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

[patrickq1]

Legal Admissibility, Document Management, Document Imaging, Document Scanning | Archival

[buzby]

And the relevance...?

 

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

[patrickq1]

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.

 

this should be intresting

Phone retailer Phones 4U did not respect consumers' rights and engaged in mis-selling, telecoms regulator Ofcom has said. Phones 4U has said that it has changed a number of its practices in the aftermath of a six-month investigation.

 

Phones 4U did not give people replacement handsets they were entitled to, did not repair phones in time, did not offer fair terms on returns of goods and used unfair contracts in constructing their deals, Ofcom found.

Phones 4U said that it has made changes to its returns policy, 'chequeback' deal structure for consumers and cancellation rights.

Phones 4U also said that it has changed its sales practices, particularly in informing consumers what their network coverage will be, what mobile plans actually contain and what upgrades customers are entitled to.

Ofcom and Staffordshire Trading Standards conducted a six month investigation into Phones 4U. They found that company policies restricted consumers' rights in a way that breached the Sale of Goods Act, used contract terms which breached the Unfair Contract Terms Act and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, and made claims which breached the Control of Misleading Advertising Regulations.

"As part of its investigation Ofcom, together with Staffordshire Trading Standards, issued questionnaires to consumers identified from Consumer Direct’s database who had made complaints against Phones4U," said an Ofcom statement.

"Ofcom received a significant number of responses and the analysis of these revealed evidence of conduct by Phones 4U that Ofcom considered to be in breach of consumer protection law," it said.

Ofcom said that both it and Staffordshire Trading Standards would monitor levels of complaints against Phones 4U.

Ofcom has received undertakings from Phones 4U that it will change its practices in the way agreed. Those undertakings are legally binding and any breach will lead to Ofcom going to the High Court or a county court to obtain an enforcement order.

If Phones 4U then breached an enforcement order that would be contempt of court and lead to "substantial" fines, Ofcom said.

[patrickq1]

the crap you spout out about buz you should do research.....and perhaps you try eating something else besides stools out of your bog....

Telecoms companies must be clearer about additional charges they levy and must help customers to understand them better, telecoms regulator Ofcom has said.

 

From April Ofcom will take action against any that do not comply with newly-clarified rules, it said.

Telecoms contracts must comply with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, which regulate standard terms in contracts that companies have with consumers. These terms are regulated because they are not negotiated and must be accepted by consumers if they want a product or service.

Last year Ofcom expressed concern about additional charges levied on customers for their telephone, internet and television services. It said that it feared that some charges for late bill payments, early contract termination and other activities were unfair, and that competition in the market for the services was not keeping charges low.

It has now produced guidance on these areas on what kinds of terms are fair and what are unfair. It said that companies have until April to review and change their contracts. From then it will begin to take action. Ofcom has the power to seek enforcement orders against companies that do not comply with telecoms law.

The guidance covers charges for payments by methods other than direct debit; itemised billing; late payments; the early ending of contracts; and automatically renewed contracts.

Ofcom's guidance says that if companies want to levy charges that are greater than the cost to them of the customer's behaviour, they must make that clear so that market competition can take effect and people can choose alternative services if they like.

If the charges only reflect the actual cost to the business of the customer's behaviour, though, then the notices about the charges can be less prominent.

"When communications suppliers advertise prices, they may set out certain extra charges – like non-direct debit charges – in a prominent and transparent way such that the consumer recognises that they are part of the price for the services they are buying," said an Ofcom statement. "Where these extra charges are prominent and transparent enough, normal competition – and not regulation – can be the principal mechanism through which consumer interests are met."

"But if a provider does not make these charges prominent and transparent enough, and they are separate, additional charges, the charges should reflect direct costs only," it said. "Some extra charges, like late payment charges, should always reflect only the supplier’s direct costs."

Ofcom said that companies should not levy late payment charges on customers who withhold a part of their bill that is in dispute.

It also said that minimum notice periods to end a service agreement should reflect the actual time that it takes to end a contract, and that for mobile phone contracts this should be much less than 30 days.

[patrickq1]

utccr hope u understand that term...

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations,

so HFO do not have a valid asignment or would you argue that point as well its better you just keep to yourself your thoughts just how many people have you helped on the forum cause it alludes me best you can do is brag how many years you worked in telecoms i wonder wether you still get a salary for telling people just pay up....instead why dont you try helping them.....k..b

[patrickq1]

Statement: Protecting consumers from mis-selling of mobile telecommunications services | Ofcom

[nturkes]

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.

