DOING research to see if there is any CRIMINAL LAW we can use against DCA's

[jimbo45]

Hi all

I'm doing a bit of research --may be fruitless but I've got to try anyway -- into all sorts of OBSCURE and probably forgotten legislation to see if there is ANYTHING we can do to fight back against some of the bullying and DOWNRIGHT LIES that DCA's often send out.

 

For instance when demanding money without the necessary authority -- could MAIL FRAUD or EXTORTION charges be brought against the perpetrators.

 

Certainly harrassing telephone calls come under some of the various Communications Acts over mis-use of telecommunications equipment etc etc.

 

It might get nowhere but at least its worth a look -- I've seen enough threads in this Forum alone to see how these DCA's use every dirty trick in the book to extract money from their "Victims" and more often than not they get away SCOT FREE even when the same companies must have been reported over and over again to the OFT etc etc.

 

For example there must be a pile of paper the height of Mt. Everest against cr@ppyquest and some of the other more well known offenders but these rogues are STILL IN BUSINESS.

 

A Criminal charge would make it much harder for any of these companies to stay in business.

 

I'm sure there must be at least ONE piece of legislation out there.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[rameses_qc]

Well, there's lots of Criminal legislation ouyt there to do with fraud and similar. The problems will be a. getting the Police interested b. proving beyond a reasonable doubt And no doubt many others It may be a help to start researching caselaw - that's where the statutes and meanings are defined. it will be a long job, but I would think very interestingI wish you well in your quest.You could always bring a private prosecution, but that's costly, and if it looks as if there will be some ambiguity, the CPS can and probably will take over and drop the case, and you can do nothing about it

[jimbo45]

Thanks for that -- I think in anycase its worth doing because I have some spare time at the moment and it will teach me more about the Law.

 

It's much better than just randomly surfing the net and it *might* turn up something useful.

 

Once we've nabbed one DCA we can probably hound a few more out of Business.

 

It's time THESE people went running scared or at least OBEYED EXACTLY the protocols required in Debt collection.

 

I'm not saying people SHOULDN'T pay -- but circumstances change and what was affordable suddenly becomes unaffordable and in thse sorts of situations both Creditors and thie Collection agents should attempt to resolve the problems reasonably and accept the fact that receiving SOME payment resolved on an amicable basis is better than getting NOTHING due to their own GREEDY and OBNOXIOUS TACTICS.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[UnmoderatetheNet]

I have to agree with rameses, it is very likely going to be a fruitless journey, your best bet is to be on the receiving end of a delibrate criminal action by a DCA stepping over the mark.

 

case Law is really your best route and maybe enlist the help of a law grad

[sillygirl1]

It might seem to be a fruitless journey but I am with Jimbo45, fight fire with fire. The DCAs have been allowed to operate in this way because nobody really has bothered to challenge their legal rights. Now with the aid of CAG and similar sites the general public are becoming more clued up on their rights once they are in debt, and how they should be treated by their creditors.

 

You only have to look at the 11,000 complaints a day the banks are receiving to know the whole system of being in debt has been engineered by the 'powers behind the suits' to provide JOBS, the callcentre jobs in particular are a bone of contention with me - but I am digressing here.

 

What we need is a petition (my last petition got 260 votes in 4 months before it got closed due to the election, the current government has promised to look at all petitions which get 500 votes or more...) I think something along the lines of

 

"If a debt is sold ONLY the arrears can be collected, not the whole amount originally borrowed"

 

or even better

 

"A debt can only be sold (reassigned) ONCE"

 

We need something that can stuff the Debt Buyers and Sellers Group in its tracks and derail them completely.... take that element out of the equation and there is no cycle of people chasing the same debt under different company names....

 

Jimbo45, feel free to PM me and I will give any help I can...

[sillygirl1]

I was reliably informed that Mackenzie Hall get away with their stuff because they provide jobs in a very deprived area. Maybe we can get them on employment legislation as well as company law....

[dadofholly]

Hi all

I'm doing a bit of research --may be fruitless but I've got to try anyway -- into all sorts of OBSCURE and probably forgotten legislation to see if there is ANYTHING we can do to fight back against some of the bullying and DOWNRIGHT LIES that DCA's often send out.

 

For instance when demanding money without the necessary authority -- could MAIL FRAUD or EXTORTION charges be brought against the perpetrators.

 

Certainly harrassing telephone calls come under some of the various Communications Acts over mis-use of telecommunications equipment etc etc.

 

It might get nowhere but at least its worth a look -- I've seen enough threads in this Forum alone to see how these DCA's use every dirty trick in the book to extract money from their "Victims" and more often than not they get away SCOT FREE even when the same companies must have been reported over and over again to the OFT etc etc.

