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

[Pinky69]

If they do not produce a copy of the agreement then the debt is unenforceable. If they produce a reconstructed copy and not a copy of the original then they probably don't have the original agreement. It is then up to the debtor to request a copy of the original under the CPR rules, having been alerted by the response to the CCA request that either there is no original or the original is unenforceable. That knowledge was initially triggered by the CCA request - simples.

[oilyrag]

Hear hear jonoh.

All been done Pinky properly and formally.

Net result - - - Hassle is even worse than before.

 

The only good thing is that we have third party Appropriate Appointed Representatives (the legal eagles) and we can fence it all with write to them under OFT Guidleines Cluase 2.8 paras c & d.

 

I have counselled several times before that nothing is a "karma" as you say, patience and lie in wait to ambush is probably about the best solution IMHO. However should we nbot be mindful of those that are scared witless by the parasites and open up more to help them.

OR

Edited February 2, 2010 by oilyrag

[chicago1234]

Ultimate Credit Services went into administration in 2009 – but one of the directors of that company has set up another debt collection agency (along with some other people) called the Zinc Group – and many of the letters they send out are headed Zinc Collections. They are effectively all part of and connected to a company called Complete Credit Consultancy. All of this is confusing and makes it more difficult for those being contacted by this company to know who it is they are dealing with. Zinc are based in and operate out of Glasgow and Complete Credit Consultancy is registered at an address in Stratford on Avon – though I understand that this is simply a registered address and no one from this company actually operates from there. So the people calling and writing to members of the public are Glasgow based.

 

I have had experience of these companies harassing my family for debts which they do not owe. They are in my opinion a very dodgy outfit and having a look through various websites suggest that they may have upset many people. I believe that they break many of the Office of Fair Trading guidelines, but appear not too worried – after all, these guidelines have no legal status – i.e. they are not (necessarily) breaking the law by not following these guidelines and breaching these guidelines can only really be used to revoke their operating licence – this would appear at first to a major deterrent for debt collection agencies not to transgress these guidelines. But, it is often difficult to prove that they have been breached (these people know every trick in the book) and in any case I believe that last year only two debt collection agencies actually lost their operating licence. A tiny amount when you consider that these guidelines are widely flaunted and broken.

 

Most people being chased by debt collection agencies probably do genuinely owe money. But I have evidence that Zinc chase people who are innocent and do not owe debt. I don’t know if they do this to try and flush out the real debtor (should that be a relative of the innocent party) or if they simply try to harass people into paying in order to bring an end to their torment. As it stands, the law does not appear to adequately protect people from companies such as Zinc. By challenging their behaviour in these forums it may be possible to build up support to have them properly dealt with. The current law and regulation can work sometimes – but it needs people who are determined to bring a case that will stand.

 

Please post a reply if you or anyone you know has had problems with this company.

[jonoh1]

Pinky I disagree that the DCA`s have never accepted the templates.

 

Pre Waksman with most DCA`S you could eventually get them to pass the account back to the O.C. when they could not satisfy the CCA request.

 

Now they can satisfy that very easily and thus the account is not in dispute.

 

There is an all new attitude now from the DCA`s.

 

This is fact from experience. Obviously the proof will be in the pudding and we will see what takes place in the future if we just try and deal with them in the same way.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Chicago,

Welcome to CAG

You'll get more appropriate response if you start a new thread

(go HERE and click new thread button)

Putting the company name in the title will help those Googling for info on this company find it on CAG.

Good luck with your quest,

Elsa x

[Pinky69]

That is not a new attitude, I can assure you. You simply haven't been around long enough to see DCAs trying to pass of reconstructed agreements as enforceable originals for a long time. As for this miracle "strategy" that is going to solve all the debt problems on CAG, there isn't one. Each problem is dealt with on its own merits and advice is offered to posters that is appropriate to each problem and their particular circumstances. I rest my case.

[jonoh1]

If they do not produce a copy of the agreement then the debt is unenforceable. If they produce a reconstructed copy and not a copy of the original then they probably don't have the original agreement. It is then up to the debtor to request a copy of the original under the CPR rules, having been alerted by the response to the CCA request that either there is no original or the original is unenforceable. That knowledge was initially triggered by the CCA request - simples.

