DCA question

[PriorityOne]

Frantically busy over the New Year it seems.... they wrote to me again as well. We must be so blessed...

 

The usual drivel in both cases and much of what's in yours has been taken from one of their templates, it seems...as the content is the same; word for word, to a response I received some time ago. Although they threatened to resume 'phone contact however, they never did.

 

Difficult to say what their next move will be, but they want you to believe that they've got sufficent docs. to make your life uncomfortable, although they've never mentioned the word "enforeable"... only a reference to proving the "existence" of an account at some point in time. Not the same thing under CCA 1974 lads....

 

You could play letter ping pong.... and thank them for their recent correspondence, but until such times as they're able to produce an enforceable copy of the CCA that they allege to hold, that no payments will be forthcoming; as is your right under CCA 1974; sec 127 (3).... or something like that, if you want to. They are a prime example of a company who like wordplay.... so it's nice to be able to let them know how they've shot themselves in the foot sometimes.

 

Alternatively, you could await their next move... as that letter doesn't really threaten anything apart from 'phone calls

 

[vengeancedemon]

Thank you for your thoughts

 

, I sense the template of this letter, and I have seen parts of it before on other questions concerning this shower.

 

I dont think I will bother with wasting a stamp at the moment though

[hungrybear]

I would ignore them for the next two or three letters should they feel the urge to write. Then if they persist simply tell them to take you to court or sod off - to put it bluntly

[debt4get]

i notice from their last missive that they may escalate your account!!! they did to me they took it too their PRE LITIGATION DEPARTMENT!!! funnily enough it is the same number as their normal collections department, but I think when you ring, I imagine all these bells and sirens start going off and the computer screen comes up in big letter PRE LITIGATION DEPARTMENT... and the threat monkey then decides that they are really important and start threatening you with all sorts of dire retribution if you do not wish to contribute to their coffers..

when I refused to pay...re no cca..invalid etc etc...take me to bloody court!!! threat monkey quoted...YOU DONT DECIDE IF IT GOES TO COURT....WE DO!!!!????

[vengeancedemon]

Just to really clarify my thoughts please

 

Scenario:

 

DCA(1) starts the aggro, so they are sent a CCA 78. They fail to provide anything.

 

Time passes.

DCA (2) )( or indeed it may by now be via several others) moves in and provides what may or may not be enforceable.

 

Am I correct in thinking that despite whatever DCA2 provides or says or threatens, they have no power to proceed with any avtion as they are to be considered "Third Party Intervention" as the CCA is still in default/dispute with the first DCA?, and if so what should I say to DCA2 to shoot them down?

[Stephan56]

I agree. As DCA 1 not in compliance, then should not be passed to DCA two. Maybe a letter saying that you only deal with DCA 1 (who are non compliant) and until such time as they ARE compliant, you are just waiting.

[themagician]

I agree. As DCA 1 not in compliance, then should not be passed to DCA two. Maybe a letter saying that you only deal with DCA 1 (who are non compliant) and until such time as they ARE compliant, you are just waiting.

you need to send dca 2 the bemused letter in the template library.

[vengeancedemon]

I have done this, but they insist they have the right to pursue, I have told them (DCA2) that they are not permitted to do so

[dcakiller]

report to oft trading standards(both dca1&2) and use both there complaints procedure and then complain about both to the fso (after you have been through dca 1&2 complains procedure) and watch them both crawl away.

[vengeancedemon]

Thank you. will do this

[UnitedFront]

I'm sorry, but I think I disagree with the above posts. Whilst DCA1 may have been in default of the cca request, the Act is clear that once the relevant documents have been provided, the debt then becomes enforceable again.

 

The courts have made clear that passing on an alleged debt is not necessarily enforcement action and, as such, an assignment can be made.

 

In the case of a simple or equitable assignment (DCA 2 acting on behalf of DCA 1), DCA 1 would still be responsible for providing the documents. In the case of an absolute assignment, DCA 2 would also have been assigned the duties to rectify the default.

 

Once this default has been rectified by them furnishing you with the relevant documents, they then reinstate the right to proceed with any lawful method of recovery.

 

I cannot see any court accepting that a debt is not enforceable just because DCA 1 defaulted on your request.

 

By all means argue the toss.... but in my opinion it is better (even if doing so) to begin to prepare far stronger arguments. This way in the event that DCA 2 do take court action; you are far better prepared for the event.

 

As always, the above is just my opinion.

 

Hope this helps.

Cheers.