 

For example there must be a pile of paper the height of Mt. Everest against cr@ppyquest and some of the other more well known offenders but these rogues are STILL IN BUSINESS.

 

A Criminal charge would make it much harder for any of these companies to stay in business.

 

I'm sure there must be at least ONE piece of legislation out there.

 

Cheers

jimbo

 

If, as in the case of a certain DCA i know of, they are using tactics that are illegal - then the crime is "attempting to gain monetary advantage by deception" - Fraud to you and me.

 

In this case they may not even legaly own the debt. that is definatley illegal.

 

Also if they "Knowingly" present false info to a court - thats perjurey or attempting to pervert the course of justice.

 

As regards the Police - you must push it with them - if they refuse to listen demand to see the duty inspector. No joy there complain about the inspector to the Police Complaints Authority.

 

The Police are duty bound to investigate - but you may have to force the issue - i did on a seperate issue and from a no we wont be investigation they was jumping through hopps within 24 hours. Dont take no when you have evidence.

 

Even better why not make a block complaint about certain DCA's with other caggers - If they are claiming money, that they are not legally owed thats is simply fraud in anyones book.

Edited September 2, 2010 by dadofholly
Spelling

[merlin100]

Hi Jimbo, if I was doing this I would look to the Inchoate offences, ie, where only the element of mens rea would convict.

[rameses_qc]

Hi Jimbo, if I was doing this I would look to the Inchoate offences, ie, where only the element of mens rea would convict.

 

Well, to prove the state of mind, which is what mens rea is, is more difficult . Incohate offences such as conspiracy and attempts are notoriously difficult. Not sure you can prove mens rea for a company? You'd have to go for the person sending the letter. How do you prove who that was when it's automated? The person printing? automated - the person enveloping? also automated - the person composing the letter? how can you prove his intentions?In any case you would need more than mens rea to prove an incohate offenceThe test for mens rea is similar for handling stolen goods, which is : "CPS guidance on the Theft Acts, incorporating the Charging Standard states that:Belief is something short of knowledge. Thus an accused will believe that the goods are stolen if his state of mind is such that, with the knowledge he has, there can be no other reasonable conclusion except that the property is stolen. If, despite the circumstances, the accused still refuses to believe what should be obvious, this still amounts to a belief that the goods are stolen. Suspicion that goods are stolen is not enough, even when coupled with the fact that an accused shut his eyes to the circumstances - although those matters may be taken into account by a court when deciding whether or not an accused had the necessary knowledge or belief. Mere suspicion alone is however not sufficient"

[dadofholly]

Hi Jimbo, if I was doing this I would look to the Inchoate offences, ie, where only the element of mens rea would convict.

 

This also fits very well with a certain DCA i have in mind.

[sillygirl1]

Ramses_QC I think you CAN prove that letters were designed to intimidate and extort by the blurb on some of the DCA websites, if you read one it says "We use carefully designed letters to get the maximum benefit for our clients from their delinquent customers...."

[rameses_qc]

Ramses_QC I think you CAN prove that letters were designed to intimidate and extort by the blurb on some of the DCA websites, if you read one it says "We use carefully designed letters to get the maximum benefit for our clients from their delinquent customers...."

 

Does that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they intend to commit a criminal offence? I don't think it does. There are other explanations for this wording. No. I think you have to be careful and at least be as crafty and underhanded as they areHave a read at "Smith and Hogan" on criminal Law. And as I said, you really really really need to refer to case law. Every element of the criminal offence HAS to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so you have to start with the definition of that offence, from the Statute itself

[merlin100]

Hi Rameses, thanks for the input. Surely though, as we have read many times on here, someone gets a card through their letterbox from what appears to be a courier saying they should contact this "courier" regarding their "parcel" only to find it is nothing more than a collection agency attempting to collect money. Deception?

And what about the recent ones designed to make the recipient think they are from a geneology company attempting to construct a family tree? Deceptive too?

[harrassed senior]

Another avenue is Data Protection. What Rights do we actually have - if we HAVE these rights why are they so blatantly overlooked.

 

I think perhaps a 'template' letter that I (we) could use to send to everyone once they contact us, requesting them to reveal where and how they obtained our information and how much of it they hold on their DataBase. would perhaps be a start. Also requesting them to provide proof positive that they hold our express permission to hold that information on a database. Similar I know to a SAR request, but I would be sending this to everyone who contacts me not just DCA's. There are, of course people that legitimately hold my information, but, on that point, when did we ever sign up to the NHS; DVLA to name but 2, holding our information?

