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

[minimeg]

Thank you

[minimeg]

Hi all, Roxburghe has been back in contact and have stated that my last payment was 20/10/03 although they claim 3 disconnected the phone contract on 16/4/04. Bearing in mind I did not have a SIM card from October onwards which they failed to return to me despite numerous calls to their helpdesk and their failure to respond to my letters requesting that the contract be terminated due to their failure to provide a service by not returning my SIM after they repaired my phone, would this still be statute barred as I definitely did not hear from them in April and my last contact was then around October-November time. Roxburghe did not contact me until the end of November last year.

[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.

[nturkes]

Hi all,

 

I sent the first 'prove it' letter by recorded delivery over a week ago, and have received a 72 hour notice letter this morning. Should I re-send the prove it letter or is there a better way of doing things?

[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.

[sillygirl1]

How can you receive a 72 hour notice on a Saturday, it doesnt make sense... have you got the envelope because if it is sent UK Mail or another service other than Royal Mail it will be three days old already. Keep the letter and the envelope together and then HFO aka Roxburgh will be stuffed in court should they proceed...

[DonkeyB]

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, fatal mistake - you have assumed they can read!

[nturkes]

How can you receive a 72 hour notice on a Saturday, it doesnt make sense... have you got the envelope because if it is sent UK Mail or another service other than Royal Mail it will be three days old already. Keep the letter and the envelope together and then HFO aka Roxburgh will be stuffed in court should they proceed...

 

To their credit it does say 'You now have 72 hours from receipt of this notification'.

 

The letter is dated 17th February, however, this is still 5 days (3 working days) after I have proof that they signed for my letter. I just don't understand how they expect you to pay £360 to them for a HFO Capital 'debt' that you have never received notice of. If I hadn't come on this site I wouldn't have known who HFO Capital was, not like they're helping to get their money by sending demands with no reasoning or proof that you actually do owe the money (i.e. who you allegedly originally owed the money to, and how the amount that they are claiming is calculated).

 

Might be a good idea for me to send them a similar notice.

[nturkes]

Got their 'proof' today, last payment, who I owe, breakdown of how the amount I owe is made up. No account details etc...Thinking I might see if I can do a deal with them, no chance I'm paying all their charges etc....They probably paid £50 for the debt.

[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.

[patrickq1]

Got their 'proof' today, last payment, who I owe, breakdown of how the amount I owe is made up. No account details etc...Thinking I might see if I can do a deal with them, no chance I'm paying all their charges etc....They probably paid £50 for the debt.

hey what a good bloke you are i am sending you a bill for 500 quid......

dont be such a fool,pay nothing until you get sight of any contract and statements via whichever company it is,also HFO have a habit of sending some what ficticious bills ,tell them prove it otherwise get lost, send this to hutchisons/3 well to both give your name and address they must have the contracts or other such data to identify you ....

 

FTAO - The Data Controller or Data Compliance Officer

 

Dear Sir or Madam

 

Re: *******

 

 

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 Subject access request

 

This Subject Data Access Request is made under sections 7, 8 & 9 of the Data Protection Act 1998, and by virtue of the Data Protection (Subject Access) (Fees and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2000 ( S.I.No 191).

 

I hereby request that you supply me with all data that you hold relating to my account. This includes in particular, but is not limited to, the following: -

 

1 The original signed, executed Consumer Credit Act agreement and any terms and conditions that applied at the time the account was opened.

 

2 Transcripts of all telephone conversations recorded and any notes made in relation to telephone conversations by your company, to and from or by any previous creditor.

 

3 True copies of any assignment and/or default notice or enforcement notice that may have been issued including a copy of proof of postage that you hold.

 

4 A genuine copy of any notice of fair use of my data as required by the Data Protection Act 1998 and any consent that I/we may have given to those uses

 

5 A list of third parties to whom you have disclosed my/our personal data including credit reference agencies and, a summary of the nature of the information you have disclosed, the reason for this disclosure, including any defaults registered date they were registered and date of removal.

 

6 Full copies of transcripts of any correspondence in postal, e-mail or any other format which you have entered into with any individual, organisation or third party which contains my personal or financial, or which pertains to me.

 

7 Full Details of any third party with an interest in the account.

 

8 Full details of any securitisation(s) that my account(s) has been or is involved in

 

9 Full details of any assignment(s) Legal or equitable copies of proof of posting of any notification allegedly given, if given

 

10 Any other information that you hold with regards to me/us and/or our account.

 

 

Enclosed is the statutory maximum fee for this request of £10.

You have 40 days in which to comply. If there is specific information which you require in order to satisfy yourself as to my identity please let me know by return.

 

However please note that the above address is the one which has been used to make any and all communications with me/us with regards to my/our account information from you which has been hitherto found acceptable.

 

IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO DEAL WITH THIS REQUEST, YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY FORWARD IT TO THE PERSON WITHIN YOUR ORGANISTAION REPONSIBLE FOR DATA PROTECTION COMPLIANCE.

