mackenzie hall letter FINAL OFFER/VODAFONE DEBT.

[buzby]

I'd be interested to hear from Lee on this too.

 

(1) Do VF sell their debts on to lowell, or are they (Lowell) collecting as a DCA to remit to VF?

 

(2) If VF are paid by Lowell (having sold the debt) and VF have not defaulted the customer when selling the debt, as the consumer has never explicitly given anyone other than VF to modify their Credit File, is the DCA advised that they cannot update the consumers credit file?

 

(3) On the basis that VF no longer have an interest in the debt (as ownership of it has been disposed of), if a debtor agrees to repay VF in full, rather than a DCA, will this offer be dismissed?

[buzby]

Thanks Lee. Martin, ICO's 'guidance' is just that. Like the Highway Code, has no legal standing. The point being made is that debtors who will have given their permission for their financial affairs to be disclosed to third parties, are doing so to facilitate the processing of their application. It still is possible for consumers to strike out this clause (or indeed any clause) they disagree with, as there remains the possibility the the firm will be happy to accept the customer on those terms (or perhaps not even notice the amendment).

 

Where it gets sneaky, is when networks have conspired with their debt-purchasing clients, by redrafting the 'disclosure' paragraph to include not just themselves, but any third party collection agency of their choosing. When challenged on this ability to pass on customer data to anyone at anytime (for the purposes of debt collection or recovery), this has successfully been challenged on a number of cases (that I'm aware of) as the term was too wide-ranging and effectively left the back door swinging open on the uses and misuse of personal data. Further, there was an even greater breach, in that there were no inhibitions on what these firms could do with the data obtained in this way. Some were selling it on (for money) to firms compiling lists of defaulters to easy-credit and loan companies.

 

Of course, where there is no express permission given for third parties to share, it is a slam-dunk breach and fully actionable. Bear in mind this has nothing to do with the provision of credit reference material to CRA's, and as such can do similar or greater harm to the data subject.

 

If mobile phone contracts were viewed correctly, in that the end result from the consumers viewpoint is a shiny mobile and a contract of a set length (erroneous on both counts) to what they actually are, a never-ending (unless explicitly cancelled after the minimum term) binding agreement for an easily stolen, misused fashion statement, that permits unspecified companies to say what they like and wreck your social standing through perhaps no direct fault of your own? Agreeing to such a 'deal' should be outlawed, as is is weighed so heavily against the consumer as to be a no brainer for anyone who looks as the process dispationally.

 

What you have to ask yourself is this. Why, for the sake of an shiny inducement worth perhaps £50-£150 are people prepared to risk everything for a SIM card (which is what the contract is actually FOR) when they could avid the [problem] and remain in control themselves?

[buzby]

Thanks Lee. I realise you feel this is a reasonable stance, but from the consumer's point of view it is not.

 

Imagine, a customer who is fed up with their treatment, bad service, customer services, call quality or reception problems, and decides to cut their losses and pass their account to a third party to arrange cancellation, or deal with all future communications.

 

Would VF (or indeed any other network) agree to this? I seriously doubt it. They'd either say that as they are 'not the account holder' they will not deal with third parties or disclose any further information. It is for this reason (lack of a level playing field), that if a network wishes to make money from their former customer by cutting their losses and selling the debt on, I would have no moral duty to deal with them - if the network didn't wish to deal with me, then goodbye and goodnight. You'll have wrecked by credit file, so what is the incentive to pay?

 

Absolutely none! If I paid, the only difference is the default changing from 'owed' to 'satisfied/settled'. Who does this benefit? Certainly not the account holder! Add to this that the DCA will, in most cases only be using its graded harassment letters to weaken the customer's resolve is hardly a satisfactory solution.

 

As for the threat of being taken to court, not many are - I don't have the time to trawl the UK court records, but of the main DCAs chasing mobile customers, I've only found 3 listed since the beginning of the year in Scotland (and no idea if this was a mobile debt originally) so I'd suggest this is not something a consumer needs to worry needlessly over.

 

Indeed, I heard that the most useful defence is that as 'society' treats your Credit File as your personal 'Report Card', if a network lists you as a defaulter, sells the debt to a DCA and they take you to court - an ideal defence to the judge is that your punishment (the Default, appearing like a Court CCJ) was your punishment. A DCA attempting to obtain a formal CCJ for the same debt would be unfair and contrary to natural justice. Their credit file showing two defaults, a CCJ and a Mobile default. Now that's what I call unfair, and from what I've heard, the courts do too.

 

If a network has decided to operate a policy where it divests itself of a customer for non payment, then at the same time the customer has no obligation to pay anyone else simply because the network says so. Recalling my original point - networks don't allow third parties to interfere with their contracts... why should the customer?

[buzby]

People take out contracts for shiny inducements every day.Why the focus on phones ?

If it was a [problem] then it would be outlawed.

Maybe you know something we dont ?

 

Who's "we"? The term '[problem]' is used very loosely in these forums - it does not mean anything illegal is taking place, simply that the consumer is shielded from the real issues for the sake of obtaing a handset, and NOT advised that their contract is only for the SIM, not the inducement.

 

Why focus on phones? Because everyone over 18 is a potential customer! Other similar inducements are limited in their appeal, (householders, for double glazing and home improvement projects & married couples with jobs and a family for holiday clubs and timeshares). For a phone contract you only need to be breathing, have a credit or debit card and pass a CRA check.

 

Pretty obvious really.

[buzby]

I think in the past 4 years we've all seen that consumers really haven't a clue what they're getting into. It is a world where they have a '18 month contract' and then the stop paying and the end, move and discover their default later. A mistake, certainly - but worthy of making them a pariah? Of course not. Are they told their financial dealings will reported to a DCA up front? I don't think so - they're the folk that don't read their T&Cs, and may routinely sign anything that is placed before them.

 

Sure, they get the deal they deserve, but we've got lots of legislation protection that is neatly avoided. Where is the ICO 'opt out' of sharing data? The whole situation is detrimental to the consumer, with no plus points, UNLESS you're job is guaranteed, and you use all your allocated inclusive bundles EVERY month.

[buzby]

As for them not accepting a customer who opts out - that's easily fixed. The ICO makes it a condition that any opt out cannot lead to a refusal. You are not denying the right of the network to check on you (that would be silly), but their right to pass on your dealings with them - which in no way can benefit you. DSR brought in requirements that most retailers wished they hadn't, and many choose to ignore until the point is pressed home - so there are precedents.

 

The disclosure requirement by the networks is because of the CRA's. It is THEIR insistence that the data be provided that has resulted in the current situation.

[buzby]

The fact that this advice is selective, and only relevant to CCA arrangements is the problem. It would need to be widened to include all consumer contracts - but I don't see that happening anytime soon.