Debt recovery company insider

[loopinlouie]

Agree to any newbies reading, never never give personal information to anyone offering help via personal mail. If advice given is so readily on offer if can be given on the open forum with no need for personal details or personal info. Dcas do read these forums and we know they dont have our interest at heart:D.

[spacemonkeypg]

Dear Spacemonkey

 

What you have to understand is, the majority of people who use this forum have been at the end of their rope because of the tactics of scurrilous DCA's. I for one have been so scared to answer the phone or pick up my post due to the underhand, unlawful and down right thuggish acts of two notorious DCA's who have had their knuckles rapped for their trouble (Ist Credit and Connaught Collections).

 

Ist Credit said that they were the "owner" of the debt and Connaught Collections were acting on their behalf. The alleged original creditor didnt even appear on the SD!

 

Because we are at the sharp end of the actions of DCA's we have experienced things that you say shouldnt happen.

 

Declaring you work for a DCA (I know, I know! not as a debt collector) and declaring that you want to help us was bound to stir suspicion, especially seeing as you offered to give me advice on a SB debt in private, you have to understand that some DCA's have printed out threads from the forum to use as evidence in court!

 

You said that you havent lied, well you may not have lied per se but you have been economical with the truth. I originally asked you how debts are aquired and if bought how were they bought - your answer was "Debts are not purchased this idea has been banded around for some time now" This was a catagorical statement, there were no adendums for your company or your experience this was blunt black and white statement. It was only when other posters took you to task on this you admitted that some debts were purchased.

 

As someone who works for an industry who is posting on a consumer forum in support against that industry it is only natural that we are going to question your motives, the authenticity of your desire to help will be in question and where, as I said before; do your loyalties lie?

 

Personally it doesnt affect me if you post on here and "help" people because I can learn little from you, you havent answered my questions or given me credible answers, I do however worry on behalf of members of the forum who will take your word for gospel or divulge something they shouldnt and jeaopordise their case.

 

My reasoning behind asking you to speak about your SB in private message was on the basis that should it in turn appear to have come from the company i work for then i would be in a difficult situation. I am unaware of DCA's using such forums as evidence in court rooms - i have read the letter from a DCA regarding this forum and her response in kind. But as for those forms of action i was unaware.

 

Granted i should have made the point of purchased and non-purchased debt more clear but i believe i have covered this point to a great extent now.

 

AS for my motives, i work within the DCA industry yes. This is not my industry background. I have also been, as stated before a victim of DCA's please feel free to check MSE forum. As such i thought it would be welcomed to know that there is someone who could maybe help in what ever way they could by showing a different side of the fence.

 

TBH i CBA much any more i offered i hand that was refused in a way which was surprising. Dare i say it maybe the responses go against the ethic of this site and i believe the forum rules?

 

No one should take any ones word as gospel from an open internet forum, to do so would be utterly foolish. So i would never incite or recommend anyone to do so, not from my advice or any other persons advice on this forum. Be them claimed expert or otherwise.

[spacemonkeypg]

Agree to any newbies reading, never never give personal information to anyone offering help via personal mail. If advice given is so readily on offer if can be given on the open forum with no need for personal details or personal info. Dcas do read these forums and we know they dont have our interest at heart:D.

 

Correction do not give personal details out in the open forum either! There are more than DCA's who might read this forum!

[broken arrow]

I am sorry you have been a victim of a DCA, but to go and work for one, you then lose my sympathy.

 

I am aware of 3 CAG members where the DCA has used posts against them in court.

 

This is my last post on this thread as it is pointless

[Guest Cartaphilus]

No one should take any ones word as gospel from an open internet forum, to do so would be utterly foolish.

 

No, they should not.

 

I have also been, as stated before a victim of DCA's please feel free to check MSE forum.

 

I might just do that.

Dare i say it maybe the responses go against the ethic of this site and i believe the forum rules?

