Being bothered by Debt Collectors/3rd Parties /Solicitors etc ? - SEND THEM THIS!

[questioner]

Bookworm

 

Ok - so fix it so that it works for us!

 

The guy on that piece I copied claims that he has been successful in charging them so.........?

 

Unwanted harassment that has been stated by us as harassment is perhaps the way to go?

 

And you will never catch a fish if you fail to open that can of worms in the fist place..

[jonoh1]

If everybody took them on just imagine the paperwork they would have to deal with.

 

A very interesting and thought provoking thread. Agree with you questioner lets take the fight to them. Be proactive...........

[Gaznkaz08]

I FOUND THE FOLLOWING WHICH THE POSTER SEEM HAPPY TO BE BROADCAST ON THE NET - THIS MAY HELP.......

 

 

I suppose tHE main thing next to accuracy is that fees we chare a sahrk are seen as fair and reasonable.

 

CAN YOU IMAGINE A FEW MONTHS DOWN THE LINE WHEN FOS ARE INVESTIGATING CONSUMERS FOR EXCESSIVE DCA CHARGES WITH THE DCAS SHOUTING THAT THEY WANT FAIR COMPENSATION FOR WHAT WE CHARGED THEM......LOL ........ WONDERFUL..

 

Anyway - all this is most inspiring and much better then waiting for postie to bring yet another crappy DCA red letter threatogram.

 

THIS COULD JUST ABOUT PULL OUT A CONSUMER REVOLUTION IF HANDLED PROPERLY..

Are we men/women or are we mice???

 

 

would that really work?

[Gazza112]

subbing

[spamheed]

I believe that this has been touched on before, a debtor happily sent the dca a letter offering his services as a live telephone trainer, offering such services as "Irate and obstructive creditor" to assist with the DCAs training needs. writing another letter constituted acceptance of the contract.

 

The thread stated that payment was made and then the creditor was "left alone" whether this is true or not, I do not know, but I would like it to be!!

 

I have also seen the "No Contract" website and whilst some of what is stated on it carries some merit, it also states that one of the hosts is currently being made bankrupt by HMRC, so I would question the effectiveness of the advice. basically they suggest a head in the sand approach and a "return to sender" letter in response to everyone, there will always be the chance that some will simply give up and walk away

 

I have always believed that contract law had more to offer than the CCA, that a contract can be unlitaterally transferred without the permission of the other signatory, As stated elsewhere, I could not transfer my rights as a debtor to a third person, so surely the same should hold true for the creditor. However, I feel that the devil is probably in the detail.

[Pinky69]

No one is pulling the this letter apart for the sake of it and there is no need for posters to get paranoid. In my view this letter covers 3 different aspects of debt collection. One is the agreement conferring the right for creditors to assign debts to debt collection agencies. If there is an agreement that is enforceable then that is going to be accepted by a court no matter what the underlying law of contract says and part of that agreement is the right to assign the account to agencies. Secondly, the pursuit of the debt. As has been pointed out, harrassment has to be extreme to be accepted as such in court. The relevant law is now the CPUTR 2008. There is nothing in the section on reporting to authorities for breaches of law and guidelines that is new and in lumping them together with a momologue about rights of assignment, you are elongating each dispute to the point where even the smartest member of staff in a DCA has already fallen asleep. In my view letters should be short, simple and to the point and quoting endless law to them is inviting close down. Thirdly, the fees. In order to claim fees you have to prove these fees were incurred. Commercially, solicitors and DCAs have hourly rates and charges which they bill clients for and these are set out transparently. A court is going to want to know how you arrived at the fees and if they are reasonable. There are maximums at case levels beyond which a court will not award fees so you wouldn't be able to claim more than a court will allow. In my view these are 3 separate issues which are more effectively dealt with separately, especially if you want to make a real impact on the DCAs and don't want them dying of boredom half way through.

[nick20045]

Some good points made. I will also try and add my comments:

 

No one is pulling the this letter apart for the sake of it and there is no need for posters to get paranoid. In my view this letter covers 3 different aspects of debt collection. One is the agreement conferring the right for creditors to assign debts to debt collection agencies. If there is an agreement that is enforceable then that is going to be accepted by a court no matter what the underlying law of contract says and part of that agreement is the right to assign the account to agencies. A debtor has to be also careful what you write and refer to. Let us look at the example: In Pinky69 reply he/she refers to assignment. Therefore, the DCA will reply by sending you a Notice of Assignment (and as has been claimed even possibly a Photoshop one made claiming it was made by the OC). What have you done? Indirectly (let us say the DCA never sent you an NOA) once the DCA replies "Well yes. The Debt has been properly assigned and here is the NOA" you have "killed the chance" of claiming "No NOA" in Court and killing the claim.