[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.

[nturkes]

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.

[patrickq1]

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.

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

[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.

[patrickq1]

i thought the phone came with ther contract if so then it is only partial isnt it

as for HFO capital they cannot take you to court they are outside the uk

but secondly if you know what the phone bill is for and its less than HFO and you are in a position to pay then like bus says just clear the bill ....

but if you got the phone as part of the contract then go for the SAR first...it may be you have only paid for the airtime like bus says but secondly 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

[patrickq1]

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.

 

you need to see if the supply of the phone was the part of the contract...i think busby you are too quick off the mark and jump to conclusions too fast it seems like part of the deal was the phone either be it free phone who cares it was an enticement to purchase their airtime now provided you have all the letters and proof of postage that you had tried to come to an amnicable settlement i think imo that a judge would look at this sympatheticly and he would win his case...the provider seems to have failed in serving him with a product that was fit for its purpose

one thing you have to watch is did you get the contract from a dealer...if so you have a dispute with the supplier and he must then be brought into this as a witness,if the phone was supplied by 3 then they are responsible...i know what you are saying busby if he got the airtime as a seperate deal then two contracts should be available it might be a invoice with 00.00 balance but this does not negate the fact that it was the inducement of the free phone that made him enter into the contract in the first place....who did the phone come from ?

[nturkes]

The phone was provided by a third party, Phones4u I believe. The issue was with the phone and the service. I couldn't make calls in central Leeds at the time the phone was functional, then I had handset issues which '3' arranged the repair of on two occasions....to no avail. They then offered an inferior handset with a 12 month contract entension, which as you can imagine I didn't want to accept. I asked them to provide me with an exact replacement over the original term which '3' themselves declined. At no point was I directed back to Phones4u.

[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.

[DonkeyB]

Can you post up the 'proof'? Bet we can destroy it completely. Remove any personal details.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/157910-hfo-services-scaring-my.html

 

In this case, which HFO gave due to media pressure (Radio 4 and House of Commons), the disputed contract and service WAS relevant in the end - and HFO acknowledged the issue should have been dealt with.

 

nturkes HAD made a complaint which was never resolved.

 

And it's about time you asked for some proof of the original assignment to HFO.

Edited February 28, 2010 by DonkeyB

[nturkes]

Can you post up the 'proof'? Bet we can destroy it completely. Remove any personal details.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/157910-hfo-services-scaring-my.html

 

In this case, which HFO gave due to media pressure (Radio 4 and House of Commons), the disputed contract and service WAS relevant in the end - and HFO acknowledged the issue should have been dealt with.

 

nturkes HAD made a complaint which was never resolved.

 

And it's about time you asked for some proof of the original assignment to HFO.

 

 

Thanks for all the responses guys...proof attached.

Roxburghe Proof.pdf

Edited February 28, 2010 by nturkes

[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.

 

[DonkeyB]

Interesting.

 

First of all, they have failed to demonstrate how the principal amount of £213.94 was accrued. There is no relevant paperwork or proof from 3G H.

 

Secondly, they do not describe what the £10 charge is for.

 

Next, they have added interest without any proof that they are entitled to add interest. They have provided no proof of contract or the detail of the contract itself which may or may not refer to the right to add interest.

 

There is a miscellaneous charge of £17.62 which is not explained or quantified in any way.

 

As 'proof', this is, frankly, a pile of dog turds.

 

I would ask them this: if you can get these dates and supposed financial details from the original creditor, then why can you not provide proof of the contract?

 

Anyone could have written this response from Roxburghe. It is not 'proof' in any way, shape or form.

 

Perhaps more importantly, I would be questioning the apparently innocent statements in their opening paragraph.

 

They say they are collecting on behalf of HFO Capital. Which one? All the debts which HFO Capital purchased from Hutchison 3G in 2007 would have been instantly reassigned internally to HFO Services for collection (we can prove this unequivocally, and this has been the case in the thread mentioned above).

 

Further, HFO have been claiming recently that the HFO Capital Ltd which bought the original debt (Cayman Islands) has since sold all its accounts to HFO Capital Ltd (Ireland), a company conveniently with the same name. Bet they forgot to tell anyone... more to the point, how could HFO Capital Cayman sell something to HFO Capital Ireland that it did not own in the first place, because it had already been reassigned to HFO Services?

 

Sorry if this sounds complicated, but the actual ownership of any alleged debt is central to their case against you and their right to collect.

 

So, again, request proof that any alleged account was actually sold or assigned to HFO Capital. It will open a huge can of worms for them and I imagine they will leave you alone rather than dare pursue it through the courts. And continue to deny that you owe them anything at all until you receive proof.

 

If you write back, demand explanations of how the principal sum was arrived at, on which contract it was based, and how and why the interest and other charges have accrued. By the time they get anywhere, it will be well and truly SB.

[DonkeyB]

Sorry buzby, points overlapped - my missive took a while to write...