 

All very true I'm sure. A default was originally logged by 3 but disappeared for a couple of years. HFO Capital have recently re-logged the default in their name, which according to Experian they are able to do as the new creditors. Surely I should be notified of such a change, if not by 3, by HFO in 2007 when they apparently purchased the debt, or in 2009 when they re-logged the default?

Edited March 1, 2010 by nturkes

[patrickq1]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, these 3 'debts' were sold to HFO some years ago. Due to complaints, and media exposure on Radio 4 and even in the House of Commons, 3 has stated that it will no longer sell accounts to HFO.

 

These accounts are all about to become statute-barred, which explains the surge of activity, and also explains why HFO have passed the caseload to Roxburghe, a sister company.

 

As mentioned, it's always the 'prove it' letter first, just in case it's not actually yet SB. Always send recorded.

 

 

As DB say send the prove it letter and also 3 said they have rescinded from selling to HFO ....so a letter of complaint to 3 and a prove it to HFO and in the 3 letter tell them you are making a serious complaint to OFCOM that they are in breach of a promise they made not to sell to HFO

patrickq1

[DonkeyB]

Patrick, this is part of the same batch they sold all those years ago! Not a new tranche.

[patrickq1]

i thought the same later on but i think it does highlight the problem has continued and should be for ofcom to now intervene and make 3/hutch rescind this ,?

[DonkeyB]

Not really. HFOC have, probably, bought the accounts legitimately (although they've bought a pile of poo, clearly).

 

They just haven't put any resources into collection - there's been a hiatus for a year or more.

 

As people like Barclaycard realise the bad press that HFO attracts (Radio 4, Mail on Sunday, House of Commons etc), HFO are probably running out of people to buy debt from and are scraping the bottom of their barrel with their old, barely collectable accounts.

[hollysmum]

It seems to me that the best policy in an awful lot of these cases, where you know you owe whoever it is absolutely zero, is to either ignore the stupid letters from Roxburghe, HFO or any other DCA, or send them back marked "Return to Sender" and then get on with life - a few of you seem to be getting very worked up about what's right and what's wrong in the way of the law and other procedures, and I've seen that some rather abusive "correspondence" has materialised.....you're all so helpful and knowledgeable that to me, this is rather a shame. I think we're all of the same mindset, i.e. that these DCAs are outrageous in more ways than one, and need to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Unity!

[DonkeyB]

Quite right!

[patrickq1]

It seems to me that the best policy in an awful lot of these cases, where you know you owe whoever it is absolutely zero, is to either ignore the stupid letters from Roxburghe, HFO or any other DCA, or send them back marked "Return to Sender" and then get on with life - a few of you seem to be getting very worked up about what's right and what's wrong in the way of the law and other procedures, and I've seen that some rather abusive "correspondence" has materialised.....you're all so helpful and knowledgeable that to me, this is rather a shame. I think we're all of the same mindset, i.e. that these DCAs are outrageous in more ways than one, and need to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Unity!

whilst most would like to tell HFO where to go it cannot be ignored the habitual harrassment from these sort of companies is deplorable it is also best to report them to the SRA and the LAW SOCIETY with regards to chasing debts that are either SB or non existant ..

[hollysmum]

Patrickq1 - I agree totally, and I have done precisely this on at least three occasions now. Once was because of Ruthbridge sending a letter addressed to "The Occupier" at my address, another because they then tried it on with my partner, and a third time with LCS, who have tried to get money out of the wife of a former colleague in respect of a house owned by my employers. In neither case did any of us owe anything to anyone, and we all knew it. So, except in the LCS case, where I handed it over to my employers' legal section, I ignored the letters, and reported it all to Trading Standards, who advised me further, and maintained I was quite right to ignore the letters. I'm not saying "do nothing", just don't do anything to contact the DCA involved. Take advice first. My experience with 3, and DCA they set on me, made me resolve never to react by panicking again, and paying up because I didn't want someone banging on my door (which is what they threatened). I KNEW I owed nothing, and was also pretty certain that 3 owed me (they did), but the DCAs horrible letter just freaked me. So I do understand why people are so desperate to tell the DCAs that it's all a big mistake. This seems to be the start of all their problems, though, doesn't it? Life becomes a misery as you face this brick wall that is the DCA, whose employees clearly don't give a s**t about anything other than their own bonuses, and just heap on more and more pressure that makes it look, eventually, as though life will only go back to what it was if you pay up and get them off your back.

