Disabled Veteran Harrassed for 4yrs by DCA for debt of unknown person

[theghost]

Point 1 - I think what they are saying is that as veteran is not the debtor they are not under any obligation to reveal much of the information asked for - I would have thought they should have given their company name though - but I do not think they have to say they are a DCA - you will have to check the DCG. What they should say is we are company X but clearly we have the wrong number. End Call.

 

The rest of the response is not surprising TBH.

[stu007]

Hi Brig

 

Fully agree well so far Trading Standards are reporting one to OFT hopefully rest to follow must admit the shock was CEO apology as such but then say he didnt send dispute to client but they wont say who client is as he is not their customer.

 

If you dont mind Brig I will PM you and let you know which one Trading Standards are reporting to OFT.

 

PM Sent Brig.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Got it Stu, given your star a Click for all your

hard work.

Well Done!!!

Brig.

[theghost]

Even if you get the original creditors name they are unlikely to give you the actual debtors name and details (coz presumably they will think you want to contact them). If you do get the original creditors name and complain to them I imagine you will get a similar response to what Lowell have given you.

 

Do you want the original creditors name or the debtors name as well (i.e to contact them and put a stop to this)?

 

My understanding of the DPA is that you are unlikely to get that info (debtors details) but it might be worth looking into more detail to see if there are anyspecial rules for this sort of situation.

[stu007]

Hi Brig

 

Thank you very much for that but thanks must really go to everyone at CAG and all Caggers without that valuable direction this would probably just keep going on and on.

 

Still a way to go but theres a light at the end of the tunnel also the veteran does have the veterans agency basically sat in the background now, they have offered all there assistance but him being him now wants to deal with this the same as he did with the local authority where he had them sitting in the background an got them involved straight after he won and they could not believe the six box files he handed them with every bit of evidence. Opened a can of worms so to speak

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I am sure everyone who has contrubuted are happy that

they have been able to help!!!!

[stu007]

Hi

 

@ theghost this has never been about the "debtors details" if you read lowells response they say he is not their customer, then say he didnt raise a dispute with the client and then say they cant share that client information

 

Also it was lowells that first raised the issue of this supposed client by blaming the client for incorrect data not the veteran. So as they passed the buck and blamed this client did he not have a right to also forward copies of his complaint to this supposed client. (would any DCA actually let the client know they recieved a complaint and how is the client meant to know the actions of the DCA they have contracted).

[dadofholly]

Stu - this issue about the 'client' is just an attempt to side track you - The DCA is responsible for it's own actions - but the client is also responsible for the actions of the DCA acting on it's part.

 

Looks like the DCA are simply trying to pass the buck.

 

Are the DCA concerned members of any trade body such as the consumer credit association or similar? If so check their code of conduct. If a company breaks the code of conduct - while claiming to a memebr of that body, it is committing a criminal offence under CPUTR 2008.

[stu007]

Hi

 

DoH i agree that they are trying that also with the client and yes they are member of "Credit Services Association" already got their code of conduct and complaint form and also as Trading Standards involved waiting for nod to send off as i feel it has more wait to it when it goes to Trading Standards then from them to either OFT, ICO or CSA.

[dadofholly]

Hi

 

DoH i agree that they are trying that also with the client and yes they are member of "Credit Services Association" already got their code of conduct and complaint form and also as Trading Standards involved waiting for nod to send off as i feel it has more wait to it when it goes to Trading Standards then from them to either OFT, ICO or CSA.

 

Wheels are in motion then.

 

You can make the complaint direct to OFT - and inform them you have already complained to trading standards - the response you get from the OFT will depend on where they are with these companies - for example if they are activley investigating they will ask you for a statement straight away - if it's one that they are just keeping an eye on for the moment they will give you the standard response.

 

It does not harm your case to make an independant complaint too.

[stu007]

Hi

 

DoH

 

Yup wheels in motion does not help that the veteran has really dug his heels in on this.

 

Fully understand he can do this independantly but he just feels it adds more weight to it if it goes via trading standards and has their stamp all over it then up to OFT, ICO or CAS

[theghost]

Hi

 

@ theghost this has never been about the "debtors details" if you read lowells response they say he is not their customer, then say he didnt raise a dispute with the client and then say they cant share that client information

 

 

 

Also it was lowells that first raised the issue of this supposed client by blaming the client for incorrect data not the veteran. So as they passed the buck and blamed this client did he not have a right to also forward copies of his complaint to this supposed client. (would any DCA actually let the client know they recieved a complaint and how is the client meant to know the actions of the DCA they have contracted).

 

They are entitled to blame the client - because the client provided them with the data - they (Lowells) cannot be expected to check every piece of data - and even if they did the only way to confirm would be to ring the number.

