My name spelt wrong on my phone contract- is it still enforceable?

[daboss1986]

Hi,

 

Love this site never had to post before normally another unfortunate indavidual has already gone through it!

 

My problem this time is a few years ago i took out a phone contract with 3 Mobile. (one of these phone companies called me and offered a great deal and phone).

 

My immaturity at the time made me say yes lol. When i got my first bill they had spelt my name wrong. They put a Z where a V should be in my sir name. I called them up numerous times to tell them of their error and each time they said they would change it they never did. After a while i didnt use the phone and just stop paying them. I was 18 at the time and didnt really know what i was doing or the consequences.

 

Since then i have moved quite a lot and forgot about it. then today i recieve a letter asking.

 

Balance Outstading:£680.75

Arrears:£410.63

Early termination Fee: £270.12

 

I dont remember signing an agreement, although this was many years ago so i may have.

 

So my questions are; if my name is incorrect on the agreement does it still mean i have to pay it and also how long do you have to wait before you dont have to pay back a creditor?

 

Any help would be great, thanks in advance.

 

Lee

[Surfer01]

First thing I would do is ask for a breakdown of these fees as youa re disputing them.

[silverfox1961]

Hi Lee and welcome to CAG

 

May I ask how many years ago this debt stems from?

When was the last payment?

[buzby]

(1) You don't have to sign a contract to confirm agreement to be bound by a contract, simply make the first payment.

 

(2) You have 6 years to be chased for a debt from when you defaulted, before it becomes unenforceable (5 years in Scotland)

 

(3) Your name being spelt wrongly does not provide any release, if simpyl a typo. If Smith, when you are Brown, then yes.

 

(4) 3UK will have sold on the debt to a third party by now, so it will be the new shower that will want your money, not 3UK.

 

(5) Do not, under any circumstances sign up to them again, as the old debt may surface once more if they link them.

 

(6) Get a copy of your Credit File (£2 x 3) from each of the CRAs to see what is on your file.

[MARTIN3030]

The 6 years re-starts if at any time in that period,a payment was made,or an acknowledgement that the debt is owed.

[daboss1986]

Thanks for your replies,

 

Buzby, i have checked my credit report with credit expert and there is nothing on there for 3 mobile. Apart from the initial credit check by HUTCHISON 3G UK LTDDate of Link:03/09/2006

However last month LOWELL FINANCIAL LTD have done a search on me and found where i live.

 

There is no outstanding balance owed to 3 judging by my credit score, there are others which i am paying/paid.

Would this mean that the account is not associated with me?

 

So id imagine the agreement was opened on the 3rd June 2006.

 

Im confused that the debt isnt on my creid report??

 

Lee

[buzby]

Don't be! The system isn't foolproof and it could be an oversight, but now too late for them to add it - as they must do this in a timely manner.

[daboss1986]

So could i get away with not paying it

 

 

Are they just chancing their luck. I cant see why its taken them so long for them to get in contact, im always on the electrol roll so i havnt hid away.

 

By the way, thanks for the quick repsonse

 

Lee

 

Where do i stand?

[buzby]

Their technique is to harass you until you pay them to go away. Whether you pay or not will depend on whether you should or feel you have any obligation to pay a third party once the original creditor has written it off. The only caveat is you need to ensure you did NOT give any other firm the right to amend your credit file if 3UK did not. You'd need to check the T&Cs you originally agreed to for info on this.

[MrShed]

Well I cant see that you can "get away without paying it" - its not statute barred at this point.

 

Moreover this forum isnt about debt avoidance, but about writing off unlawful debts.

[buzby]

What you overlook is that firms (like 3UK) have turned bad debts into a different profit stream. I would certainly agree that if you use a service and agree to pay for it, then you should. However, if the creditor decides they've waited long enough and arbitrarily sell is on to make what money theyu can from the arrangement, does this make me liable to the third party I neither knw of, or agreed to deal with? For me, that answer is a resounding 'NO'. If they want to trade on my debt as a seperate business, that's for them to fiddle with, they didn;t ask me whether I would countenance such an arrangement, as my answer would havew been 'NO'. If the original creditor does not have the patience to wait for me to pay - tough. If they write it off - so will I.

 

As for being 'statute barred' - come now. Let's look at this. The debt is to the original supplier, not their DCA. Statutes are of no consequence here, there would have to be a binding agreement on the customer that he accepted the firm could sell on any debt, and the obligations transfer to this third party as if it was the original. Do also remember, for amounts under £500, the chances of court action are so remote as to be virtually unlikely. WHERE is the incentive to pay? They've probably already blackened your credit file by reporting it. If paying it off resulted in the REMOVAL of this blight, I'd agree. However, if all that happens is it changes from Owed/Paid - how would this benefit the consumer?

 

Let's be reasonable here - morals cut BOTH ways.

[MrShed]

Buzby, an overreaction to a basic statement.

 

I was not saying anything with regards to whether this money is lawfully due or not.

 

I was taking issue with:

 

a) the OP basically jumping to the wrong conclusion that non addition to the credit file means money isnt legally due.

b) the glee with which the OP jumps to regarding potentially writing off money that, MORALLY SPEAKING, is owed.

