Jump to content


Ruthbridge says I am 'libellous and defamatory'!!


spurious
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4190 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

This one takes the biscuit, really....

 

1. I received a letter from Ruthbridge addressed to 'The Occupier' demanding I call some number and speak to some person. I did, but nobody answered. I left a message, but nobody got back to me. I then sent them, by special delivery, a letter informing them that no further co-operation would be made unless they write to the person they are looking for and state their business.

 

2. About 10 days later, I receive a letter addressed to me informing me that I have "failed" to make contact to their letter which they now claim was addressed to me. No details of any sort are given other than a demand to phone them and a threat of somebody coming to visit me if I don't.

 

3. I send another special delivery letter back advising them that they have broken several debt collection guidelines as laid down by the Office of Fair Trading. I print them off a copy of the guidelines and highlight each of the (several) areas I believe they are in violation, which of course they were. I ask them to treat the letter as a formal complaint and provide a full response.

 

4. I receive a letter today, this time not generic and on much nicer paper, which is a 'final response' to my complaint. Ruthbridge claim not to have received the first letter, which they signed for. They call my remarks 'libellous and defamatory' and insist they have not broken any guidelines. They say that they have made a mistake based on the 'wholly eroneous' information provided to them, and that it is clear that there is nobody of my name living at my address and they should never have written to me there. They sent this letter to me, at the same address :rolleyes:

 

I will shortly be making complaints with the OFT, but in their second letter, it is true that they didn't say they were acting in relation to a debt. They called this a "clear assumption" on my part. However, their letter says I had to call their "recovery division"; their letter gave an email address to contact as '[email protected]' and their letter had payment options at the bottom of it. I'd have said it was a reasonable assumption.

 

Anybody else experience anything similar? It's amazing that these clowns think they can sail so close to the wind and get away with it,.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will shortly be making complaints with the OFT, but in their second letter, it is true that they didn't say they were acting in relation to a debt. They called this a "clear assumption" on my part. However, their letter says I had to call their "recovery division"; their letter gave an email address to contact as '[email protected]' and their letter had payment options at the bottom of it. I'd have said it was a reasonable assumption.

 

Comedy gold. The other obvious point is that Ruthbridge are debt collectors - they don't do anything else, so what would any reasonable person expect correspondence from them to be about?

 

'Libellous and defamatory'? I think not. Unless, of course, they can prove that you published the letter (i.e. it wasn't just a letter sent to them). For a statement to be defamatory it must lower the claimant's reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. In other words, it's not up to the hard-of-thinking employees of Ruthbridge to decide.

 

In summary, then, they make a series of c0ck-ups, you bring it to their attention, so you are guilty of libel and defamation. If ever there was a letter that demanded a response with a reference to Arkell vs Pressdram, this is it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruthbridge have been chasing my brother who hasn't lived at my address for over a year - I got a to the occupier letter which I am know is against the guidelines so they can hardly claim yours is a one off - They also threatened to to take him to court for bankruptcy as far as I know all of his debts are now statute barred

 

Send the stuff to the OFT they made the guideline they can make the decision (though their teeth are not very sharp) I can only assume ruthbridge are already on some sort or warning for dodgy practices

If you can keep you head when all of those around you are losing theirs try parking your helicopter somewhere else

 

 

The PPI Saga

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a statement to be defamatory it must lower the claimant's reputation
In that case the OP is on safe ground then. :lol:

Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Link to post
Share on other sites

They also invited me to take it further with the Financial Ombudsman if I wasn't happy, but I'm not sure they would be relevant?

 

Yes do take this to the Financial ombudsman. You have their final response so you can do this. Ruthbridge could be charged a £500 case fee by the FOS and it would cost you nothing. If the FOS rule in your favour which is highly likely, you would be awarded a sum to cover your costs and some for compensation. However, getting the money from Ruthbridge would be more difficult. The other good thing about an FOS complaint, is that if you are successful, this should not go unnoticed by the OFT.

 

So go ahead and make them pay. The FOS may take some time to deal, so don't expect any result for many months.

 

These are the FOS complaint details.

FAQs - making a complaint

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes do take this to the Financial ombudsman. You have their final response so you can do this. Ruthbridge could be charged a £500 case fee by the FOS and it would cost you nothing. If the FOS rule in your favour which is highly likely, you would be awarded a sum to cover your costs and some for compensation. However, getting the money from Ruthbridge would be more difficult. The other good thing about an FOS complaint, is that if you are successful, this should not go unnoticed by the OFT.

 

So go ahead and make them pay. The FOS may take some time to deal, so don't expect any result for many months.

 

These are the FOS complaint details.

FAQs - making a complaint

 

Could always sell that debt on to a Debt Collection Agency :D

I am rarely around these parts any more. I only stop by when something has come to my attention that has sufficiently annoyed me so as to persuade me to awake from my nap and put in my two pence.

 

I am a final year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. Always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Garnishee Order on their bank a/c costs them dearly as well as if effectively freezes their a/c for 24 hrs. ;)

Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check their website out Ruthbridge Ltd it seems they are specialists in Tracing, Debt Recovery, Legal Services and Financial Status Reporting.

 

They send a letter addressed to the occupier and they can then tell their clients yes someone lives at that address and we'll chase them for this debt.

 

They have some lovely quotes on there, including that old 17th Century Proverb "Knowledge is Power" that applies both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Emanual Amissah ''the boss' alias Jason Evans, Julia Edwards and other names

that appear to be from various departments of this bunch of clowns specialise

in stuff no other DCA will touch they are really the bottom of the food chain in the business,I have seen on here posts regarding all manner of threats they have made. Calling them morons would be an insult to morons as a whole!!:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: !For a statement to be defamatory it must lower the claimant's reputation."

 

Is it actually possible for their reputation to get any lower than it is? :lol: Unless we shrink Ruthbridge down to supatomic particle size and then give Stephen Hawking a call and see if at that scale that Quantum Physics and it's effects come into play. :eek:

 

I must stop watching, "The Big Bang Theory." and if I do continue I should spend more time on the bits most males watch it for. :D

These are video links to show how I deal with Debt Collectors.

 

Fly fishing for C.A.R.S

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zPtzK8FqE6k&feature=related

 

Frederickson International don't accept my card type

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZBULlWW6Q&feature=related

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Jason has witten to you personally at your address it would be wise to check your credit records with the three main credit reference agencies. If our Jason has written any sort of remark on there that is in any way negative without the slightest scrap of proof that the debt they're claiming exists he should be made to remove it otherwise he will face a real claim for libel and defamation and the expense that involves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a statement to be defamatory it must lower the claimant's reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.

 

Therefore, it is not possible to to defame Ruthbridge.

Before you criticise another man you should first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you criticise him, you'll be a mile away and he won't have any shoes on.

 

Don't get me confused with somebody knowledgeable by all those green blobs. I got most of them by making people laugh.

 

I am not European, I am English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Jason has witten to you personally at your address it would be wise to check your credit records with the three main credit reference agencies. If our Jason has written any sort of remark on there that is in any way negative without the slightest scrap of proof that the debt they're claiming exists he should be made to remove it otherwise he will face a real claim for libel and defamation and the expense that involves.

 

Done that, nothing on from Ruthbridge, not even an address check.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Garnishee Order on their bank a/c costs them dearly as well as if effectively freezes their a/c for 24 hrs. ;)

 

It would be wonderful to time a garnishee order to go into force the day that staff pay would begin its journey to staff accounts ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...