 

Its arguable whether they should give you the clients name - yes on one hand it would allow you to complain to them (but you will prob get the same answer) - but on the other hand (and this is Lowells position) - they have deleted the data from the records and therefore the issue is sold from their point of view - obviously they cannot be held responsible if that same bit of incorrect data is out there on other credit accounts.

 

If you really must complain to the original creditor/client then I would look at the DPA in more detail and see if there are any methods you could use to get the data 'by force' from Lowell. Quite clearly Lowells are not going to give it up voluntarily.

 

TS can request data from companies but 'data issues' are possibly out of their remit...better suited to ICO probably.

[dadofholly]

Hi

 

DoH

 

Yup wheels in motion does not help that the veteran has really dug his heels in on this.

 

Fully understand he can do this independantly but he just feels it adds more weight to it if it goes via trading standards and has their stamp all over it then up to OFT, ICO or CAS

 

Bit of a stubborn one hey - well it all seems to be in hand - good luck.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I don't think the ''client'' is relevant Lowell

is a debt purchaser and if this is a case where

Lowell ''own'' the debt they are totally resposible

for assuring that they have the debtor concerned,

this applies even if this was a simple assignment

to collect/manage the debt on behalf of the OC.

''The Ghost'' please listen to what Stu is saying

the situation is totally under control and processes

have already started.

[dadofholly]

Stu - just something i've noticed - you do know that the person they are looking for is female don't you?

[stu007]

Hi DoH

 

Yes lol know they are female.

[theghost]

I don't think the ''client'' is relevant Lowell

is a debt purchaser and if this is a case where

Lowell ''own'' the debt they are totally resposible

for assuring that they have the debtor concerned,

this applies even if this was a simple assignment

to collect/manage the debt on behalf of the OC.

''The Ghost'' please listen to what Stu is saying

the situation is totally under control and processes

have already started.

 

I dont disagree but essentially it comes down to what extent the data has to be accurate. And I don't think the answer has to be 100% all of the time.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I dont disagree but essentially it comes down to what extent the data has to be accurate. And I don't think the answer has to be 100% all of the time.

Read the OFT Guidance Doc October 2011.

[stu007]

Hi All

 

Just a wee update with your opinions needed please.

 

Well was at Trading Standards today with Letter Before Action for Motormile Finance and Cheque Centre UK over there failure to respond to am Officcial Complaint and they advised.

 

* Not to send the Letter Before Action yet as if the case goes higher it may be seen as very agressive actions by veteran and to send another letter headed "Failure To Respond to Official Complaint" and just keep letter simple requiring them to acknowledge the Official Complaint recieved by them on 13 Jan 2012 giving them 10 days to respond.

 

* Now i did ask what is the position with theses Debt Collection Companies as a whole responding to Official/Formal Complaints whether you are their Customer or Not and was advised by Trading Standards that it does not matter whether you are a customer or not they have a legal responsibility to acknowledge and respond to ALL complaints.

 

I was just thinking of changing the LBA thats in Post #360 title from Letter Before Action to Failure to Respond to Official Complaint and leaving the rest of the letter as it is but giving them 10 days to respond.

 

Your advice on whether to send LBA or not much appreciated as feel I should but after speaking to trading standards can see where they are coming from and as they said how it may be percieved if TS actions go further.

Edited February 13, 2012 by stu007

[give them FA]

As in LBA: What "action" is it proposed to take?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi Stu,

ALL the DCAs seem to refer to their @@customers'' and

''your account'' with us so they surely cannot conveniently

claim the relationship is not so.

[stu007]

Hi All

 

Just a quick update these are the letters to Motomile Finance and Cheque Centre sent recorded delivery due to their Failure to Respond to Official Complaint letter of 12th Jan 2012.

 

Motormile Finance PDF - You only need to read first two pages as rest is a copy of 12th Jan 2012 complaint.

 

Cheque Centre PDF - You only need to read 1st page as rest is a copy of 12th Jan 2012 complaint.

Edited February 16, 2012 by stu007

[theghost]

Your complaint is quite wordy, so if you want a proper in depth response it might take a while for them to respond in detail. Either that or they just won't be bothered to respond.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

your complaint is quite wordy, so if you want a proper in depth response it might take a while for them to respond in detail. Either that or they just won't be bothered to respond.

 

nonsence!!!

 

I have been involved in this thread from it's

start, the letter put together here is quite

formidable, if you had any knowledge at

all of what has gone before you would not

be putting forth posts such as this.

[theghost]

The facts say otherwise.

 

Whether the time passed is reasonable - who is to say - possibly if the company is very large - I dunno