 

Hmmm. Reversal?

 

Oh, well, I'll leave you to it.

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

Of course this only becomes apparent when the defendant has the knowledge, capacity and 'audacity' to erm defend and even then they have to get the judge to see through the smoke and mirrors to ascertain who actually does hold title.

It seems to be industry practice to plead that the deed of assignment is sensitive and not neccesary and many low level judges seem all to eager to accept this whilst ignoring the fact that the defendants financial and personal details are no more no less sensitive. A well argued defence should ensure that the deed and any contract attached to the deed must be presented, strangely the DCA's are often loathe to actually prove legally that they own the debt when pressed.

 

One wonders what would ever happen to the debt 'purchase' industry model in the event an HMRC commisioned investigative bureau were ever to trace the full and true path of the 'debt' from default stage and the quickly burgeoning fees which bloat the paper value of the debt through to writedown and eventual sale and then subsequent sales, collections, writeoffs.

 

I've a sneaky feeling more than one instance of double accounting would be found in many cases with written down debts reinflated and re-entering the balance sheets. Securitised debts are often sold caveat emptor then underperforming accounts quietly transferred back to the originator to keep the securitisation performing.

 

Your assertion that debt purchase is not as common as we would believe only bolsters my suspicions that regardless of the DCA's claims to the debtor, alleged debtor or even judge, often they are in fact collecting for the OC who desire to be distanced from an industry that was described in parliament as 'Rotten to the core'.

 

The actual deed of assignment shows what the DCA paid for the debt - usually not more than 20p in the £. Hence the unwillingness to produce it. Have you actually seen or heard anything to suggest that debts are passed back under the table to OCs or indeed actually still owned by them when they have claimed to have sold them?

[spacemonkeypg]

I am sorry you have been a victim of a DCA, but to go and work for one, you then lose my sympathy.

 

I am aware of 3 CAG members where the DCA has used posts against them in court.

 

This is my last post on this thread as it is pointless

 

Yes i see your point i should remain unemployed to satisfy comments like that. Get real in today's market a job is a job and i am grateful to be able to provide for my family

[Guest Cartaphilus]

So i would never incite or recommend anyone to do so, not from my advice or any other persons advice on this forum.

So, how were you going to offer help then if you say that above? Also, I always tell the truth, I also speak openly about things as they are not as how they should be 'perceived' or seen to be or TBH 'believe to be' ... I also look for the truth in matters in whatever I read, hear or see to get to the real issue at hand. It also expands my knowledge like anything else in life. Things I don't know about or am unsure about I won't post, seems sensible to me. Because I'll tell you why: a very long time ago I became a very popular person, so much so that many came to rely on me, I didn't want to be popular, in fact I don't seek it and am a very private person but it happened. It happened because I was kind, offered help to people, was able to provide them the knowledge they needed to overcome a barrier in their lives at that point, simply by being there are the right moment. I offered that help with no catches it was simply how I am.

 

On the other hand, I began to worry very deeply ... about the responsibilities involved. So I ceased doing so once I began to appreciate more how many had come to rely on me. Just so happens that the things I'd learnt through simply living through them were the right kinds of knowledge that was needed at the time.

 

But I still do not understand why you would go to work as you said you did ... for the very thing that has caused you so much pain? I worked for someone once I know I couldn't do it again because of the attrocious behaviour I saw going on between not only staff but because of how they treated the public, apallingly. It's the thing that what the public never see, never get to learn about. So I'd imagine that working in this industry is going to be, shall we say, playing on your 'conscience' a lot whether you were hurt by it or not. Or may do.

 

Get real in today's market a job is a job and i am grateful to be able to provide for my family

 

But you said you went to work for them because of the pain you'd suffered at their hands originally? Are you now changing that to it 'being purely a job' and that's all it is? A means to an end, even though as you said it was within the industry that caused you so much pain? Yes, those on the receiving ends of this industry also have families - some don't they face all of it alone - and suffer the same pain.

