all your dealings with the network were passed on (payment records, correspondence, itemised calling lists etc) so if there is any dispute about how much is owed, this needs to be resolved with the network (the organ grinder, not the downstream monkeys).

 

How - show me where in 'law' that a debt cannot be treated as a commodity and traded? The OP's no more entitled to receive a 'Notice of Assignment' as he is to receive an invite to the DCA Xmas Party. There will supposedly have been an interruption to service or non-compliance so it won't come as a complete surprise that something is wrong. Most (all?) of the big network contract T&Cs state they reserve the right to sell on not only the service, but any accrued debt.

 

All of this is in addition to a default on a credit file - which is by far the more serious action that needs to be addressed and resolved if at all possible (especially if there has been an error). Even if a debt has been sold on - if there was no justification for it (say a billing error) it is the network that cancels it, by telling the downstream chasers to stop.

 

Some DCA's get above themselves and will in addition to chasing the debtor, enter the debt erroneously on their credit file - a DPA breach - as only the original creditor can do this. Some customers have found their files had a network default AND a DCA one. Two black marks for one debt! It's not cricket, but at least this can be corrected.

 

What is needed is to identify those that have the power to resolve the problem. If the debt does exist and the money is owed, then you're stuffed - but for those who are suffering at the incompetence of others, it is worth pursuing.

[buzby]

And the relevance...?

 

What you cut and pasted is irrelevant to a mobile phone transaction that isn't Pay As You Go.

[buzby]

It'll be SB from NEXT year (unless you live in Scotland) where it will be SB already. This is probably the read on there's a bit of activity in order to make the best of letting it go for so long.

[buzby]

Both are arguable, but since there is (or was) a contract in force, which they are using to justify their collection, you;d be save to assume it becomes SB when the contract was terminated. Since the DCA is probably chasing a debt they've purchased, this will neither re set or re-start the clock. I still remain of the opinion that if the original debtor cannot be botheres to collecdt it themselves, there is no moral duty on the consumer to pay any demand from a third party.