 

 

Secondly, the pursuit of the debt. As has been pointed out, harrassment has to be extreme to be accepted as such in court. The relevant law is now the CPUTR 2008. There is nothing in the section on reporting to authorities for breaches of law and guidelines that is new and in lumping them together with a momologue about rights of assignment, you are elongating each dispute to the point where even the smartest member of staff in a DCA has already fallen asleep. In my view letters should be short, simple and to the point and quoting endless law to them is inviting close down.

I agree as well. Sometimes, trying to show "How clever you are" may backfire on you. Why? Because whereas you may get a "monkey" pressing a button from F1 to F10 your letter may go to the manager who will then advise what to send. In fact, sometimes "playing the ignorant fool" is actually beneficial and may result in some mistake being made by the DCA which later on you can use to your advantage. An example: You go into Court and start preaching case law in front of a Judge. Ok. The Judge may be impressed. Then if asked a simple question about some Act and you cannot answer it basically all you are doing in that Court is to show you actually know nothing. Simplicity sometimes is a lot better.

 

Thirdly, the fees. In order to claim fees you have to prove these fees were incurred. Commercially, solicitors and DCAs have hourly rates and charges which they bill clients for and these are set out transparently. A court is going to want to know how you arrived at the fees and if they are reasonable. There are maximums at case levels beyond which a court will not award fees so you wouldn't be able to claim more than a court will allow.

Agree. If a solicitor charges say £180 an hour (+VAT) how can you charge more then him? If a court hearing to be represented by a solicitor it costs about £250 - £300 a session how can you charge the fees you are claiming. Especially considering that filing a claim, for work done you are allowed to charge at £9.25 per hour!

In my view these are 3 separate issues which are more effectively dealt with separately, especially if you want to make a real impact on the DCAs and don't want them dying of boredom half way through.

The first part of the letter I have already seen it on another forum. It was basically a letter regarding somebody who had entered into a mobile agreement. This is the transcript from the original letter:

 

By recorded mail.

 

Dear Sirs,

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says.

 

I refer to your letter dated 21st April, 2009.

 

As you are a third party intervener in this matter acting without authority, I DO NOT give you permission to interfere in my commercial affairs as you have no legal standing. I do not have a contract with you and any permission that you believe you may have from me is hereby withdrawn. If you believe that you have power of attorney to act on my behalf you are hereby fired, and any consent that you believe you may have, tacit or otherwise, is hereby withdrawn.

 

I am familiar with the terms of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. And I believe, should you continue in contacting me after my request for you to cease your activity, that you will be guilty of harassment and blackmail, and you will be in breach of these acts, and you will be reported to the relevant bodies.

 

I am well aware of Section 40, sub-section (3) which you may consider entitles you to proceed. However upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury you will need to supply the following Proofs of Claims:

 

1. Proof of Claim that your actions are reasonable.

 

2. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part is due, or believed by you to be due to you, and not to some other party.

 

3a. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part is to yourself by providing sight of the appropriate contract, or

 

3b. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part to persons for whom you act by providing sight of the appropriate contract.

 

4. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part protects you from any future loss.

 

5. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part is enforcement of a legal process on a Human Being under Common you contact me by telephone, after a formal request not to, you will also be in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and, as such, I will report you to both Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading. And take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

 

Finally, you do not, nor have you ever had, my permission to use or process my personal data in any way, and so pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998, I hereby demand that you cease use of any and all data with regard to me, and that you immediately destroy all of my data held on your records. Failure to do so will result in a report being submitted to The Information Commissioner for Data Protection breaches.

 

You will be deemed to have been served notice of my request and I will deem it served three (3) days from the date of this letter. This has been sent by recorded delivery. I am advising you that any communications from you including but not limited to letters, phone calls and text messages received after this date will be recorded/noted with the intention of them being used as evidence.

 

Do not contact me again.

 

Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity

[nuke em]

Exactly so.

 

DCAs are in the dirty business of making money out of the misery of other human beings that is what they do. They break all the rules until they get officially stopped and I speak from experience.

 

Therefore we do urgently need to explore accurate ways to charge them for the misery they inflict on us.

 

Being defensive is fine - but we also must be proactive and this is one way to get results.....

 

So let's see all the excellent tech/legal experts on CAG get with it and pool their enormous energies into making the sharks pay for the stress that they create now. I have heard of others who claim to have taken sharks to the cleaners after they failed to pay up on admin charges ect so I believe it can be done.

 

Templates, the are highly effective and accurate to address this issue, are needed fast!