[merlin100]

Another avenue is Data Protection. What Rights do we actually have - if we HAVE these rights why are they so blatantly overlooked.

 

I think perhaps a 'template' letter that I (we) could use to send to everyone once they contact us, requesting them to reveal where and how they obtained our information and how much of it they hold on their DataBase. would perhaps be a start. Also requesting them to provide proof positive that they hold our express permission to hold that information on a database. Similar I know to a SAR request, but I would be sending this to everyone who contacts me not just DCA's. There are, of course people that legitimately hold my information, but, on that point, when did we ever sign up to the NHS; DVLA to name but 2, holding our information?

 

And maybe more importantly - when did anyone ever give bodies like the DVLA the right to sell this information on - especially to unregulated extortionists like clampers?

[rameses_qc]

Hi Rameses, thanks for the input. Surely though, as we have read many times on here, someone gets a card through their letterbox from what appears to be a courier saying they should contact this "courier" regarding their "parcel" only to find it is nothing more than a collection agency attempting to collect money. Deception?

And what about the recent ones designed to make the recipient think they are from a geneology company attempting to construct a family tree? Deceptive too?

 

Is the deception designed to get you to give them money? Or is it designed to get you to contact them? How can you prove which it is? See how difficult it could be? These kind of deceptive practices are covered by OFT guidelines, but proving an offence is totally different.

[papasmurf1cx]

Blackmail

 

Section 21 Theft Act 1968

 

21. Blackmail. — (1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—

(a)

that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

(b)

that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

(2) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

(3) A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

 

 

This offence would be ideal but there are many problems with it to overcome before a judge would even put it to a jury..

 

 

Normally there is a CONTRACT that the victim has signed and is the basis for the demands. However if various complaints are upheld one may have an argument that the use of menaces was not a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

 

The other problem is view a view to gain or cause loss. The contract lays out what the lawful terms and conditions are so I would have thought that one would have to rely on causing loss to you, and for you to rely on the various acts protecting you from unnecessary loss.

 

There are probably more keen minds that would advise on this all I do know is that the Police wouldn't want to touch an allegation such as this with a barge pole!!!!!

[rameses_qc]

That's why I say that caselaw is essential. Blackmail is not the one to use.The demand is not unwarrantedBut under caselaw, what is unwarranted? what is a demand? what are menaces?CPS wouldn't even look at it

[Deb T]

Just as much as an alleged debtor attempts to use the law/guidelines/regulations to combat/thwart the attempts of the Creditor/DCA to collect the money they think they are owed the

Creditor/DCA will use the same to wriggle out of any possibility of a criminal conviction with the difference being that the creditor and sometimes dca has more money than the alleged

debtor and can and often does employ an army of solicitors to protect their interests.

 

If it became an issue where there was a fast track to making a criminal case against a Creditor/dca for their activities it would be held up in the appeal court for years and in the case

of a conviction they'll simply keep going until an appeal this ruling goes in their favour and then you're back to square one.

[noddyaccount]

And maybe more importantly - when did anyone ever give bodies like the DVLA the right to sell this information on - especially to unregulated extortionists like clampers?

 

Do you remember the lords pulled up for offering influence for money , sadly overshadowed by the Mps expenses scandal , Lord Taylor bragged to an undercover journo that he had previously exerted influence/ tabled questions etc, with regards to legislation about credit reference agencies . If one could go back through the parliamentary record and assess his input , that may shade the legislation .

[UnmoderatetheNet]

You could apply these many arguments to utility companies and worse offendeds mobile phone companies who seem to use exploitation in there contracts.

 

I feel that fighting these goons using criminal law is fruitless. We the consumer is winning battle after battle with DCA using plain old simple civil law.

 

personally i like it when DCA intimidate because the debtor just ends up here and DCA gets a big fat zero after that.

 

The best way to win this war is using the tactics we are currently employing. Its all about the money. When DCA does not get any thats when OC start to hurt when OC start to hurt things start to happen.

 

ending DCA in there current form and the abolishment of debt sale can only come about by holding these aniamls to ransom using CCA and other civil laws.

 

So by all means explore criminal law but the truth is DCA is finished, this site grows daily and others spring up. DCA are going broke because of CAG, Cattles one of the biggest is aleady finished.

[Revenant]

The Ferguson v British Gas case has at least given us another bullet to fire where by the Judge basically said that letters sent by these so called automated systems can be classed a harassment as the system is controlled by a person

Taking that into account DCA's etc can no longer use thier idea of "Oh once the process starts . . lalala"

All be it slowly little things are happening that are helping us but it would be nice if things sped up a bit more

R