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

[Beijing3773]

Well today I received a response to my initial letter, along the lines of they are collecting for HFO Capital, who bought the debt in 2007 from 3G Hutchinson.

 

There is then a balance breakdown on Roxbourgh headed paper:

 

• Original Balance - £148.68
  
• Charges - £10.00
  
• Interest - £97.26
  
• Collected - £0.00
  

Additional Info

 

• Tariff - Videotalk 500
  
• Account Open Date - 12.02.04
  
• Account Close Date - 09.02.05
  

On the final page there is what looks like some internal computer style statement on 3 headed paper with an account number and my name on but no telephone number in the number box.

 

180

 

I received a very similar letter as Nturkes did but mine has a lot of typo errors, they even referred to me as "third party" at one point. They couldn't even spell Hutchison correct!

Our fellow user 180 had the similar letter from them earlier this thread and I noticed that they included the additional information such as Tariff name and a "3 headed paper" statement.

Many thanks indeed to Buzby & DonkeyB for your suggestions.

[nturkes]

Thanks Buzby and DonkeyB. I'm going to send another letter asking for clarification around the charges, interest etc, as well as proof of the original agreement and assignment of the debt which I assume they should have notified me of in 2007 when they purchased the debt for next-to-nothing. The other strange thing is, whoever heard of a contract lasting 14.5 months??!!

[nturkes]

This is what I have come up with.....any suggestions appreciated:

 

You have contacted me on the 23rd February with your response to my request for proof of my liability under the account listed above. I have received a breakdown of charges, and some dates of a supposed contract with ‘Hutchinson 3G UK’. However, no proof has been provided of any contract I have made with Hutchinson 3G UK, nor proof of assignment of this supposed debt to HFO Capital Limited, a company whom has made no attempt to contact me regarding such debt previously.

 

I am afraid that your response is not satisfactory and does not constitute the written evidence of such debt being owed by myself which I have requested on two occasions. I would again like to point out that I have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to HFO Capital Limited, or Roxburghe (UK) Limited.

 

In addition to my request for proof of the original agreement and assignment to HFO Capital, I would also ask that an explanation be provided as to how the original balance has been calculated, what the terms ‘Charge’ and ‘Misc Charges’ and their corresponding monetary values relate to, proof of your ability to charge interest on such debt and the rate at which interest can be charged.

 

I am familiar with the ‘Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance’ which states that it is unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question. I would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

 

Furthermore, ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

 

I would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above accounts unless you can provide the written evidence I have requested above to prove my liability for the debt in question.

 

I look forward to your reply.

[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.

[nturkes]

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.

 

Thanks, amendments made:

 

You have contacted me on the 23rd February with your response to my request for proof of liability under the account listed above. I have received a breakdown of charges, and some dates of a supposed contract with ‘Hutchinson 3G UK’. However, no substantive proof has been provided of any contract I have made with Hutchinson 3G UK, nor of Hutchinson 3G UK’s authorisation for HFO Capital Limited or Roxburghe (UK) Limited to collect the supposed debt on their behalf.

 

I am afraid that your response is not satisfactory and does not constitute the substantive proof of such debt being owed by myself which I have requested on two occasions previously. I would again like to point out that I have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to HFO Capital Limited, or Roxburghe (UK) Limited.

 

In addition to my above requests, I would also ask that an explanation be provided as to how the original balance has been calculated, what the terms ‘Charges’ and ‘Misc Charges’ and their corresponding monetary values relate to, proof of your ability to charge interest on such debt and the rate at which interest can be charged.

 

I am familiar with the ‘Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance’ which states that it is unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question. I would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods. Furthermore, ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

 

I would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above accounts unless you can provide substantive proof as requested above to confirm my liability for the debt in question.

 

I look forward to your reply.

[DonkeyB]

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..

 

Are you sure Buzby?

 

Hutchison SOLD the debt to HFO Capital supposedly - it is not a case of 3G Hutchison 'authorising' anyone to collect the debt.

 

There must be an assignment - Roxburghe say the debt is owned by HFO - therefore there must be a DoA and there should have been an NoA issued, which nturkes has a right to inspect.

[nturkes]

I could just amend to cover both possibilities

 

However, no substantive proof has been provided of any contract I have made with Hutchinson 3G UK, nor of Hutchinson 3G UK’s authorisation for HFO Capital Limited or Roxburghe (UK) Limited to collect the supposed debt on their behalf nor of a Notice of Assignment of such debt from Hutchinson 3G UK to HFO Capital Limited. Indeed, neither HFO Capital nor Hutchinson 3G UK have made any attempt to contact me regarding this matter.

[DonkeyB]

Great. Covers both eventualities well. It's also bound to confuse them completely!