 

The reconstituted document will now satisfy 77/78 hence the account is not in dispute. Thus the DCA`s can continue with their nasty actions.

 

The CPR route correct me if I am wrong is for only when one party takes the other to court or threatens court action. Otherwise can be viewed as a fishing trip.

[Pinky69]

The DCAs can continue their nasty attitudes only if you let them. They have no powers over you whatsoever. As for a phishing trip, you can make it clear to them that the account is in dispute as you have no proof an agreement exists for the debt they are alleging is yours. They will only walk all over you if you let them. Calling their bluff on threats of legal action also works wonders. You are in charge of this - not them - and as soon as you take charge of the situation, you have your strategy.

[jonoh1]

The DCAs can continue their nasty attitudes only if you let them. They have no powers over you whatsoever. As for a phishing trip, you can make it clear to them that the account is in dispute as you have no proof an agreement exists for the debt they are alleging is yours. They will only walk all over you if you let them. Calling their bluff on threats of legal action also works wonders. You are in charge of this - not them - and as soon as you take charge of the situation, you have your strategy.

 

If the reconstituted document now satisfies 77/78 then the account is not in dispute.

 

I quite agree with you on calling their bluff on legal action.

 

Please could you explain the CPR route.

 

They will always try and walk all over you that`s how they make their money.......

[oilyrag]

Hi Pinky,

Please just take a moment, we have called the bluff and they have been told go to court if you dare. Everything is in place and what this thread started out as IMHO is how you might or might not deal with the nastiness. What some of us are saying is that the standard arguments which are stated over and over again are no longer as effective as they were. Do you have, as an experienced cagger, any thing that might improve the effectiveness of these weakening (by the day) arguments That is all.

 

Apparently you do not. It just the same old mantra, hence why not follow OFT guidelines and admit that you have nothing else to offer. So why not join the debate as to how things might be improved properly. I repeat we all know that DCAs have no legal standing whatsoever, you can even have injunctions in place BUT IT DOES NOT STOP OR EVEN ALLEVIATE THE NASTINESS AND ALL THE OTHER DIRTY TRICKS!

 

All we are asking from you "senior" caggers is to apply your undoubted knowledge to the FACT that the argument needs to be strengthened.

 

oilyrag:)

[Pinky69]

Of course they will walk all over you if you let them - that is what they are in business for. As I said, the CCA template is only the first step and it depends on what they have sent as a reconstituted agreement or whether you have asked for a copy of the original agreement under the CPR rules what you put the alleged account into dispute for. That doesn't nullify the CCA request letter, which was only ever a starting point.

[oilyrag]

I rest my case your honour!

 

oilyrag:D

[jonoh1]

Of course they will walk all over you if you let them - that is what they are in business for. As I said, the CCA template is only the first step and it depends on what they have sent as a reconstituted agreement or whether you have asked for a copy of the original agreement under the CPR rules what you put the alleged account into dispute for. That doesn't nullify the CCA request letter, which was only ever a starting point.

 

Pinky I do not understand your reply.

 

Waksman states that 77/78 is for information only. Thus a reconstituted document satisfies the 77/78 so for that reason the account would not be in dispute. At this stage the bank could just say we have the original but it is not available at the moment.

 

Thus whatever you say the DCA`s then carry on their nasty ways, fact.

 

I then do not understand how you use the CPR route if there is no court action.

 

Perhaps I am missing something and your knowledge would be helpful.

[Pinky69]

I'll tell you what. I'll let you get on with the miracle karma for debts, this elusive "strategy" that is going to be the panacea for all - and I will get on with helping people find real solutions to real debt problems. My strategy has worked - I am debt-free- and I haven't seen anything in this thread or anything in recent judgments to change my modus operandi. DCAs are still bullying liars and conmen and agreements which are non -existent or not properly executed are still unenforceable. Plus ca change, plus la meme chose.