 

BTW, I do not want to fight with you, I just want to understand you a little better.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Cartaphilus

[spacemonkeypg]

The actual deed of assignment shows what the DCA paid for the debt - usually not more than 20p in the £. Hence the unwillingness to produce it. Have you actually seen or heard anything to suggest that debts are passed back under the table to OCs or indeed actually still owned by them when they have claimed to have sold them?

 

Where the debt is not purchased the debt does still belong to the OC. However once the contracted period has elapsed lets say 12 months for instance then the DCA will stop working on behalf of the OC.

 

Some DCA's continue to work on the behalf of the OC on non-purchased debt if the debtor is indeed in a form of repayment plan.

 

For risk of being shot down that is the general conception i get from my experience

[spacemonkeypg]

No, they should not.

 

 

 

I might just do that.

 

 

Hmmm. Reversal?

 

Oh, well, I'll leave you to it.

 

Feel free to check its an open forum. Reversal in what way?

[spacemonkeypg]

So, how were you going to offer help then if you say that above? Also, I always tell the truth, I also speak openly about things as they are not as how they should be 'perceived' or seen to be or TBH 'believe to be' ... I also look for the truth in matters in whatever I read, hear or see to get to the real issue at hand. It also expands my knowledge like anything else in life. Things I don't know about or am unsure about I won't post, seems sensible to me. Because I'll tell you why: a very long time ago I became a very popular person, so much so that many came to rely on me, I didn't want to be popular, in fact I don't seek it and am a very private person but it happened. It happened because I was kind, offered help to people, was able to provide them the knowledge they needed to overcome a barrier in their lives at that point, simply by being there are the right moment. I offered that help with no catches it was simply how I am.

 

On the other hand, I began to worry very deeply ... about the responsibilities involved. So I ceased doing so once I began to appreciate more how many had come to rely on me. Just so happens that the things I'd learnt through simply living through them were the right kinds of knowledge that was needed at the time.

 

But I still do not understand why you would go to work as you said you did ... for the very thing that has caused you so much pain? I worked for someone once I know I couldn't do it again because of the attrocious behaviour I saw going on between not only staff but because of how they treated the public, apallingly. It's the thing that what the public never see, never get to learn about. So I'd imagine that working in this industry is going to be, shall we say, playing on your 'conscience' a lot whether you were hurt by it or not. Or may do.

 

In that essence you have summed up the reason of my original posting.

 

But i have just posted a few minutes ago that unfortunately i am not in the position to refuse any form of employment. If i was to do so i would be stupid as would any other person in today's market. It would also put me into the hands of the more scrupulous DCA's out there when i cannot afford to pay my bills.

 

It must be said that from what i have seen non of the illegal activities conducted by some DCA's mentioned have been witnessed by me at the company i currently work for.

[spacemonkeypg]

But you said you went to work for them because of the pain you'd suffered at their hands originally? Are you now changing that to it 'being purely a job' and that's all it is? A means to an end, even though as you said it was within the industry that caused you so much pain? Yes, those on the receiving ends of this industry also have families - some don't they face all of it alone - and suffer the same pain.

 

BTW, I do not want to fight with you, I just want to understand you a little better.

 

No sorry i dont know if i did not put it across right or it was misunderstood but i did not go to work for a DCA because i had any form of contact with them through debt it was on the basis i needed to work.

[loopinlouie]

Correction do not give personal details out in the open forum either! There are more than DCA's who might read this forum!

 

 

Well anyone reading this thread and my post along with yours would know what I was refering too, when becomming a member caggers are advised not to give out personal information, that is why we have a cagger id and dont use name, anyone accidently giving such information finds a friendly site team member with a editing brush:grin:

 

Its also common sence and my post refered to you asking for information to supposedly as you say see if your company was involved and therefor you would feel I suppose a conflict of interes,

 

DODGY

 

A says to forum I have a problem with dca, what shall I do. General response is normally enough to give indication of what to do next.