[nturkes]

Thanks again for the advice guys

[patrickq1]

I received a very similar letter as Nturkes did but mine has a lot of typo errors, they even referred to me as "third party" at one point. They couldn't even spell Hutchison correct!

Our fellow user 180 had the similar letter from them earlier this thread and I noticed that they included the additional information such as Tariff name and a "3 headed paper" statement.

Many thanks indeed to Buzby & DonkeyB for your suggestions.

 

another victim db looks like we are going to be busy mmmm wonder whats happened to lady di di seems we have a miz goldielocks now signing letters funny signature looks like one ive seen before hehe dont worry bejing safe hands now...

[patrickq1]

post this bejing adapt to suit

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.

 

Yours Faithfully

[patrickq1]

Are you sure Buzby?

 

Hutchison SOLD the debt to HFO Capital supposedly - it is not a case of 3G Hutchison 'authorising' anyone to collect the debt.

 

There must be an assignment - Roxburghe say the debt is owned by HFO - therefore there must be a DoA and there should have been an NoA issued, which nturkes has a right to inspect.

maybe so BUZ but it does not stop a SAR stumblin blocks we can overcome

with this

[Beijing3773]

post this bejing adapt to suit

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 Subject access request

 

 

Many thanks Patrick.....

[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.

[DonkeyB]

But in my own business, when a supplier factors its debts, it has to inform me. There's no CCA involved there!

[patrickq1]

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).

 

ACORDING TO YOU BUSBY THEIR IS NO CONTRACT SINCE YOU STATE WASTE OF TIME TO SAR AND CCA NO AGREEMENT

make your mind up you are confusing the issue ,the client has every right in law to make a SAR if no contract then how can they pass data that is against the CCA ACT...your talking crap as usual buz

[patrickq1]

hence 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]

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.

[DonkeyB]

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.

 

Don't understand this buzby.

 

You say the only people to SAR are the network. How can the OP know this when he has no copy of the contract? That it the whole point of the SAR - to get the contract and see what's what. But, of course, CCA is irrelevant to phone contracts, but the contract itself, and any history of payments etc is wholly relevant and, in this case, desirable.

 

And I totally disagree with your second point. The Law of Property Act 1925 is clear. Nobody here has suggested that the debtor's permission is required before a debt can be assigned, nor that the DCA can pursue the debtor. But this is not a DCA pursuing the debt on behalf of Hutchison 3G - it is an account that H3G has SOLD to HFO. And it is a legal requirement that the debtor be informed of any such assignment. It's bugger all to do with 'the day and age'. It's the law. So the OP has a right to receive a notice of assignment, and a right to inspect the deed of assignment.

 

Or have I missed something?

Edited March 1, 2010 by DonkeyB

[patrickq1]

[DonkeyB]

Sorry if that sounded like a rant - I just think we got too far off subject.

 

The OP needs to put these idiots at Roxburghe to task, and I think an SAR to the OC and requests for the NoA and proof of debt to Roxburghe are perfectly legitimate methods.

[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.

[patrickq1]

there is no requirement for the actual contract to exist in any tangible form. The firm can assert the contract exists

was this phone not purchased from a shop?

a contract must exist unless it was done online and classed as distance selling but has nt the oft already ruled on this that a contract should exist and must be sent to the customer within ten days ...will check oft guidlines ok

[patrickq1]

The UK’s Office of Fair Trading and Department of Trade and Industry have today launched a consultation on joint draft guidance that will update and inform e-tailers and other traders of their duties under the Distance Selling Regulations.

 

The draft guidance helps to clarify some ambiguities that were created when the Regulations came into force on 31st October 2000, including practical advice on when refunds can and – more often – cannot be lawfully refused. But there are still some areas of confusion.

Background to the Regulations

 

Under the Regulations, consumers shopping for goods and services by telephone, mail order, fax, interactive TV, the internet and other types of distance communication are given rights to receive certain information, a cancellation period of seven working days, and protection against fraudulent use of a credit card.

Reasons for the new guidance

 

The rules were tweaked in April this year to address a practical problem that some suppliers faced in getting written information to customers. The OFT and DTI previously offered separate guidance on the Regulations. After the April change, the DTI withdrew its guidance and the OFT amended its guidance. The two departments have now combined forces for the next publication.

The draft of A guide for businesses on home shopping is more comprehensive than its predecessors – running to 66 pages. It contains answers to many more of the questions businesses frequently ask.

According to the OFT and DTI, it is intended to be a handy reference tool for businesses of all sizes, but the departments need feedback from businesses, particularly small businesses, to ensure that the guidance is as effective as possible.

The consultation period will run until 11th November.

Key points in the new guidance

 

For eBay traders: the Regulations provide certain exemptions for auction sales; but the draft guidance clarifies that "buy it now" slots on internet auction sites are not exempt because the sale is not concluded by a process of auction.