My employer (a local authority) gets endless nonsense from DCAs, letters saying that someone will call on Saturday to collect the alleged debt, or they're going to make us bankrupt in seven days. Yeah, right! I think this proves that the DCA just churns out "stock" letters, having done no research whatsoever into whom the letters are going to. That's it, rant over!

[180]

I'd just like to say that since my second letter back in January I have had no further correspondence from Roxburghe, Hutchison or any other collection agency.

 

I can only assume they have the wrong person!

[hollysmum]

Excellent, 180!

[Beijing3773]

I'd just like to say that since my second letter back in January I have had no further correspondence from Roxburghe, Hutchison or any other collection agency.

 

Hello Everyone,

 

After nearly six months, Roxburghe is active again. Here is my brief story:

 

In Jan 2010, received a first letter from Roxburghe.

With the help from all of you, I sent them a "Prove it" letter.

On 24th February 2010, received a letter showing how they added the interest and misc charges to reach the final outstanding balance, without any supporting documents.

 

According to their letter,

 

" Contract start date was March 2004

Disconnection date was March 2005

Last amount paid was May 2004

The above information suggests that the contract was not fulfilled and their terms and conditions not adhered to"

 

They've been quiet for nearly 6 months and last week I received another letter . The contents are as follows:

 

Date 06 Aug 2010

 

72 Hour Notice

 

Re: HFO Capital Limited

A/c number: xxxxxxxxx

Total Amount Due: £xxx

Roxburghe Ref: xxxxxxxxx

 

We have written to you previously and you have failed to resolve this matter with us. As a result, your file is being reviewed to decide the best course of action to take.

 

You now have 72 hours from receipt of this notification to make payment.

 

Failure to deal with this matter within time given will result in action being taken without further reference to you. This may involve the commencement of legal proceedings where court fees, solicitor's costs and statutory interest can be added thus substantially increasing the amount owed.

 

Please note that in the absence of payment or any valid dispute we will pursue this matter - with or without your co-operation.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Debt recovery Manager

Roxburghe UK Ltd

 

I need your kind suggestion the best way to respond to them:confused:. Since the last payment date was in May 2004. I believe it is statute barred so they cannot commence the legal proceedings as they threatened in their letter. Am I correct? In this case, would it be wise to ignore them completely? Or do I still need to reply them a letter? If I need to, can anyone advise me what should I write to them or the standard letter, if there is any?

 

In the meantime, I will be checking my credit report. Thank you so much everyone in advance.

[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.

[Beijing3773]

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.

 

Thank you for your reply post Buzby. To be SB, do we count 6 years from the disconnection date or last payment date?

[vjohn82]

SB from date of last payment.

 

Tell them where to go.

[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.

[vjohn82]

These might help

 

IHTM28384 - Law relating to debts: statute-barred debts

If a lender allows time to pass without receiving any payment an action for recovery may become barred.

 

Under the Limitations Act 1980 the time limits are

 

in simple contracts, 6 years

in contracts under seal, 12 years.

If the debtor acknowledges the debt in writing or makes a part payment within the original limitation period, then the time limits start to run again from the date of acknowledgement or the date of payment.

 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm28384.htm

 

The Limitation Act 1980

 

The Limitations Act 1980 outlines the time limit within which a creditor can chase a debtor for outstanding debts. The Limitations Act 1980 only applies when no contact has been made between the creditor and debtor within the given time limit and only applies to residents of England and Wales.

 

Creditors are given a fixed period of time to chase their debtors, which is outlined in the Limitations Act 1980. The time scale mainly depends on the type of debt and can be extended at the courts discretion. The time limit begins when you last admitted owing the money or made a payment.

 

http://www.payplan.com/debt-library/joint-and-several-liability-the-limitation-act-1980.php

[vjohn82]

I would further add that the cause of action on a debt occurs when you first "miss a payment"... therefore this account is SB

[patrickq1]

Thank you for your further email received on 4 August 2010, further to your earlier emails, updating us about the problems you are still experiencing with the above mentioned trader.

 

We will take into account the further information you have helpfully given us as we continue to monitor this trader’s fitness to hold a credit licence. Thank you once again for taking the time to write to us about this matter.

 

Yours sincerely

 

so a complaint to TRADING STANDARDS AS WELL AS THE ICO trading standards want this information concerning their licence re newal...HFO that is i am wondering VJ is this the reason they are using Roxy becuase their licence is under reveiw ?

patrickq1