UF

[vengeancedemon]

Interesting points, but what if DCA1 is in default, and it has been passed round all and sundry with no result, and there is no notice of assignment from DCA1 to the current shower or a NOA from OC?

[UnitedFront]

Without a NOA, this is a slightly different kettle of fish. But experience shows that under a SAR these people normally come up with something acting as a NOA; all be it that we're sceptical as to the validity of these documents.

 

I feel that the courts have continuously shown a reluctance to question the NOA's that these people come up with.

 

On that basis, if they can come up with something that purports to authorise them to act on the alleged debt, then DAC 2 would still be able to do so; as long as they come with the relevant documents.

 

I am far from an expert however, and so more experience members may put my thoughts to bed once and for all.

 

Cheers.

UF

[vengeancedemon]

Thank you anyway for your thoughts

[UnitedFront]

No problems! Always enjoy discussions such as this.... you never know what pearls of wisdom might appear from it!!

[vengeancedemon]

Sorry to be still confused, I read it that if a CCA is sent to the first DCA and they are in default, then whatever anyone else tries, it is still in default from No1 and is therefore uneneforceable /un-proceedable with?

or am I mis-understanding the Act?

[UnitedFront]

I have never interpreted the Act as saying that; as far as I know, as soon as any DCA in the future provides the relevant documentation, the debt once again becomes enforceable.

 

I think the courts would be very loath to imply any other interpretation. Also, if it were the case that if the first DCA was in default of the request then no other DCA could bring an action, then very few claims through the County Court would be successful.... and as we can see this is not the case.

 

So, whilst there is every chance I am wrong, I still think that as the law stands, once the paperwork is presented to you by whatever company is currently chasing you; the debt becomes enforceable.

[vengeancedemon]

It concerns me slightly that Cabot have supplied some paperwork for things which may or may not be enforceable/or if not enforceable comply with a CCA , BUT these are documents which are outstanding from a CCA request of just over two years ago from B O Scott, I think that the onus of responsibility still lies with BOS and Cabot are breaching 78(6)( I think) but I would like to be sure

[vengeancedemon]

Just received nice little postcards from Cabot

 

Now obviously I have blanked out personal details, bar code and refs etc, but could these be said to be "revealing details" to the wide world? they came as postcards, not in envelopes

C1.pdf

[Fred Bassett]

Just received nice little postcards from Cabot

 

Now obviously I have blanked out personal details, bar code and refs etc, but could these be said to be "revealing details" to the wide world? they came as postcards, not in envelopes

 

Well it doesn't take much to type Cabot Financial into google and find out what they do. So I would say that this is a breach of your privacy. The postie might well know now that a debt collection agency is trying to contact your urgently.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[Pinky69]

Cabot are pure chits and that is against OFT guidelines. Send a copy of the card to the OFT with a complaint. Every complaint is another nail in their coffin and the way they are pursuing debts right now they are breaching OFT guidelines left, right and centre to do so. Watch Cabot lose their licence if they go on like that.

 

Enquiries and Reporting Centre

Office of Fair Trading

Fleetbank House

2-6 Salisbury Square

London

EC4Y 8JX.

[DonkeyB]

Unbelievable... did they address it to Mr Debt Avoider, Wontpay, Ihavefinancialissuesshire?

 

You'll need to quote the relevant parts of the OFT debt collection guidelines. Here's a link to the guidelines, and here's the offending bit, below.

 

Full guidelines on the right as PDF on this page:

 

Debt collection practices - The Office of Fair Trading

 

 

Physical/psychological harassment

 

2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive.

 

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

j. acting in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor either deliberately or through lack of care, for example, by not putting correspondence in a sealed envelope and putting it through a letterbox, thereby running the risk that it could be read by third parties.

[spidey41]

this company are total pratts that do not know whats happening on the desk next to them , in the last year ive gone from pre-litigation to its now with our solicitors , to a full and final offer then the stupid letter stating one of these will happen if you dont pay , then back to pre littigation , then either a doorstep collector or court proceedings and now to another reduced offer of full payment , and i'm sure it will go round again

[DonkeyB]

Quite right Spidey. They can't put this deliberate breach of guidelines down to an 'admin error'. That card had to be designed, printed, data-processed and posted. That's a lot of admin errors.

[vengeancedemon]

I thought, from the various observations on these forums about AHH Communications that these were not good, and I am most obliged for your thoughts.

I shall copy these cards and make a formal complaint, I shall also tell those stupid Barstewards in West Malling that they have breached OFT Guidelines and if they want to play hard, I'll see/take them to court for the various breaches of law that they have so far committed ( as detailed in this thread)