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

[oilyrag]

removed or

Edited January 27, 2010 by oilyrag
deleted

[oilyrag]

removed or

Edited January 27, 2010 by oilyrag
deleted

[oilyrag]

Hi All

 

I find it very sad to find yet another thread full of spite and bickering. I found myself the victim of such appalling behaviour on another thread and I almost left CAG completely as it must be infested with disinformation, old hands who knew it all and yet know very little, so I post very little now. However I have stuck around for the good folks who have the same troubles as me. It is always the loudest insitent emphatic mouths to be really careful of. Remember we are all in the same boat and these so called knowalls either work for the "other side" or they are SO clever they have ended up just the same as the rest of us IN DEBT and trying to sort it. Banks/dca cases against us are evolving and becoming more sophisticated. They are still, at ground level, pretty stupid and inefficient but their arguments in law are moving on.

 

Social policy is a nightmare, but it is very pertinent to the situation we are all in and there are some good researchers on here who are looking very deeply at this area. I am not one as my researches are into a very narrow section of that whole wider picture.

 

We must get to know our opponent and his (lack of) principles, evolve with him then and only then can we win collectively and reliably using what is lawful to us. The weapons are there, it is up to us to use them wisely.

 

Lecture over.

 

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Thank you Jonoh1,

 

Your message is something that I have been trying to put over for a while. There are some very positive elements of the Waksman judgment that have to be exploited to the full for example paras 100 to 105 approximately, paras 204 plus in the summaries. This is profesional opinion of experts in the field.

 

However it must be said that there ARE elements here that are claimed to be "AUTHORITITIVE" who I looked to for good argument and exploitation of those things, will not examine anything that is remotely positve about anything new. The banks are moving against you and I in more sophisticated ways. Take a look at Humbleman on here and there are other examples if looked at closely.

 

Argument about the use of CAG templates has been used successfully against us. Why, guys this constant harking back to the old methods all of the time and the stifling of anything that raises a new issue and if you cannot win the argument this regular descent into sarcasm abuse and bickering and franky unacceptable egotistical "tip my scales because I am good" approach. Most of the regular argument being put forward here now is OLD HAT and the odds are moving very slowly against us. Hence new letters, more sophisticated argument needs putting in place. Stop plagiarising all the old ones ( and telling others to) we can read that all up in previous threads and the extremely good information provided on this site elsewhere.

 

Every case has to be dealt with individually as each is different with differing circumstances, DAMN IT the judges keep telling you so!!!

 

AND we have just logged the 500th call from Mercers/Calders et al so DO NOT tell me I don't know what I am talking about and that is despite letters both from here (CAG) and self researched and composed letters, formal solicitors letters and the serving of injunctions. Now tell me that the banks/dcas are heeding all of the old arguments and will obey the law, OFT guidelines and increasingly weakening stances taken on here.

 

So in the interests of ALL of the troubled people here if the "AUTHORITIVE" members would like to put forward some reasoned argument then I and many others would be happy to read and hark what you say, GLADLY SO.

 

I am not here to be divisive but please just hark a bit and think. The clever DCA is watching and delighting in what you are doing.

 

All written in the best interests of fellow caggers and new members and no way is intended to be offensive, just straight straight talking.

 

 

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Hi Bookworm,

 

I can appreciate your comments. However how has your post moved things along please?

 

I am not saying Nuke-Em is correct at all. What I am saying is that there are people on here, myself included (and we have managed to get proper, not CMC, expert legal representation) who have found that the recognised "standard" arguments promulgated over and over again here on this site are NO LONGER working even before the Manchester LEAD cases and the subsequent judgement when used against persistent Banks/DCAs.

 

It is apparent to some that a fresh approach is needed. Many of us looked to a lead in several areas from more experienced caggers particularly those like yourself with a high "scales" rating. What we have experienced is a shower of derision, abuse and apparent free for all open day on anyone having the temerity to challenge the mantra trotted out by all those claiming to know much more than us mere mortals.

 

Please take it on board that the arguments ARE moving on, we are suffering as a result on a day to day basis and we need to turn these debates into positive lines of thought and subsequently into usable strategies that can be tailored to suit individual cases. Hence moving the consumer case forward.

 

I feely admit I don't have an answer, we have done just about all we can at this stage the ball is firmly with the alleged creditor, legally now cornered like a rat in trap, BUT it does NOT STOP the hassle.