[Pinky69]

There is more than just a reconstituted document to an agreement. There are also Terms and Conditions and statements, so there is a lot of potential for dispute in the aftermath of a CCA request. If you don't want to dispute it, then go ahead and pay it - those are your choices.

[nicoalfredo]

I am not aware that we have become disorganised and the Manchester test cases were about Secs 77/78 and what is acceptable as a copy of an agreement, which was already known to us - there is nothing new from Manchester.

slight correctin. manchester was about s.78 not s.77.

[jonoh1]

I'll tell you what. I'll let you get on with the miracle karma for debts, this elusive "strategy" that is going to be the panacea for all - and I will get on with helping people find real solutions to real debt problems. My strategy has worked - I am debt-free- and I haven't seen anything in this thread or anything in recent judgments to change my modus operandi. DCAs are still bullying liars and conmen and agreements which are non -existent or not properly executed are still unenforceable. Plus ca change, plus la meme chose.

 

So as your strategy worked since Waksman.

 

I was being very serious and good intentioned.

 

I was simply trying to improve my knowledge and find ways that worked to deal with these people. I am sure some other people feel the same way.

 

I never said there was a miracle Karma.

 

Best of luck

[Pinky69]

The the ruling for S78 will apply to S77 - one being for fixed credit and one being for running credit. Geez - these 2 minute wonders on the board!

[Pinky69]

There are many reasons for an account being put into dispute - no agreement, an unenforceable agreement, an application form claimed to be an agreement, a disputed amount, no Default Notice prior to termination, an unlawful Default notice prior to termination, Statute Barring - as I have said from the outset, you just have to deal with each case on its merits and amend templates to suit if necessary. Where the DCA tries to create a hole based on a tissue of lies, you put a peg. Remember they buy these debts without scrap of paperwork whatsoever and many creditors have either microfiched the originals and cannot find them or they are so degraded as to be illegible. They do not keep copies of Default Notices and they cannot reconstruct them - they haven't a clue what was on a DN if you query it. Balances on DN's often have charges on them, rendering the amounts claimed inaccurate. DCAs buy them on a wing and a prayer and for agreements prior to 2007 the wings have often fallen off long before they are sold. You can use all and any of these to dispute an account and they still work.

[oilyrag]

Come On!!!. Here we go again, where are the moderators. All that was being questioned was the continuing validity of using the same old beat up arguments over and over again. These arguments are being disregarded increasingly by the courts, banks and the DCAs, The dirty tricks and nastiness are increasing by the day. When you first started out, Pinky were forgeries and that is what they are, of documents allowed in court? I'll tell you , NO. Go look at numerous other threads and take a look at what is happening. No one will think anything the less of you if you say that you have nothing to contribute in fact I would go so far as to say if you dropped the approach you have taken then I am sure that your views would command much more respect. Even at this late stage, but just stop slamming your out of date mantras down everyones' necks and stop being so damn divisive.

 

There is no magic solution pushing that rather silly comment, insulting our intelligence as a cover for not being able to dictate terms to this debate. Again and again all that has been asked is for some help in formulating a strengthened argument if one could be found in dealing with an ever changing situation. Please note changing to OUR collective detriment.

 

I'll put the rattle away now get back to the table.

oilyrag:)

[Pinky69]

Why should the moderators step in? I didn't notice anyone being offensive. I'm going to leave you to rattle because I am going out to lunch with friends. I am a now lady who lunches at leisure after using my strategy, based on consumer law, successfully - good luck with yours!

[Bookworm]

These arguments are being disregarded increasingly by the courts, banks and the DCAs,

oilyrag:)

But that's nothing new. :-?

 

If you are unlucky to get a biased judge, you could be giving him chapter and verse of the best kind and still lose. Plenty of examples of that on the site.

 

Increasingly? No I don't think so. The banks always refused our arguments and only ever settled when pushed to the wall. DCAs have been hounding people for ever and ignoring legitimate complaints for as long as that.

 

If anything, the influence of CAG is that nowadays, people have the knowledge to send them packing which they didn't have before. If they keep on hounding you and you let them get under your skin, then the problem is not with a change of attitude from the DCA, it is that you are letting them get to you!

