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

[stu007]

Thanks Brig

[theghost]

Have TS come back with anything yet?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

it would hve been posted if it ha occurred

[stu007]

Hi

 

No nothing from trading standards yet

[give them FA]

Annoying though these episodes may be for Stu and his friend I cannot see that there is any further that he can take it.

 

Lowell state that they purchased the debt, and they have followed it up themselves, not used agents. In the absence of any indication to the contrary they wereentitled to assume the telephone number was accurate. I don't see how they can be expected to check on this other than by ringing it. When they were told the following day that it was an incorrect number, maybe they did send a text shortly after, but that they explain away. If they've done nothing more than that they are certainly not, imho, in breach of the Harassment Act which is the only legislation that gives an avenue for claiming damages. The behaviour of their telephone operative was puerile and annoying, but not actionable.

 

Really the brunt of the complaint seems to be against previous agencies but you haven't given us any details about that, Stu. Again if they have desisted from contact after being told the number was inapplicable there would not be any claim against them either. The problem appears to be that none of them corrected the wrong number but that is messy and difficult to assemble. The OC may have fraudulently been given the phone number or may have transcribed it wrongly but we don't know who the OC is, I believe.

 

I am as much for putting the boot into these miserable parasites as anyone else here, but in this case I don't see that any claim for compensation would hold water. I would like to be proved wrong!

 

The best you could do, it seems to me, is to seek an assurance from Lowell that the phone number has been expunged from their file and that they will not be passing it to anyone else. You could certainly hold them liable if they did that after having been put on notice.

[theghost]

I agree

 

On thep lus side if Lowell own the debt your number should be deleted fro mthis account.

 

But the issue is of course that there may be ther debts with your phone number on them.

[stu007]

Hi all

 

Thanks again for all your help and assistance so far caggers.

 

1. Is there any legal way that i can request that Lowells inform me who there Client(Original Creditor) is and the Clients complaints department?

2. Should i report this incident to the CSA and dbsg who they are members of?

[citizenB]

It does seem to me as though it is the original creditor at fault. Subsequent DCAs have compounded that by perhaps not advising the OC that the telephone number is incorrect.

 

However, one imagines that if any court action was to be started, Lowells would have to to provide the name of the original creditor!

 

The letter that Lowells sent was IMHO not sufficient and compensation again, IMHO, is due in respect of the attitude of the Lowells representative who actually laughed when asked if the victim could be passed up the chain.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

If Lowell have not given full details ever as

to what they are chasing and for whom they are in breach of OFT

guidance 2003/2011 sect 3.4 g pursuing third parties for payments

when they are not liable', sect 3.7 f. Ffailing to ensure that an accuratr and

adequate history of the debt ...etc.

There other section that will apply.

I would write to Lowells compliance manager on behalf of the veteran

(get his written authorisation to do so).

The request the disclosure of OCs identity and give the

reason for the request as proposed legal action.

RD this letter.

 

Brig.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Also report them as you suggest plus the OFT.

[citizenB]

I would say the matter is not closed until

there is compensation for the harassment

of an innocent person together with a large

payment for the costs involved in getting

to this stage.

Brig.

 

If Lowell have not given full details ever as

to what they are chasing and for whom they are in breach of OFT

guidance 2003/2011 sect 3.4 g pursuing third parties for payments

when they are not liable', sect 3.7 f. Ffailing to ensure that an accuratr and

adequate history of the debt ...etc.

There other section that will apply.

I would write to Lowells compliance manager on behalf of the veteran

(get his written authorisation to do so).

The request the disclosure of OCs identity and give the

reason for the request as proposed legal action.

RD this letter.

 

Brig.

 

Absolutely, if they wrote demanding monies from stu, then they should have confirmed from where the original debt originated.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi CB, There are a number of breaches under OFT guidance 2011,

the Data Protection Act, and CSA rules.

 

Stu if you want help drafting this please contact me.

 

Brig.

[give them FA]

Sorry to remain the dissenting voice, but I do not think that Lowells have done much wrong in this case. They did not write, they telephoned or texted. Had they written then of course the letter would have had the info on the OC; but not gone to Stu's friend's address. Because the conversation never got past first base when they realised that the person phoned was not the debtor, there was no way they could discuss the matter further.

 

You cannot talk loosely about "compensation" without having some basis in law to justify it, and there is none here IMHO. To say that you should get compensation because some idiot has laughed on the phone would be laughed out of court as having no legal justification whatever.

 

What could be done is to ask Lowells to contact the OC with the information that the phone number is wrong, which hopefully will stop any future contact by other DCAs. However plainly if other DCAs are chasing debts from other creditors that won't help much.

 

What may have happened is either that the debtor was a swindler who gave out a false phone number, or that the phone number was correct at the time but has since been re-assigned to Stu's friend.

Edited November 14, 2011 by give them FA

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?326891-OFT-issues-data-accuracy-warning-10-November-2011

 

Even Credit Today acknowledges that data accuracy is poor !!

[Bazooka Boo]

Given a few more weeks or months on here will completely change your opinion of the whole debt collection industry and the fraudulent tactics they all use, to side with Lowlifes, out of all the corrupt DCA's in the industry, will do no favours to anyone.

