Ruthbridge says I am 'libellous and defamatory'!!

[spurious]

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

 

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 'collections@....' 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,.

[ScarletPimpernel]

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 'collections@....' 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.

[RedVixen]

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

[ScarletPimpernel]

Incidentally, the OFT don't deal with consumer complaints, but they will accept information that assists them to monitor consumer credit licence holders, so send a statement of the facts to the Consumer Credit Fitness Licencing Team at the OFT.

[spurious]

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?

[cerberusalert]

For a statement to be defamatory it must lower the claimant's reputation

In that case the OP is on safe ground then.

[unclebulgaria67]

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

[UnitedFront]

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

[spurious]

I'd go straight for the bailiffs to be honest. I'd relish the opportunity to send them down to a DCA.

[cerberusalert]

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

[sillygirl1]

Do a complaint to Trading Standards via Consumer Direct, this should help stop their silly 'To the Occupier' letters which they aren't supposed to do....

[Blondie40]

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.

[Brigadier 1JCS]

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!!

[fuzzybobble]

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? 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.

 

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.

[Blondie40]

The letter I've seen is from Jason Evans, chasing a loan, that the original creditor had issued a County Court Claim for and then some 8 months later discontinued as they "had unable to locate any documents relating to their claim".

[Guest]

In that case the OP is on safe ground then.

 

[NailPost]

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.

[Fred Bassett]

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.

[Blondie40]

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.

[caledfwlch]

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