 

This is not personal to you but to all those with plenty of scales scores we look to your experience for a way forward and trotting out the old mantras will not suffice. Their fundamental arguments are being eroded by the courts bit at a time on a daily basis, regardless of what the Law actually says. (perhaps we should insist on more reference to the ethics of Lord Denning Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Argyle who believed rightly in the spirit of the law and not just its technicalities.

 

Best regards

oilyrag.

[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

[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:)

[oilyrag]

I rest my case your honour!

 

oilyrag:D

[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:)

[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:)

[oilyrag]

Hi spartathisis

 

Did I not say all of this in an earlier post? AND PO1 who is blaming CAG, far from it and certainly not me. All that was being asked is to move forward and recognise that all of the old cliches no longer are as effective as they used to be. Please read my earlier posts, far from being a total novice, we have single handedly (without CAG) brought several accounts over a period of two years to stalemate with them cornered legally with one creditor (BC) with open criminal allegations on the table and a six figure claim for compensation and penal damages for unlawful/criminal activity on one account plus all of the consumer credit material discussed here on CAG. It was a final warning from the medics that brought me here and to the instruction of a legal team. So lectures in things that NO LONGER work as they used to are pretty pointless are they not and not too good advice for someone just starting out.

 

As I have said if the old dogma doesn't fit then clear off you have nothing to offer. We must never question the old hands or their ways or even ask to move forward. Take the medicine we give or we don't want to know.

 

Oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Priority One,

 

You seem to have taken all of this very personally. Lets us get some clarity here.

 

I spent four long months at the "stalemate" point in the depths of despair reading this forum as a guest before even thinking of becoming a member. A cold light of day analysis tell me this. There are a number of threads which are no more than "setups" to suss you out. There are a number of very vociferous prolific advisory "members" whose advice and posts should be treated with the utmost caution, I personally treat these as having hidden agendas.

 

At no stage have I ever stated that I had won anything. Far from it in fact we have reached a STALEMATE which has been the staus quo for many months. We don't pay and they will not go to court.

 

I have used all of the mantras on here (without CAG actually) to get where we are. Which is stalemate.

 

There is a claim on the table as stated as a side issue which came from the illegal activities of the bank and credit card company concerned. It was part of a wider picture, which was handed to us on a plate, and only required a little thought to put together. The criminal allegations we have no control over as you should know. Proceedings are held until the consumer law issues are resolved.

 

We have one SAR refused on the grounds that they do not have to provide this information Reason given being that under the criminal law they are not bound to provide information that incriminates them in unlawful activity. The onus of that proof lies with us. Fortunately we have enough in the normal paperwork to push forward. NEVER HAS this unlawful activity ever been denied at any stage. It is to do with their claimed right of "SETOFF" but every case has to be dealt with on its own circumstances and I would venture to suggest that anyone who has had this happen to take a good look at exactly what wnd when this happened in great detail.

 

Reason no threads, legal team instructions.

 

Reason few posts. Not much to offer. You have already in your wisdom collectively stated all the things we have already done on consumer matters. Why would I keep on ramming this stuff down people's throats. There is a more than adequate stickie on this site to explain it all.

 

At no stage have we ever advocated being a claimant in a consumer credit matter. When my anger first boiled over, yes I would have liked to have hammered them proactively. Rational thought then prevailed. It is the professionals advice and our own analysis from a long time ago that the evidential requirements based on balance of probabilities in civil courts mathematically shifted the odds just a few percentage points more in our favour if we defended. O-level mathematics would have taught that to anyone.

 

Reason for involvement here on this thread. As Jonoh rightly says factors on the ground have changed, the law has not. It is not all to do with Manchester either. Whilst I do not (as previously stated) agree with Nuke-em what he did do was open the opportunity to debate the reason why things in reality have changed "on the ground" and to examine properly the possibility of improving the methods advocated in dealing with the aggravation and hassle thrown out to all of us by the DCA industry. Clearly many mantra dispensers do not want this to happen. Again if a question is raised there is an immediate defence and debate is stifled if at all possible. Please explain to me WHY?

 

I have stood up and been counted on the basis that I do not have a solution and looked to the senior members to give a lead, not only to help me cope with the level of hassle but certainly those in more need than I.

