Wescot Credit Services

[teaboy2]

Surprised no one has actually pointed the OP in the direction of the telephone harassment letter yet.

 

Company Name

Road

Town

City / County

Postcode

 

Re: Harassment by telephone

 

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXXXXX

 

Dear Sirs

 

I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing.

 

I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls. (Delete if necessary)

 

I now require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only.

 

I am of the view that your continued harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

 

If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine.

 

Be advised that any further telephone calls from your company will be recorded. (**Even if you don‘t yet have recording equipment!!**)

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

[NAME HERE]

OP - Simply edit the letter to show that the number they are calling is your daugthers and that she is a minor and they are to communicate with yourself about the matter in writing only.

 

Ahh Scratch that, was on page 2 when i posted didn't realise this thread was 3 pages long lol

[teaboy2]

Hi Elsa

 

I hadn't actually seen your post prior to posting mine, as i hadn't spotted that the thread was 3 pages long. So i had made my post thinking page 2 was the last page lol.

 

I do agree that your more personal letter would be more useful in this case.

 

Was having a bad start to the my day on the forums lol

[teaboy2]

Lol yeah, not a good idea to post when am still hung over me thinks

[teaboy2]

And I thought you were strictly a tea drinker...especially since this is Teacup's thread...

 

Lol i am, but like a shot of whiskey in it.

 

I doubt am the only one thats had to edited a post as a result of posting after a night out, i have seen some real good posts as a result, in the comical sense lol.

[teaboy2]

Lol am going Tea-total tonight

[teaboy2]

lol now your just trying to tempt me

[teaboy2]

Lol just thought i would add that the CAG does not condone posting whilst drinking, for obvious reasons.

[teaboy2]

Lol, not that any us would be sober enough to stick to such rule, if their was one

[teaboy2]

@Ghost

 

I can confirm that you are incorrect, as Section 40 Administration of Justice Act 1970 still applies.

 

You are refering subsetion 3a of section 40 administration of justice act 1970:

 

(3A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done by a person to another in circumstances where what is done is a commercial practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the other is a consumer in relation to that practice.

 

However the following is clear, and as DCA can only contact alleged debtors and mostly can not prove an agreement (or its enforceability) and/or the debt existed or belongs to the person they are contacting, then they are therefore in breach of the following (Section 26 CPUTR 2008) which puts them in breach of section 40 of the administration of justice act in its entirety regardless of subsection 3a: (the same applies if its being disputed in anyway)

 

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008/1277

Schedule 1 Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair

 

26.

Making persistent and unwanted solicitations by telephone, fax, e-mail or other remote media except in circumstances and to the extent justified to enforce a contractual obligation. (Though even then the amount of calls must not be excessive if they are then they would not past the reasonableness test)

 

In other words they are only allowed to make persistent phone calls to the extent of enforcing an agreement/contract but only if the agreement/contract is enforceable and proven that the person they are contacting is the other party to the contract. However as the DCA was not a named party to the Original agreement/contract, then they have no right to enforce any rights on any proven or alleged contract unless they are specifically named in the contract as a named 3rd party, therefore only the original creditor and named 3rd parties are entitled to make such calls to enforce the agreement/contract. Also if the debt is sold to a DCA then any agreement/contract with the OC ceases to exist, therefore there is no agreement/contract in existence that can be enforced and the debt can only be enforce if the agreement is produced in court but only if the termination of the agreement was lawful and not unlawfully rescinded - In other words the agreement/contract ceases to exist at the point of sale of the debt (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998 )

 

Ghost i have noticed that your still fairly new to the forum, i do not know your proffession, but i have seen a few of your posts and i must honestly admit, you need to do some research more on leglisation and regulations before posting. End of the day Harassment is Harassment hence the protection of Harassment Act 1997 which would also take precendence over subsection 3a

Edited June 21, 2011 by teaboy2

[teaboy2]

thats the vein letter of denial i expected them to send you, in a vein attempt to cover their arses, by denying they were behind the calls - they really are pretty dumb after all the incoming call number will be in your daugthers mobile for missed and answered calls proving it was them.

[teaboy2]

If it was me i would tell them what their own text message is and the number it was sent from, saying "so your denial is worthless and a pathetic attempt to cover your own backsides and nothing less than an apology is required. As its pretty dam clear the number was in your system me, otherwise you would not have had it to send the message in the first place - Oh and another thing, don't tell me i gave you the number when you actually got it from sharing data with other companys in breach of my rights under the data protection act 1998"