 

Besides, even if it were the case, which I don't believe, just rushing in with "new" unproven tactics isn't exactly the solution, is it? That is what this thread advocates however, and that I find very worrying.

 

Incidentally, whoever mentioned my blobs and ancient age on here, do not be fooled: I know precious little about CCA intricacies, which is why you'll seldom see me advising on the unenforceable stuff. ;-)

 

As for formulating new stuff, as as been said before, it took some of the brightest legal minds in the land over 2 1/2 yrs to deal with the test case. A magic instant solution there ain't. Sorry but there it is.

[oilyrag]

Hi Bookworm,

 

Thank you for the response. What needs to be brought into check is the sort of thing faced by Humbleman, It is not so long ago that his case would have been game set and match against his alleged creditor despite a bad judge.

 

HHJ Waksman, Mc Guffick et al have given more confidence to the banks and their cohorts knowing that it requires a bit more knowledge than before to mount a successful defence, i.e they have swung a few with no basis at all in law in front of a sympathetic judge (for them). I and our legal team have never advocated making a claim against an alleged creditor and certainly never on the back of a s78 default or non compliance yet the total basis of many arguments here is just this Section 78 most are ignoring the sticky on the subject.

 

I think as has certainly been the case with our disputes the nastiness and aggravation has worsened since we managed to back them into a corner legally. We have learned over almost a three year period (most of which alone without CAG or outside help) not to let DCAs get under our skin but it is still hassle which to all intents and purposes is unlawful (please read posts by very well thought of caggers). We are now rude and abusive having tried the nice guy route like please and thank you in writing please and all the other woffle.

 

However it is obvious that there are many on here who do need some additonal support and just saying s78, SAR then In Dispute etc is not enough and the templates whilst serving their purposes very well to date, the changes occurring in Bank argument and the courts attitude lead me and others to believe that perhaps something needs looking at. What winds a lot of us up is the somewhat arrogant approach that what was done three years ago will continue suffice forever. I don't believe it will and what MAY (notice dca speak) happen is by ignoring the potential changes a lead/test case will creep through which will give following cases enormous trouble to defend. We have had the cold calling CMC's stating things like "we don't know how long the loophole will be open" What loophole ? It is an Act of Parliament, Statute Law. I think the appeal from some of us has been for the experienced ones to have at least some open minds on the subject. That has NOT been the case on many threads recently including this one. I.E. "I Have my opinion and everyone else is wrong" and that really comes over loud and very clear at times. This then stifles any further real discussion on the subject. That is where it is wrong.

 

Regards

oilyrag:)

[Bookworm]

A bit OT, but I'd like point out that I predicted this would happen years ago. When people and CMCs started exploiting the CCA and try and get things written off whether they owed the money or not, using the smallest deviation as a get-out clause, it was obvious that judges were going to rely more and more on their opinion rather than the letter of the law. This was a stick to beat us with of our own making.

 

I'm not sure why the chip on the shoulder here. Yes, some of us have strong opinions, and yes we express ourselves in a firm manner. In case you haven't noticed, this is quite an aggressive tactics kind of forum, we didn't get there by being shrinking violets. But I'd like to point out that far from saying "this is my opinion and everyone else is wrong", what I am saying (can't speak for anyone else!) is "this is my opinion and I stand by it until anyone can prove different". I think the attitude you describe is actually coming from those who would say "use these letters and it will work" and spectacularly fail to show any proof.

 

Listen: If there was something that could effectively stop them in their tracks at minimal risk to the consumer, I'd be the 1st one to jump on it. I happen not to believe this is it. But hey, that's the beauty of an internet forum: people can do precisely as they wish. ;-)

[Pinky69]

I don't think anyone is saying that their way is right and other ways are wrong. What I was saying is that consumer law has worked for me and others and it isn't just about agreements, nor are the templates defunct. They are a starting point and can be adapted to suit. I think CMCs are finding this much more difficult then they imagined but it was never going to be as simple as they made it out to be.