Article in the Daily Mail about Debt Collecting

[jimbo45]

Hi there

My problem with this article is that it essentially dealt with people with relatively trivial (by CAG's standards) amounts of debt. Of COURSE those being threatened who aren't liable aren't too amused but I think Mobile Phone Bills are just a TINY part of this.

 

If you read most of the problems here on THESE FORUMS it's people being hounded for usually a Few THOUSAND QUID from Credit Cards with dubious CCA's that were mis sold in the first place, then dealing with things like CCJ's and suddenly realising that what you thought was an UNSECURED DEBT could potentially leave you home at risk.

 

If the article had mentioned more of the aggressive tactics DCA's use in these cases I think it would certainly be more relevant.

 

However it's a start.

 

Cheers

 

jimbo

[coledog]

The press/TV seem obsessed with only featuring the 'innocent' - OAPs etc hounded for debts that cannot possibly be theirs. The attitude is that if you owe money you should pay it. There is no recognition that people who have genuine difficulties have any rights when dealing with debt collectors.

[Emma Royd]

I think the DM deliberately lock their threads so noone can comment. I'm always posting comments that either get ignored or the thread just seems to be locked.

 

Ps Don't think you are allowed to leave links either. You can on the Guardian Site.

[Bookworm]

The press/TV seem obsessed with only featuring the 'innocent' - OAPs etc hounded for debts that cannot possibly be theirs. The attitude is that if you owe money you should pay it. There is no recognition that people who have genuine difficulties have any rights when dealing with debt collectors.

Well, you can understand why: If you're going to feature the DCAs as the bad guys, you can't possibly give them a chance to mitigate about some of the debtors being not so lily-white either, can you... This is the media we're talking about, black and white, no room for any shade of grey.

 

The law is the same for everyone (unless you're a banker or George Michael...) and the one that protects the hounded pensioners also protects those who deliberately set out to defraud certain companies. I've just been reading a thread where the OP SEEMS to have ordered stuff from a catalogue and got 1st arrears letter 2 months later, so unless there is an overwhelmingly good reason for that, it looks as if that person set out to basically steal from the catalogue company. Now I have no sympathy for the catalogue companies whatsoever, and I try not to judge, but in this instance, I find it a bit difficult to tell that person that she has nothing to worry about, catalogues don't have credit agreements and are pretty powerless.

 

But can you imagine if the media were to use a case like that for their article? There are not a lot of people who would say to her "good on you" and boo the DCAs now hounding her, instead she would be paraded as the reasons why the DCAs have to be so "tough" and alas sometimes make mistakes.

 

Far easier to just show the hounded poor bstrds and leave the genuine defaulters out, otherwise it may confuse the reader too much.

[dadofholly]

I think the DM deliberately lock their threads so noone can comment. I'm always posting comments that either get ignored or the thread just seems to be locked.

 

Ps Don't think you are allowed to leave links either. You can on the Guardian Site.

 

I think the DM will allow you to leave a quote if:

 

1. You have a subscription to the paper
   
2. You agree with all their views
   
3. Tell them what a wonderful paper they have
   
4. Are not an immigrant
   
5. You are not a scrounger, (i.e. receive any benefit except child support)
   
6. Want to ban anyone from being between the ages of 10 and 25
   
7. Support capital punishment for all crime - except going through a speed camera to fast - which is obligatory
   
8. And can provide photo graphic evidence of yourself worshiping at the feet of BaronessThatcher.
   

Unfortunatley, i did try to leave a comment but my car just aint fast enough to make that damn camera flash.

[Bookworm]

LOL

[Guest HeftyHippo]

I wonder how many licences the OFT has actually withdrawn - I'd bet it will be single figures. The whole system of consumer credit licencing is unfit for purpose, from the way in which dormant companies can get licences (and thus protect their owners), to Trading Standards' and the OFT's hopelessly inadequate enforcement.

 

The usual drivel from the CSA - of course they receive few complaints - they represent the DCAs, who have signally failed to reform the industry from within.

 

you might be interested in this quote from Hansard:

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090422/debtext/90422-0019.htm

 

scroll down the page (my emphasis added)

 

"22 Apr 2009 : Column 338

Debt Collection (Consumer Credit Act)

 

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Mr. Ian Austin.)

7.1 pm

 

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): The purpose of this debate is to draw the House’s attention to the abysmal state of debt collection methodology and the spirit governing it in the UK and the wholly inadequate safeguards for good and innocent people who are endeavouring to pay debt or who dispute it. It is a matter of fact that the debt collection industry relies on a combination of fear and ignorance to make a profit, and that is despicable.

In 2006, the Office of Fair Trading and related agencies received some 5,700 complaints. In 2007, that figure had reached 8,000 and more than 11,000 complaints had been received by August 2008. That is a total of 25,000 complaints in three years, but the Office of Fair Trading took formal action—such as licence revocation or suspension, or the imposition of other requirements on debt collection agencies—in only four cases. I shall illustrate tonight that that is a wholly inadequate response and that Parliament has failed to stiffen the sinews of the OFT and give it legislative powers and duties to protect and promote the interests of innocent people.

By coincidence, in the past 24 hours, the OFT has taken action against an outfit called Mackenzie Hall. Some of its procedures were found to breach the OFT’s guidelines. Ray Watson, the OFT director of consumer credit, said:

 

• “Persisting with debt collection activity when debts are in dispute can give rise to significant consumer detriment, particularly where vulnerable consumers are involved.”
  

But that is a pathetic response, because similar abuse happens every day in countless agencies. All we see is limp and late action by the OFT.

How did I come to seek this debate? There were several reasons and I shall share them with the House. First, a constituent wrote to me in March because he had received a menacing letter from the communications company 3, which claimed that he owed it more than £800. The letter requested that he

 

• “treat this matter with the utmost urgency. Failure to respond within 20 days of the date of this notice will result in our chosen specialist debt purchasing partner Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd directly contacting you to arrange repayment of the outstanding balance.”
  

This menacing letter totally bewildered my constituent, who had never had knowledge of 3, or dealings with it. As his Member of Parliament, I wrote to the company on 26 March. I asked what all that was about and said that my constituent was bewildered and anxious, but I have not received a reply—except for the fact that, by another amazing coincidence, there was a phone call to my office just two hours before I commenced this Adjournment debate, asking for more information. That gives an idea of the sort of cavaliers and cowboys that we are dealing with, among both the companies themselves and their agents. Such behaviour has got to stop."

 

 

In terms of the CSA, theyre a waste of time. All they do is ask the company to rspond to your complaint. The company then makes a begruding half response. Who is to enforce the proper standard? Not the CSA! The OFT aren't interested. the FSO? All they do is ask the company to respond to your concerns. They can impose compensation, but rarely do unless it is a serious and obvious violation. if the DCA is just rude and doesn't respond, or breaks the OFT guidelines, the FSO cannot or will not do anything. The ICO? Useless. Months of backlog and it takes them a month to acknowledge a complaint about themselves!

 

That is why there are so many cowboys i the industry, there is no one to stop them, apart from CAG, and unfortunately, we're firefighting all the time, instead of putting the **** out of business and establishing legal precedents

[huggy41]

well i like a good fight just rang DM online and asked to speek to EITHER Publisher: Martin Clarke or

Managing Director: James Bromley the lady on the phone called Lisa rang me back just now to say that the replys were moderated and the one's they can put up will be posted today:-o

 

lets all ring them and tell them to hurry up TEL.020 7938 6000

Edited September 16, 2010 by huggy41
FORGOT NUMBER

[huggy41]

may be ringing them up worked there is 13 comments sofar