For online supermarkets: While the great majority of the Regulations, including the right to cancel, do not apply to contracts for the supply of food, drinks or other goods for everyday consumption delivered to the consumer's home or workplace by regular roundsmen they do apply to home deliveries by supermarkets for products purchased online (or by other distance means). However, so far as the right to cancel alone is concerned, while the guidance does not make this point explicitly, supermarkets can often rely on a different exception (which is addressed elsewhere in the guidance), that applies to orders for goods that are liable to deteriorate or expire rapidly. This may include perishable goods like fresh foods or fresh flowers, or orders for newspapers or magazines.

For online bookings: The right to cancel does not apply to contracts for the provision of accommodation, transport, catering or leisure services (including hotel accommodation, plane, train or concert tickets, car hire or sporting events) where you agree to provide the service on a specific date or within a specific period.

For computer sellers: it is already known that consumers cannot cancel if the order is for goods made to the customer's own specification. The guidance gives the example of custom-made curtains. But the guidance also says that the exception does not apply to "opting for add-on memory or choosing a combination of standard off the shelf components when ordering a PC". So a consumer can customise his PC to some extent and still return it for a refund for no reason.

For CD, DVD and software sellers: the guidance suggests that where the customer has unsealed such products, they cannot be returned. OUT-LAW has invited the OFT to clarify this point because it appears to conflict with other comments in the guidance (on copyright issues and opening a package as they might do in a shop) and it creates a problem for consumers who cannot see software licence terms without breaking a seal and running a disc.

For sellers of downloads: those selling ebooks, music, screen savers or mobile ringtones online or by text messaging will generally be providing a service, not selling goods. The guidance confirms that "the exception to the right to cancel would only apply if you have the customer's agreement to start the service before the end of the cancellation period and you have provided the customer with the required written information before you start the service, including information that their cancellation rights will end as soon as the service begins."

For sellers of intimate products: selling lingerie online can be a big commercial risk. There is a general exception to the right to cancel for those supplying goods "which by reason of their nature cannot be returned". But the OFT and DTI take the view that this exception only applies where "returning the goods is a physical impossibility or where they cannot be restored in the same physical state as they were supplied however they are cared for."

The guidance continues: "Thus while this exception may apply to items such as latex or nylon clothing which could become distorted once worn, we do not see the exception being applied to lingerie in general."

It acknowledges that hygiene concerns may prevent the reselling of such goods; but that, it seems, is the seller's tough luck. The Distance Selling Regulations "do not link cancellation rights with a supplier's ability to resell items as new," according to the guidance.

There is some comfort for e-tailers: a consumer has a duty to take reasonable care of goods, and the guidance says it may be reasonable for the supplier to guide the consumer on what is and is not reasonable care – such as not removing hygiene seals, "as long as these requirements are not so burdensome as to restrict a consumer's reasonable opportunityto assess the product."

When providing services, when does a service begin? The guidance says that preparatory work to providing a service – such as setting up an account – cannot be equated to the carrying out of a service. This will impact on the right of some businesses to say that the provision of a service has begun and therefore cannot be cancelled.

Time limits for cancelling orders: Guidance on when the clock starts ticking for the provision of goods and services has been expanded and is easier to follow. A frustration for many businesses has been how to determine when a consumer's cancellation period begins.

Refunds for damaged or unreturned goods: If a consumer cancels an order by email but fails to return the goods, the merchant cannot delay making a refund. It must be made as soon as possible after the customer cancels, and within 30 days at the latest, albeit the merchant has a right of action against the customer. Simlarly, if a consumer returns damaged goods, the guidance points out that the consumer does not lose the right to cancel. Again, the trader can only rely on the right of action against the consumer for breaching the statutory duty to take reasonable care of the goods.

How much to refund: The full price paid for the goods including the cost of delivery must be refunded. The guidance gives some relief to sites like Amazon.co.uk that also offer gift wrapping or express delivery services. Essentially, e-commerce processes should be structured so there is one contract for the supply of goods where a refund is available and another for a supply of services that is non-refundable. Traders can make consumers pay the cost of returning items; but this has to be made clear in the contract, otherwise the trader pays. Also, if the goods are faulty or do not comply with the contract, the trader pays for returns.

The E-commerce Regulations: Today's guidance includes some information about the E-commerce Regulations which overlaps to some extent with the provisions of the Distance Selling Regulations. It is much more limited in scope, but does provide some useful information about potential conflicts. For instance, the E-commerce Regulations say that all online sellers, when refering to prices, must state whether the prices include associated taxes and delivery costs. The guidance adds: "it is important to note the requirement to quote prices inclusive of all taxes where you are engaging in activities that fall under the [Distance Selling Regulations].

 

See: The Consultation (66-page / 430KB PDF)