OFT launches revised debt collection guidance

[dadofholly]

I dont understand how or rather why you think 6 years is ok for credit issues - surely someone on a consumer forum would be in favour of the consumer rights.

 

And Ghost the employee credit searches are happening a lot more every week - why? because CRA's are pushing it to firms - to make more profit out of the info they hold. To believe otherwise is just burying your head - or wilfully failing to believe such a problem exists.

 

The CRA's are activley selling the service to employers based on some cobblers about security risk - which there is no data for - how do i know i was in loss prevention and the common denominator in employee crime was greed and opportunity, not debt.

Edited October 24, 2011 by dadofholly

[Ell-enn]

Anyone sent a copy of it to Carter !

[Guest]

edit

Edited October 24, 2011 by Ford
duplicate post

[Guest]

edit

Edited October 24, 2011 by Ford
duplicate post - what's up with cag site?

[Guest]

.............I cannot see a 3 year SOL leading to anything other than more Court cases, so would be surprised if they allowed it - ..........

 

it prob won't be long before the eu approach is adopted (for the better). we may not have the euro, but we are tied to the eu.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Ford

[Guileshill]

I'd like to ask you about the links in your signature block. All very interesting, and all quite... how to put it, quite fringe. Obviously serious thinking about economic reform is going to have its independent campaigners and its groups of campaigns. But where are the academic sources, the heavyweights, the ones who engage in peer level review. Or should I take it that anything that challenges the current systemic thinking is essentially and necessarily marginalised? Don't get me wrong, I am not antagonistic to such authors or sites. My question comes from two motives, first I am trying to develop my understanding of economics (without having been taught the orthodox views) and second I am expert in the analysis of credibility of online data, especially in evaluating the psycho/narrative indicators that site visitors pick up subconsciously (helping clients to develop the authority of their sites and not sound like dorks, in short). The long and short of this is that these links do not perform well in this respect, with positivemoney as a slightly better example.

 

Can anyone point me in the direction of other sources, it would help my little cause a lot if you could.

 

Thanks all.

[dadofholly]

Click on the positive money link - they have gone through over 500 documents from the Bank of England etc. There is loads of material on there. (If you don't like the site you are prejudging based on your likes and dislikes and not the facts).

 

They are holding a conference this weekend in London, (300 delegates will be there and im one of them), that will be attended by two MP's - Michael Meacher, (Labour) and Douglas Carswell, (Conservative), who both understand this issue and will be among the guest speakers.

 

We also have evidence from Mervyn King, the head of the Bank of England. Paul Woolf, cheif economics editor of the Financial Times, to name just two high profile sources. (Again souced on the Positive Money site - so easy to cross reference).

 

Here is another link to the New Economics Foundation - lots of reference material there. They also wrote and recentley released a book called 'Where Does the money come from' Which is full of information and states all of its sources from organisations such as the Bank of England, Financial Times, European Central Bank and lots more. (If you want to understand the way it works this is the book).

 

Nef Link - http://www.neweconomics.org/

 

Book Link

 

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/where-does-money-come-from-book/

 

You say this is 'fringe' that is because most economists and MP's etc dont know or understand it - the reason is that this info used to be well hidden.

 

For info on the history of the money reform movement visit http://www.jamesgibbstuart.org/

 

My view of the 'dorks' quote is - it's the ones that think they know how the economy works, but actually no sweet FA, and who call themselves economists - are the real dorks.

Edited October 27, 2011 by dadofholly

[coledog]

This is popular 7 members and 10 guests

[Guileshill]

 

Wow, that was quick, thank you. First, I am sympathetic, not hostile to the arguments. I am also concerned at the quality of advocacy and journalistic quality of some of these, and similar sites, fearing that they do not help their cause because of these and other issues. My point is that 'prejudging' websites is what nearly all visitors do, and part of my job is to make clients aware of what those prejudgements are likely to be based on their content and approach to communication. The idea that some sites on this subject would be regarded as 'fringe' is not to disparage them, simply to say that this is how they are likely to be regarded by critical visitors. James Gib Stuart is obviously a seasoned campaigner with a long and embattled history to his thesis. But his site does carry all the signs of the lone prophet. And such he may be, this is not wrong, merely not very strong. So, what I am looking for is a way of understanding where these ideas are on the map, whether they are a river that is about to join the main stream of debate, or whether they are a tributary that is gaining force but a very long way from the 'dorks' (as you rather nicely focus them).

 

The conference does look promising, and it certainly counts as an arena of public discourse. I wish you, and it, well.

 

The additional information is going to be helpful as well. So thank you for that.