 

What has happened here is that even though the first DCA was informed that they had the incorrect info they chose to either pass it back to the OC or forward it further along the bottom of the barrel to the next set of clowns who, either ignored or were not informed of the history of this debt.

 

Each and every time the DCA has been informed by the recipient that this is not their debt, they have failed to inform the new owner of the history of it, so the cycle of events continues on it's merry go round of circus tricks.

 

If lowlifes have been informed that they have been given a lemon and they continue to chase it, then yes I would certainly be seeking legal action against them, especially if they have added incorrect adverse data on my credit file, not that I actually care about it.

 

It's because of how this corrupt industry practices that people commit suicide, the late Beryl Brazier being a single case in question.

So you have to start somewhere, if lowlifes are dumb enough to employ ex burger flippers, who have no idea of life and think it is funny to laugh at and ridicule members of the public, then I would definitely start my legal case with them, and work through ALL of the previous clowns that chased this right to the very source, whereby you will have a very solid case for compo for harassment/distress caused by this industries serious failure to act with a modicum of respect, professionalism or tact.

[give them FA]

I am sorry but as it seems I am the only one on here with a legal background I have to stand by what I have said. You have to have a case to take to a District Judge against the Defendant, not a moan that others have done things wrong. I hold no brief for any of these lowlife DCAs but at the end of the day unless you can show there are grounds in law then the Court will not make an award. If Lowells had continued with unwanted contact after being told the number was wrong then yes, there would be a case. But they didn't so there isn't. It's that simple.

 

The Harassment Act specifies that there must be at least two incidents of harassment in order to constitute a breach. And that none of the specified defences will apply. One of those defences is that the acts are reasonable in the circumstances. Lowells would be able to successfully argue that its first contact was "reasonable" if they had no reason to doubt the validity of the supplied contact number. As there was only one other contact there is no case under the Act.

 

I originally advocated legal action because I thought from the thread title that Lowells had been chasing this up for two years. I then saw this wasn't the case when clearer details became available.

 

It is possible a case may lie against previous DCAs but Stu hasn't provided any details about that.

 

Don't imagine that I get any pleasure from "defending" Lowells because if their operative's behaviour is anything to go by they are a shower of sh*t. But Courts act on the Law, not on emotion or sympathy.

[kurvaface]

The Harassment Act specifies that there must be at least two incidents of harassment in order to constitute a breach. And that none of the specified defences will apply. One of those defences is that the acts are reasonable in the circumstances. Lowells would be able to successfully argue that its first contact was "reasonable" if they had no reason to doubt the validity of the supplied contact number. As there was only one other contact there is no case under the Act

The Protection Fram Harassment Act 1997 says no such thing:

 

1 Prohibition of harassment.E+W

 

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

 

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

 

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

 

(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

 

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

 

(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

 

(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

 

©that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

 

 

 

Infact, what is important is what a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct was.

[give them FA]

Refer to Section 7 (3) which defines a "course of conduct" as meaning on at least two occasions.

[Bazooka Boo]

OK, lets try not to get too sidetracked in the legalese mumbo jumbo.

 

The OP has to start somewhere with someone, so a formal complaint to the OFT&TS via http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/UsefulContactsByCategory/Governmentcitizensandrightscontacts/DG_195948 would be a start.

 

The press and media would be a close second IMO. Even if it is just the local press a national paper may pick up on the story and make it a national one, especially if you refer them to the late Beryl Brazier case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484772/Grandmother-terrorised-death-bank-wrongly-hounded-16-000.html

[give them FA]

No, I fully agree with you, BB. A complaint to OFT about this whole case is in order, as is highlighting the matter in the Press. I was merely concerned that Stu was being advised to take Court proceedings which would have beeen doomed to fail. Judges, for better or worse, are fascinated by "legalese" lol

[Bazooka Boo]

Yes I understand......or is that I stand under?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Lowell continued the pursuit of

the alleged debt when the should have ceased

immediately, what is needed is a full list of the companies

that have attempted to collect and the name of the original

creditor all of these are complicit in the harassment

of a innocent disabled person imho whole matter stinks

and should not be dropped.

End Rant.

 

Brig.

[give them FA]

Yes indeed. A system where successive DCAs can continue to harass on inaccurate information has to be wrong and needs remedying. It should be up to the OFT to provide a system whereby this gentleman could have reported the wrong phone number and from then on NO DCA should have been able to use it. Perhaps with a bit more publicity and pressure this can come about.

 

What we need though is FACTS to justify the thread title. Ranting is fine but won't actually sway anyone.........

[kaybee327]

Disabled gent could always ask his regiment if he could borow a Browning and 30 rounds. Then ask them round for tea :madgrin:

 

Maybe that would stop them

[cerberusalert]

At the end of the day it is the owner of the debt who is liable, no doubt when the a/c was returned by the various DCAs it would have been noted that they had been informed of the erroneous data they had been given. They must all have been given the same information because they would not have found the same number independently.

 

What would be interesting is if more than one of these DCAs was in fact the same company i.e Lowells/Red then a claim for harassment by them could be proven.

 

I would have thought the best people to discover the identity of the original creditor would be the ICO.