 

Well?

 

Nuke em - right behind you mate - do not let any quitters (or is it DCA sharks?) get you down......

 

 

Thanks ! & i dont let anyone get me down !!!!!!!!!!!

[nuke em]

Some good points made. I will also try and add my comments:

 

 

The first part of the letter I have already seen it on another forum. It was basically a letter regarding somebody who had entered into a mobile agreement. This is the transcript from the original letter:

 

 

 

ok , now we are getting there!!!! on the right track!

honour & dishonour

 

 

BTW if you dont like the charges, Reduce them,

if you think its covering too many points, remove one of them

you need to adapt it to fit, this is the bare bones version of the one i use ( very successfully). i cant put my actual one up as it is too identifying

 

and who ever mentioned Court?. Court is in the Public & games are played on/in Courts, I stay completely in the Private, No Courts, Lawyers, & silly statutes & Actors playing games. My remedies are always in the Private !

Edited January 8, 2010 by nuke em

[nick20045]

To be honest I fail to see why so many members actually get "their knickers in a twist" with DCAs. (Not being funny here but.......... read the following).

 

You had a debt with A. A sold (assigned) the debt to B. B is the DCA. B contacts you saying blah blah blah. Ok. Draft them a letter refering to the following: (Send the letter addressed to the C.E.O. so it is official)

 

1: Reference to their letter.

2: Reference to the fact that they have a license issued by the OFT to operate.

3: Reference to the fact that to obtain that license they promised the OFT to abide by its guidelines.

4: Reference to the OFT Guidelines that states that before a creditor can pass on a debt to a third party or to a debt collection agency, they have to obtain your consent. (You can search this on the OFT Guidelines).

5: You wish to see a copy of the letter the OC sent asking for your consent.

6: You wish to see a copy of the letter where you gave your consent.

 

As usual write name and do not sign. (Or personally I prefer to sign using a different name and mark it "Signed on and on behalf of" which will make it fully legal).

 

Do not offer to make any payments to the DCA because that can be interpreted as "giving your consent". (Although you can argue that you were harrassed/pushed/threatened or whatever into doing so if you have done any payments).

 

Post the letter recorded and give them 14 working days to reply. IF they do not reply send them a letter stating: "You have failed to reply to my letter dated xx/xx/2010 and hence please note you are in default and I claim estoppal by acquiescence. Please do not contact me again". (Again send letter to the C.E.O.) and recorded mail.

 

Template letters are good but (in my own personal opinion) should not be copied without at least being read and if need be modified. Otherwise you are simply acting the same as the DCA's and just sending template letters. Furthermore, as I have pointed out in a different thread, a member should search and do some research and not expect things to be "just done for him/her".

Edited January 8, 2010 by nick20045
Added "Do not sign etc etc"

[Bookworm]

Bookworm

 

Ok - so fix it so that it works for us!

Sorry, I don't make laws. My personal belief is that it can not work, I have explained why higher up.

The guy on that piece I copied claims that he has been successful in charging them so.........?

Yeah, and the Rankines claim they can buy your debt and get you debt free in 2 weeks, and I don't believe them either. ;-) Oh, and let's not forget the "freeman of the land" people who also claim astounding results, but spectacularly fail to show proof of those when challenged. ;-)

Unwanted harassment that has been stated by us as harassment is perhaps the way to go?

I'd agree with that. IF you can show that harassment has been ongoing and continuing despite cease and desist letters, and that harassment has been way and above the guidelines as per OFT guidance, then and only then may you have a court for compensation for the distress caused etc... But these are different grounds that attempting to invoice the DCAs for the time you have spent fighting them off.

And you will never catch a fish if you fail to open that can of worms in the fist place..

Hmmm... It takes less time, energy and gets better results to just buy the fish at the shop and leave the fishing to the experts... ;-)

 

I don't propose to go on and on about this, I have stated my opinion that I don't think this can work and why. I wish the best of luck to those who will try it and hope they succeed and come back to tell us if they do, and I really hope that I am wrong.

 

Bookie, out.

[nick20045]

Incidentally, in case anybody does not know what "acquiescence" means:

 

acquiescence legal definition of acquiescence. acquiescence synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

Conduct recognizing the existence of a transaction and intended to permit the transaction to be carried into effect; a tacit agreement; consent inferred from silence.