 

I ask anyone here,:grin: since when is any dca and expert at debt law?:grin::grin::grin:They are expert harassers8)

 

HAHAHAHAHAHHH I nearly pe*d my p*nts.

[spacemonkeypg]

Well anyone reading this thread and my post along with yours would know what I was refering too, when becomming a member caggers are advised not to give out personal information, that is why we have a cagger id and dont use name, anyone accidently giving such information finds a friendly site team member with a editing brush:grin:

 

Its also common sence and my post refered to you asking for information to supposedly as you say see if your company was involved and therefor you would feel I suppose a conflict of interes,

 

DODGY

 

A says to forum I have a problem with dca, what shall I do. General response is normally enough to give indication of what to do next.

 

I ask anyone here,:grin: since when is any dca and expert at debt law?:grin::grin::grin:They are expert harassers8)

 

HAHAHAHAHAHHH I nearly pe*d my p*nts.

 

At no point have i made out that i am an expert in debt law lol

[PGH7447]

Where the debt is not purchased the debt does still belong to the OC. However once the contracted period has elapsed lets say 12 months for instance then the DCA will stop working on behalf of the OC.

 

 

Time to shoot this one down, if this is the case then why do I and others get contacted on a yearly basis by idiot DCA's like robbingscum way and 1st crudit on debts that are clearly in dispute, but becaue they have PURCHASED them, as stated in their THREAT-O-GRAMS, they still try and collect with their idle threats, as stated robbingscum and 1st crud, send me a court summons PLEASE, I am sick of your yearly pathetic attemtps to collect - especially if as stated by this poster YOU DONT BUY DEBTS

[PGH7447]

and did you not say that a stat demand must come from the OC?

 

well guess what, this is from a new poster today

 

2. The Stat Demand has been served by the creditor Lowell Portfolio I Ltd and was assigned to them by SAV Credit Ltd last year who are listed in Part C as the original creditor. The original account was actually with HFC (Marbles) and they are not mentioned at all on the Stat Demand. Does this invalidate it? Obviously, no supporting paperwork was supplied such as the notice of assignment etc...

3. The amount claimed (>£12k) is higher than the amount on the origianl (invalid) default notice sent by Marbles.

Apologies to the Original poster for hi-jacking some of his thread

 

Do come back when you have something useful to say

[spacemonkeypg]

Again refer to the post completely in regards of DCA's purchasing and not purchasing debt to educate yourself properly please.

 

If in the instance where the debt is in dispute, and you have informed the DCA of this you should then report them to the CSA if they are members. If they are not members then to the OFT.

 

Where this occurs it is likely that they have purchased a portfolio in which your debt was included. If you have informed 1st credit that you dispute the amount and they have not forwarded this information to the DCA on passing your debt to them then they are at fault.

 

If the DCA continues to contact you for payment terms without resolving the disputed amount first then they are also in breach of the regulation.

 

send me a court summons PLEASE, I am sick of your yearly pathetic attemtps to collect

 

Again i repeat i am not a collector so it is not ME who is contacting you.

[spacemonkeypg]

Point to note

 

In cases of a disputed debt there is a clear procedure that a DCA should go through depending on the type of debt also

Edited May 25, 2010 by spacemonkeypg

[microbar]

Is it script monkey or spacemonkey,

Sorry m8 but we have heard all your we want to help you crap on many occasions,

Do yourself a favour and let us look after ourselves and maybe look for a Career change.

[sickboy]

Sorry you have lost me there

 

I only jest!