 

However, now we are on topic, I will address your comments.

 

However, if the creditor decides they've waited long enough and arbitrarily sell is on to make what money theyu can from the arrangement, does this make me liable to the third party I neither knw of, or agreed to deal with? For me, that answer is a resounding 'NO'.

 

I'm fairly sure that if you had gone in and signed for the contract and stated "thanks for the contract, is it OK if I dont pay what I owe down the line" the answer would have been a resounding NO also. It works both ways.

 

If they want to trade on my debt as a seperate business, that's for them to fiddle with, they didn;t ask me whether I would countenance such an arrangement, as my answer would havew been 'NO'. If the original creditor does not have the patience to wait for me to pay - tough. If they write it off - so will I.

 

They havent wrote it off. They have sold it on. Big difference. They have weighed up the pros and cons of pursuing the debt personally, and decided on a cost benefit analysis that it is better for them to simply get rid of the bad debt. Not "fiddling" just good business.

 

As for being '

statute barred

' - come now. Let's look at this. The debt is to the original supplier, not their DCA. Statutes are of no consequence here, there would have to be a binding agreement on the customer that he accepted the firm could sell on any debt, and the obligations transfer to this third party as if it was the original. Do also remember, for amounts under £500, the chances of court action are so remote as to be virtually unlikely. WHERE is the incentive to pay?

 

The incentive to pay should be that morally you owe the money!!!!

 

They've probably already blackened your

credit file

by reporting it. If paying it off resulted in the REMOVAL of this blight, I'd agree. However, if all that happens is it changes from Owed/Paid - how would this benefit the consumer?

 

Of course it benefits the consumer. If every single debt passed to a DCA remains unpaid, DCAs and bad debt being passed on would be a thing of the past. As such, the companies involved may receive ZERO back as opposed to the partial sum (i.e. the sold on amount). Therefore, higher prices for everyone else as the companies look to maintain their profit margin.

 

In any event, I never said the debt was owed to the DCA. It is owed to 3UK. But it is patently OWED.

[buzby]

(1) Nobody signs a contract and 'says' anything. This would be a pointless exercise, as the contract remains paramount. Any attempt to modify it by stating something to the vendor at the time of signing in the hope that this would somehow modify those terms would be unrealistic and pointless. As to stating 'is it OK if I don't pay' why not? It wouldn't be relevant for a start, but that isn;t what is being complained about. The issue is one of can the vendor trade in your liability? Without you having being asked whether you agree?

 

(2) The HAVE written off the debt. The terminology (used by them) is meant to be confusing, and it appears you have been. Look at the various posts where a poster has been told they cannot pay the original company because their account is 'closed', they have to deal with the new outfit. They TELL the customer they've given up on the customer, but don;t add that they sold the debt. however they have indeed written it off, it does not mean they did so for no consideration.

 

(3) The are on of the foremost networks to not retain customers who cannot keep to their contractural obligations. There is no shortage of DCS and drbt pursuit firms who will take these matters to pursue themselves, having paid for the right to do so. Since 3UK will not accept payment, we're now neatly back on track.

 

The network will not accept the payment due. In which case, the consumer should be under no obligation to pay anyone else.

[MrShed]

(1) Nobody signs a contract and 'says' anything. This would be a pointless exercise, as the contract remains paramount. Any attempt to modify it by stating something to the vendor at the time of signing in the hope that this would somehow modify those terms would be unrealistic and pointless. As to stating 'is it OK if I don't pay' why not? It wouldn't be relevant for a start, but that isn;t what is being complained about.

 

You have taken an absurd comment made by me (the flip side of your own argument) and taken it seriously....

 

The issue is one of can the vendor trade in your liability? Without you having being asked whether you agree?

 

Yes they can, legally.

(2) The HAVE written off the debt. The terminology (used by them) is meant to be confusing, and it appears you have been. Look at the various posts where a poster has been told they cannot pay the original company because their account is 'closed', they have to deal with the new outfit. They TELL the customer they've given up on the customer, but don;t add that they sold the debt. however they have indeed written it off, it does not mean they did so for no consideration.

(3) The are on of the foremost networks to not retain customers who cannot keep to their contractural obligations. There is no shortage of DCS and drbt pursuit firms who will take these matters to pursue themselves, having paid for the right to do so. Since 3UK will not accept payment, we're now neatly back on track.

 

The network will not accept the payment due. In which case, the consumer should be under no obligation to pay anyone else.

 

Wrong.

 

If the consumer received valid notice of assignment, then of course the consumer is under obligation to pay someone else.

 

If he didnt, then he isnt, but the debt is still owed to 3UK!

 

There really are two points here buzby.

 

1) It is farcical to state that the debt is not owed to SOMEONE. Should the proper process have been followed, the debt is owed to the DCA. If it hasnt, the debt is owed to 3UK. But it most certainly has not disappered. This is an amount of credit that has been ran up and it most certainly is owed somewhere. If the company it is owed to decides not to accept payment for it, that is a different issue.