For example, a new beer company is concerned that the proposed label for its beer might infringe on the trademark of its competitor. It submits the label to its competitor's general counsel, who does not object to its use. The new company files an application in the Patent and Trademark Office to register the label as its trademark and starts to use the label on the market. The competitor does not file any objection in the Patent Office. Several years later, the competitor sues the new company for infringing on its trademark and demands an accounting of the new company's profits for the years it has been using the label. A court will refuse the accounting, since by its acquiescence the competitor tacitly approved the use of the label. The competitor, however, might be entitled to an Injunction barring the new company from further use of its trademark if it is so similar to the competitor's label as to amount to an infringement.

[Bookworm]

Incidentally, in case anybody does not know what "acquiescence" means:

 

acquiescence legal definition of acquiescence. acquiescence synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

Conduct recognizing the existence of a transaction and intended to permit the transaction to be carried into effect; a tacit agreement; consent inferred from silence.

For example, a new beer company is concerned that the proposed label for its beer might infringe on the trademark of its competitor. It submits the label to its competitor's general counsel, who does not object to its use. The new company files an application in the Patent and Trademark Office to register the label as its trademark and starts to use the label on the market. The competitor does not file any objection in the Patent Office. Several years later, the competitor sues the new company for infringing on its trademark and demands an accounting of the new company's profits for the years it has been using the label. A court will refuse the accounting, since by its acquiescence the competitor tacitly approved the use of the label. The competitor, however, might be entitled to an Injunction barring the new company from further use of its trademark if it is so similar to the competitor's label as to amount to an infringement.

Sorry, that is very misleading. Whilst that is the correct meaning by dictionary, there is ample case law to say that silence CAN NOT be construed as acceptance (or acquiescence if you will)

 

Felthouse v Bindley states this VERY clearly. I'd strongly recommend people familiarise themselves with that case before pursuing this angle.

[nick20045]

Sorry, that is very misleading. Whilst that is the correct meaning by dictionary, there is ample case law to say that silence CAN NOT be construed as acceptance (or acquiescence if you will)

 

Felthouse v Bindley states this VERY clearly. I'd strongly recommend people familiarise themselves with that case before pursuing this angle.

If you were to read my other post (just above yours) it is claimed "estoppal by acquiescence" and not simply "acquiescence". Hence the meaning has now changed as it is not simply "silence = acceptance".

 

Will give that case law a good read. Thanks for the link.

[nuke em]

Sorry, I don't make laws. , Actually you can do, set it out in an Affidavit & if it is un-rebutted , IT IS LAW

 

My personal belief is that it can not work, I have explained why higher up.

Yeah, and the Rankines claim they can buy your debt and get you debt free in 2 weeks, and I don't believe them either. ;-) Oh, and let's not forget the "freeman of the land" people who also claim astounding results, but spectacularly fail to show proof of those when challenged. ;-)

I'd agree with that. IF you can show that harassment has been ongoing and continuing despite cease and desist letters, and that harassment has been way and above the guidelines as per OFT guidance, then and only then may you have a court for compensation for the distress caused etc... But these are different grounds that attempting to invoice the DCAs for the time you have spent fighting them off. Hmmm... It takes less time, energy and gets better results to just buy the fish at the shop and leave the fishing to the experts... ;-)

 

I don't propose to go on and on about this, I have stated my opinion that I don't think this can work and why. I wish the best of luck to those who will try it and hope they succeed and come back to tell us if they do, and I really hope that I am wrong.

 

Bookie, out.

 

Here is the Heads up on Credit Cards

 

Credit cards., same for loans & overdrafts

You apply for a card , say they give you a £7500 limit – when it is signed it becomes a demand deposit instrument which is then issued to the Treasury for payment ( the CC Company). The money (£7500) goes into an escrow account. It is sitting there, in escrow along with so many others, waiting for you to claim it. – but you didn’t know that did you? Why? Because no one told you. Then, under the three year maritime salvage rule It is claimed, but not by you, by whom then? why the thevin' lyin' CC Company that's who!.

 

You are paying back the payments because you think you should. Why? , you created the money with your signature, its yours!~

You just weren't told were you!! and that's Not full disclosure ( thats against Contract Law) .Also they provided nothing of value,( again,against Contract law) they didnt lend you any money, you created it yourself with your signature!

[nick20045]

Here is the Heads up on Credit Cards

 

Credit cards., same for loans & overdrafts

You apply for a card , say they give you a £7500 limit – when it is signed it becomes a demand deposit instrument which is then issued to the Treasury for payment ( the CC Company). The money (£7500) goes into an escrow account. It is sitting there, in escrow along with so many others, waiting for you to claim it. – but you didn’t know that did you? Why? Because no one told you. Who says so? You get a statement every month telling you how much you have taken and how much is left available.

 

 

Then, under the three year maritime salvage rule It is claimed, but not by you, by whom then? why the thevin' lyin' CC Company that's who!. !!!!!!!??????