 

31.9.33 Equitable assignment of a right of action

 

 

 

An assignment of a right of action which does not comply with the requirements of section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (see paragraph 31.9.29) may amount to good equitable assignment. The official receiver must bear in mind that with an equitable assignment of a legal chose the assignee may sue the debtor party in his own name but, as the legal title remains vested in the assignor, the company or trustee must be joined in the proceedings before the assignee can recover any damages (Weddell and Another [1988] 1 Ch 26). With an equitable assignment of an equitable chose and where the whole of the interest is vested in the assignee (ie it is an absolute assignment) the company or trustee need not be joined in the proceedings (Cater v Croydon Canal [1834] 4 Y & C Ex 593)

link

 

So from your experience it's usually an equitable assignment of legal chose based on a contract, as the OC retains an interest (not absolute) it is over a fixed period of time.

 

But when the OC washes his hands of the debt, it can then become an equitable assignment of equitable chose (Absolute), which is when things can turn ugly.

 

Do some of the DCA's use their so called in house solicitors to issue a claim on behalf of the OC who has no interest in the debt?. As the contract is confidential, is it to hide their own interest in the debt and to avoid liability?

Edited May 25, 2010 by sickboy
Oops confused myself there! lol

[spacemonkeypg]

I only jest!

 

 

 

link

 

So from your experience it's usually an equitable assignment of equitable chose based on a contract, as the OC retains an interest (not absolute) it is over a fixed period of time.

 

But when the OC washes his hands of the debt, it can then become an equitable assignment of equitable chose (Absolute), which is when things can turn ugly.

 

Do some of the DCA's use their so called in house solicitors to issue a claim on behalf of the OC who has no interest in the debt?. As the contract is confidential, is it to hide their own interest in the debt and to avoid liability?

 

Sick boy thank you for taking my thread seriously unlike other comments on this post.

 

On a non-portfolio purchased debt the OC remains ownership of the debt in its entire form. The DCA work as agents for the OC for the collection of monies owed. There are varying forms of this dependant on the debt owed CCA and non credit debt are definably different and has different laws proceeding the action that can be taken, as i am sure you are aware.

 

Hence forth why CCA debt is in general purchased debt on large scale. Some DCA's will claim to have purchased debt or their agents shall we say will claim to have when in fact they are only acting as agents.

 

Some DCA's do use there form of in-house solicitors to issue and produce different claims yes. Some of these "in-house" parties are in fact associates of the DCA or have some form of interest within its business.

 

For example if a debt (non purchased) is passed to a DCA and the DCA is not receiving payment from the debtor then dependant on contract they will issue a SD. The follow up process of the SD would then be passed to the OC or client if they wished to do so. This is a common practice.

[Pinky69]

You've completely lost him now. He is obviously only the tea boy - and we haven't even got to Default Notices and unlawful rescission yet. Goodness know what he will do when we start on multi agreements.

[spacemonkeypg]

Yes i am completely lost your right thats why i have failed to respond to the question, or is it that YOU dont understand.

 

Pinky69 you seem to have a real issue, not sure if its with me or just in general

[spacemonkeypg]

and did you not say that a stat demand must come from the OC?

 

well guess what, this is from a new poster today

 

2. The Stat Demand has been served by the creditor Lowell Portfolio I Ltd and was assigned to them by SAV Credit Ltd last year who are listed in Part C as the original creditor. The original account was actually with HFC (Marbles) and they are not mentioned at all on the Stat Demand. Does this invalidate it? Obviously, no supporting paperwork was supplied such as the notice of assignment etc...

3. The amount claimed (>£12k) is higher than the amount on the origianl (invalid) default notice sent by Marbles.

Apologies to the Original poster for hi-jacking some of his thread

 

Do come back when you have something useful to say

 

No i did not say the SD must come from the OC. The DCA will consult with the OC prior to issue of the SD!

 

Again please re-read the post.

[Jasper1965]

Point to note

 

In cases of a disputed debt there is a clear procedure that a DCA should go through depending on the type of debt also

 

1) Ignore dispute.

2) Continue harrassment as before.

3) Pass/sell debt on to another DCA.

4) Goto (1).