2) Moreover (as your argument appears to be falling more on the moral side than the legal one, but failing on both), on which moral basis do you feel this debt isnt owed?

 

(BTW - I hope you take this in the spirit in which it is meant - fostering debate and discussion, and not some personal attack on your position - you are entitled to your opinion of course!)

[buzby]

Forgive me, but if you make flippant remarks, then feel free to highlight this fact with an emoticon of some sort.

 

The issue is, and let's be clear on this, is that a contract requires to explicitly state that the consumers account can be terminated and passed on to a collection firm. NOT as part of a subsequent process where the network takes the money they negotiated (and run), leaving the consumer to deal with any number of third parties as they each try to obtain payment be foe giving up and retailing it on, all without the involvement of the original party. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

 

3UKs alacrity in taking any money for a debtors liability is their decision. Court pursuit is dispensed with, to be replaced with harassment and the usual Credit File blight, which these days is much cheaper, just as effective, than trying to get a CCJ by conventional means.

 

I've never paid a third party. If the principal doesn't want my money, then my moral dilemma is at an end. They don't want it having come to an arrangement MADE without my agreement , their interest in the matter is concluded. I couldn't give a tinker's cuss what the new kid on the block wants, and the sooner more consumers treat these parasites with the contempt they deserve the quicker they might realise as a business plan, this isn't a viable one.

 

Sure, if the original firm retains the debt, it is the moral duty to pay it. If they don't - the consumer should not lose sleep over it. The initial outfit certainly didn't when they got rid of it.

[MrShed]

The issue is, and let's be clear on this, is that a contract requires to explicitly state that the consumers account can be terminated and passed on to a collection firm.

 

Can you show me where this is stated in law? I disagree.

 

NOT as part of a subsequent process where the network takes the money they negotiated (and run), leaving the consumer to deal with any number of third parties as they each try to obtain payment be foe giving up and retailing it on, all without the involvement of the original party. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

 

To be fair, this should have been thought about before the account was defaulted.

 

The rest of your post is addressed by my first point above.

 

Also, I dont think I need to put emoticons to justify my opinion!!

[buzby]

Er, this is contract law. This is inclusive, whereby the acts of the parties require to be stipulated. Not (as you appear to believe) that things NOT explicitly mentioned require disclosure.

 

'Thought about' by whom? If it isn't mentioned, it isn't relevant.

 

The emoticons were to cover your 'absurd comments' not your opinions. It is not possible to tell which is which otherwise.

[daboss1986]

Im confused lol. Should i approach 3UK and offer them a payment? If they say know do i HAVE to deal with Lowell LTD? Do I have to agree with the amount they are saying.

 

I dont have a copy of the agreement so I dont know the defult fees etc.

Would it be wise for me to contact 3UK and request the agreement?

 

If they palm me off shall I speak to Lowell LTD and ask them for a copy.

 

Also what if they cannot supply one?

 

SOrry for all the questions-

 

Oh i wont be able to pay the full amount off anyway so do they have to except an offer i putforward to them on a monthly basis or can they turn my monthly offer down?

 

Thank you.

[buzby]

By all means, WRITE to 3UK to make the offer. If they reject this, then you're free to decide how to proceed. You don't need your agreement, just look for the T&Cs which are available on their website. You have no obligation to speak with any third party unless you agreed to yhis in advance.

 

You should remember T&Cs evolve, and what is stated now may not be the same as that prevailing when YOU actually signed up. But against this, most T&Cs state that they reserve the right to revise these, so this would legitimize the changes, so it is sensible to whorl from the current offering.

 

Most networks have no mechanism to accept part payments, so an ability to clear the amount owed requires a payment to clear the balance. Faces with this, a network would be hard-pressed not to accept your offer. The staged payments route pushes you towards their DCA to administer, and of course adds additional costs to fun their profit margins.

[daboss1986]

Buzby,

 

I have herd that some DCA who do buy the debt which I imagine has been done here, dont always have the credit agreement and if they dont i dont have to pay them.

 

I will write to 3UK and make them my offer and will let you know how i get on. any idea on how i should word the letter?

 

Lee

[buzby]

This is a Service Contract, not a CCA Regulaed credit agreement, therefore the requirements to show a valid agreement are void.

 

I'm unaware of any network accepting an offer of part-payment unless it can be completed in under 4-6 months (for a contract that is suspended, not cancelled), so if your plan is in excess of this, be prepared for a rejection. Any letter would have to provide a simple proposal than can be answered with a Yes/No response. You could add that you are apologetic for the unforseen events that resulted in the issue at hand, however you have no intention of dealing with third parties, so you would appreciate them dealing with you directly in this matter.

[daboss1986]

Thanks Buzby, i will send it today. I'll let you knwo how i get on.

 

Lee

[MrShed]

Er, this is contract law. This is inclusive, whereby the acts of the parties require to be stipulated. Not (as you appear to believe) that things NOT explicitly mentioned require disclosure.

 

Wrong. Common law favours assignment, so unless it is explicitly prohibited, it is allowed.