 

It is a fact following the Supreme Court rulings and the failings of the OFT to act on our behalf, the Waksman judgement, McGuffick and more that the opposition have grown in confidence and are getting more difficult to deal with. This is undeniable. The legal professionals will also tell you so. Hence my question why is it so difficult for you authoritive members to discuss these problems openly and rationally?

 

Now can we get back to some really sensible discussion as it is a fact, like it or not, that the established, (I will refrain from using "old") mantras are becoming less effective particularly in the hands of new members and people just starting out. One the key aspects to any of these consumer issues is the destruction of someones quality of life by the DCA industry. Most of it is illegal or skating on the fringes. Is it therefore not incumbent upon us who are currently actively involved and those who have "already won" to at least try to improve what actually is a deteriorating situation for many.

 

oilyrag:)

[oilyrag]

mines two sugars with milk please when I get back

 

Have you any figrolls?

 

oilyrag:)

[oilyrag]

Hi Guys,

 

Nice brew Charlie!

 

I suppose I will have to put my neck in the noose. It is a while ago now but we were struggling to make full monthly payments on our Barclaycards. However we were making full payments just about, albeit a bit late at times. A subsequent schedule of payments showed that we were never more than 2 days late in getting the payment into the bank over the counter in cash.

 

Then suddenly after making a full payment 24 hours previously into the bank itself over the counter in cash we were hit with the Indian callcentres. Very rude very abusive, very aggressive. This went on for three days approximately every twenty minutes between the hours of 8 in the morning and 9 at night. In total nearly a hundred calls and some of these were multiples like having to put the phone down they would ring back immediately and have another go. I have pulled the phone plug out of the wall on one occasion. We have never been let of the hook since. This also occurrred straight after we had , in the interests of reasonableness, talked to a BC "Customer Relationship Manager" explaining that things would be like this for a while as I had just been diagnosed with a life threatening long term illness and subsequently backed up in writing and acknowledged by them.

 

This was probably the worst, and I do not know how we got though it. Then I read about the EU directives on data processing outside the geographic boundaries without your specific permission. In the mean while we are being attacked on all fronts by several offices of BC themselves, and in particular a very nasty bunch purporting to be in South Africa as and I quote " Barclays Bank have just been allowed to open up again over here so don't try the data processing thingy like all the other won't pay debtors."

 

I knew we then had to look at some form of legal solution and hence the CCA1974 came to light along with all the cold calling (and highly suspicious too good to be true) CMCs. Hence getting the whole thing into dispute. Just about the same time it came to light that the Indian callcentres were flogging all yours and my data on to the organised crime syndicates. Hence from then on it seemed all the hassle emanated from these shores.

 

I've already explained where we are and the involvement of the legal boys and girls. The hassle and aggro are on the increase again and at this moment accounts are with Mercers, Calders, Power2Contact, Resolvecall (another dormant outfit belonging to Scotcall) and Scotcall themselves, more dcas than accounts. The tactic they are trying to exploit now is to wrongfoot us by swapping mine and my OH's accounts around these various outfits and get us to make a mistake by confusion. Oh the start of the call will be friendly and courteous asking for us by Christian name then they will try to turn up the heat. Solicitors advice is to just put the phone down and ignore it logging tha call time and date and any identification you can get (like Moira Stuart ho ho). Or change the number and go ex directory, not an option for us. We are to ignore any correspondence from any of them unless it is the actual issue of proceedings. Doorstep visit threats to be ignored and we have papers here on their headed notepaper should any unfortunate actually arrive which reads the riot act in no uncertain terms. Much the same as CAG template but with additions about Appointed Representatives and the OFT guidelines etc with all the draconian consequences listed. All correspondence including envelopes to be dated on receipt and kept for future use in any court action they might wish to bring.

 

We have been through the being courteous to them and telling them to correspond only in writing via our legal reps. We are now on the rude abusive route not giving them a chance to speak once they have identified themselves. We have it down to about 3 or 4 times a day now with a letter of some kind once a week. As I previously posted, this week we have just logged the 500th call from Mercers/Calders. Who according to Companies House when we made complaint there are under investigation for illegal trading whilst dormant. As they are part of a financial institution they are require to file full audited accounts (Companies Act 2006 section enacted October 2008). Failure means that their directors have committed a criminal offence. Bu t the frequence and awkwardness is beginning to rise again particularly at the beginning of any month.