 

You are paying back the payments because you think you should. Why? , you created the money with your signature, its yours!~ You actually did not create the money. You borrowed the money as per your needs and you only pay back either a percentage or as much as you want providing it is not less then the minimum payment. For the service of the loaned money you then have agreed to pay a commission to who you borrowed it from.

You just weren't told were you!! and that's Not full disclosure ( thats against Contract Law) .Also they provided nothing of value,( again,against Contract law) they didnt lend you any money, you created it yourself with your signature!

Way I understand it anyway.

[Bookworm]

Yeah, I did... Well, I did know that the theory was floating around and had read it before, should I say.

 

Show me cases where someone has gone to court and won using that argument. Then I'll consider it as something else than empty rhetorics. Until then, I don't buy it.

[Bookworm]

If you were to read my other post (just above yours) it is claimed "estoppal by acquiescence" and not simply "acquiescence". Hence the meaning has now changed as it is not simply "silence = acceptance".

 

Will give that case law a good read. Thanks for the link.

PS: It's "estoppEl", not "estoppal". ;-)

 

And beware of not quoting AMERICAN law. (clue: they refer to the IRS amongst other things. ;-)

[nick20045]

 

And beware of not quoting AMERICAN law. (clue: they refer to the IRS amongst other things. ;-)

Defo agree with you on that one. They shoot each other over there as well. :D:D:D

[PriorityOne]

No disrespect (I don't think)... but if I was a DCA and got a letter like that, I would bin it.

 

You'd be very foolish to try going any further with it in a bid to get money for yourself (in my opinion). It looks pointless and greedy.... and there were a few people in Manchester recently who got bitten on the bum for involving themselves in something based on similar principles...

 

If you want them to leave you alone, send a s.10 Notice under the DPA, defend yourself against aggressive manouvres, learn from it and move on.

 

[nick20045]

 

And beware of not quoting AMERICAN law. (clue: they refer to the IRS amongst other things. ;-)

And you should not be quoting old English law either. Having read that judgement, which YES I concur with you that "silence does not mean a contract" I have just learnt that in the old days the word "show" was written as "shew"!!!!! :eek: (First time I read the word I was saying to myself "What the heck does that mean!!!!!. Then in the context I understood ROFL).

[Bookworm]

And you should not be quoting old English law either. Having read that judgement, which YES I concur with you that "silence does not mean a contract" I have just learnt that in the old days the word "show" was written as "shew"!!!!! :eek: (First time I read the word I was saying to myself "What the heck does that mean!!!!!. Then in the context I understood ROFL).

I must have read that judgment hundreds of times and I had never noticed!!!

 

But yes, it's a useful one to learn and digest. IMO, it opens a whole raft of possible arguments about rollover contracts etc... but that's a different argument for another thread. ;-)

[nuke em]

No disrespect (I don't think)... but if I was a DCA and got a letter like that, I would bin it.

 

You'd be very foolish to try going any further with it in a bid to get money for yourself (in my opinion). It looks pointless and greedy.... and there were a few people in Manchester recently who got bitten on the bum for involving themselves in something based on similar principles...

 

If you want them to leave you alone, send a s.10 Notice under the DPA, defend yourself against aggressive manouvres, learn from it and move on.

 

 

 

Cool, one of the best (read-dumbest) things a DCA can do is to "bin it", then they carry on bugging you, that sets them up for a Commercial Injury Claim against them for interfering with your Commercial affairs !! that's a payday ( donated to a Good cause, charity etc) & a lesson THEY will learn FAST

 

Remember, Everything in this world is based around COMMERCE, & i mean everything!!! so the remedy has to be found in Commerce also

Edited January 8, 2010 by nuke em

[nick20045]

I must have read that judgment hundreds of times and I had never noticed!!!

 

But yes, it's a useful one to learn and digest. IMO, it opens a whole raft of possible arguments about rollover contracts etc... but that's a different argument for another thread. ;-)

LOL. Here is one part. From Willes J line 18: The more important letter is that of the nephew, of the 27th of February, which is relied on as shewing that he intended to accept and did accept the terms offered by his uncle's letter of the 2nd of January.

[PriorityOne]

Cool, one of the best (read-dumb) things a DCA can do is to "bin it", then they carry on bugging you, that sets them up for a Commercial Injury Claim against them for interfering with your Commercial affairs !! that's a payday & a lesson THEY will learn FAST

 

Remember, Everything in this world is based around COMMERCE, everything!!! so the remedy has to be found in Commerce also

 

Then I suggest you go and do it.... and then come back and tell us all about it before you encourage others down the slippery slope.