 

I don't feel that where we are and what we are doing is entirely satisfactory but as they have ignored the CAG type letters from us, formal "desist and stop or else" letters from our solicitors and injunctions, what else is there to be done. I do wish I had been able to record it but in one conversation with a really stroppy woman at Mercers I was told that they could do as they pleased, they were Barclays Bank and had the full backing of the Supreme Court and Parliament if they wished to break the law so I had better do as they said or else they would take us apart. Dynamite and I missed it. It is now just hearsay.

 

There you go guys discuss at will. I have started it off.

 

oilyrag:)

[oilyrag]

Hi MandM

just pushed the wrong button again and lost the post. However it all happened in earnest about three years ago. We have never used a CMC, it was all a bit too good to be true and too smug.

 

I had planned to be doing it all myself and we had reached the stalemate point really when I had the direst of health warnings, i.e. get rid of the stress or die probably tomorrow with the heart thing. At that point I luckily found CAG but I had to decide to use a solicitor. and after much heart searching I asked for help from a practice that I had searched out. I drew up my own crieria and ground rules. I must have looked at many tens of sites, made a short list and started phoning. It is still a rocky unpleasant road.

 

Point we are at We pay nothing and they won't go to court. We are now in the position of BC being told some weeks ago by the sols "Go to court if you dare we have no proposals to make" We are told in writing that we will be defended with all vigour whatever it takes at no further cost to ourselves. Costs were in fact with disbursements less than the total one months card payments. It is a bit of a comfort to know that you have some back up like this when you are dealing with the hassle.

 

I think they played every trick in the book, including stripping our company account which was deliberately kept in OD for just this reason. Thsi really shot them in the foot.

 

The status quo remains at stalemate, we don't pay anything and they wont go to court.

 

oilyrag:)

[oilyrag]

PriorityOne

 

Plaese read what I have said rather more carefully. I am NOT repeat NOT a claimant as such in any way to do with consumer credit affairs. So stop saying so. I have always repeat always taken the stance and I cannot make this any clearer that to defend is the correct way to go. It is also the professionals (litigation specialists in this field NO CMC either) approach as well.

 

The "claim" is a side issue which is being used as a "Sword of Damocles really. If they move against us then they full well know that a counterclaim is awaiting with all the necessary proofs as good as they can be are awaiting attention. I am in exactly the same boat as you it would seem and our sols have suggested that if we can live with a trashed credit file then "stuff em really. The results of their investigations let alone ours have revealed and I quote "nothing substantive that can be used legally against you". Hence no proposals, no F & F the court awaits if you dare is their written response to BC on all of our accounts.

 

The account that caused all the problems with lies and losses of our money plus a setoff has gone away, the refused SAR and they will not reaspond in any further way to our sols, now six months since any communication plus they refunded toute suite the "setoff they had illegally taken from our company account.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Sorry PO the other thing is that the thing that really really hurts a bank is having to pay money out or the mere thought of it.

 

oilyrag:)

[oilyrag]

Excellent PO thanks,

 

Heart now stable but still have irrepairable heart failure. Its easy enough to live with and things better now we have this lot a bit more under control.

Just have to make sure my time is always full designing and making the toys for big boys.

 

Best regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Good Luck Jonoh with your battles.

 

And Thank you Mand M.

 

What I can say as a real positive in all this is finding you are not alone. I know comments like this may be a bit off topic, but when you are plumbing the depths as we all seem to have at some time, you feel that you are completely alone. Debt for far too long has been seen as a social disease, you are "unclean" and hence the DCA plays on this.

 

I would say that the once you know you have people with you fighting exactly the same battles that gives a mind set which assists in dealing with all of the hassle. As I said I used to argue with them, now its rudeness and we do not even allow them to speak once they identify themselves, we read the riot act and put the phone down. Log the call and walk away. I vent the anger when its bad by doing something useful like splitting a bit more wood for the workshop stove. And yes there are bad times but I will admit to coming onto CAG and looking at some of the people here who are in a much worse state than me, reaching the conclusion that perhaps things are not that bad after all. Ready for the next call!

 

Sorry for the psychology type stuff but I know the mind set helps.

 

regards

oilyrag:)