 

Warm regards

 

Chris

[dadofholly]

Chris

 

sorry if i came accross as a bit off hand.

 

I recommend the book.

Edited October 27, 2011 by dadofholly
corrected atrowshush spellin

[dadofholly]

This is popular 7 members and 10 guests

 

It does seem to be popular - i had to check i had put the right links up

[May Fly]

All I can say about the new guidelines is that when I wrote to the MD of Egg pointing out the parts of the guidelines they had broken, I got a reply from some minion pointing out that the guidelines "had no statuary force and following them was optional"

 

Sadly, he was right, and the inability to report such matters direct to the OFT is to our disadvantage. Yes, you can go to the overworked local Trading Standards, and if you get someone who actually knows the field, a report might get sent to the OFT, depending on how much time and money they have to do so.

 

The OFT is quite simply a talking shop where they publish things to justify their existence, but do very little policing of their own rules. The problems in this field are legion, they have been mentioned in the Commons several times, but no progress on stamping out the bad practice and illegal activities has actually been made. How many DCAs actually lose their licence? Indeed there was the case a year or two ago where one DCA was allowed to practice fro about 9 months after their licence had expired whilst the OFT considered renewing the licence.... farcial

[theghost]

You can report matters directly to the OFT - its called Consumer Direct.

 

Whether they have the resources to deal with absolutley every issue thoroughly is another matter of course.

[dadofholly]

All I can say about the new guidelines is that when I wrote to the MD of Egg pointing out the parts of the guidelines they had broken, I got a reply from some minion pointing out that the guidelines "had no statuary force and following them was optional"

 

Sadly, he was right, and the inability to report such matters direct to the OFT is to our disadvantage. Yes, you can go to the overworked local Trading Standards, and if you get someone who actually knows the field, a report might get sent to the OFT, depending on how much time and money they have to do so.

 

The OFT is quite simply a talking shop where they publish things to justify their existence, but do very little policing of their own rules. The problems in this field are legion, they have been mentioned in the Commons several times, but no progress on stamping out the bad practice and illegal activities has actually been made. How many DCAs actually lose their licence? Indeed there was the case a year or two ago where one DCA was allowed to practice fro about 9 months after their licence had expired whilst the OFT considered renewing the licence.... farcial

 

The OFT have - and do - take licences off companies who fail to follow their guidlines. So make sure you compain to the OFT direct as suggested by ghost. You can do this via their webiste

 

And don't forget to include the letter you recieved - I am sure the OFT will be interested.

[ScarletPimpernel]

All I can say about the new guidelines is that when I wrote to the MD of Egg pointing out the parts of the guidelines they had broken, I got a reply from some minion pointing out that the guidelines "had no statuary force and following them was optional"

 

 

To misquote Mandy Rice-Davies, he would say that, wouldn't he. And he'd be wrong.

 

In fact, compliance with the OFT Guidance is a condition of the consumer credit licence that both lenders and DCAs must possess in order to operate. The OFT does move at the speed of a snail on Propofol, but it does (eventually) take action - vide, for example, the requirements imposed upon 1st Credit, Mackenzie Hall and recently American Express. It would be good to see them being much more robust, and taking away licences, but I imagine that they have to take into account the number of unemployed burger-flippers that would result from such action.

 

One must also consider what would happen if the OFT took away the licence from, say, Egg; the directors would simply set up another company. Until there is a requirement for staff to be licenced as well as companies (as happens in some US states), it's better to impose controls on them than have to start again with a new entity.

 

Recently the OFT has taken action to ensure that solicitors engaged in debt collection obtain a licence rather than hiding behind the Law Society's group licence, and the new guidance is an improvement on the last.

[Old Cogger]

To misquote Mandy Rice-Davies, he would say that, wouldn't he. And he'd be wrong.

 

In fact, compliance with the OFT Guidance is a condition of the consumer credit licence that both lenders and DCAs must possess in order to operate. The OFT does move at the speed of a snail on Propofol, but it does (eventually) take action - vide, for example, the requirements imposed upon 1st Credit, Mackenzie Hall and recently American Express. It would be good to see them being much more robust, and taking away licences, but I imagine that they have to take into account the number of unemployed burger-flippers that would result from such action.

 

One must also consider what would happen if the OFT took away the licence from, say, Egg; the directors would simply set up another company. Until there is a requirement for staff to be licenced as well as companies (as happens in some US states), it's better to impose controls on them than have to start again with a new entity.

 

Recently the OFT has taken action to ensure that solicitors engaged in debt collection obtain a licence rather than hiding behind the Law Society's group licence, and the new guidance is an improvement on the last.

 

Christine Keeler DCA agent??

[ScarletPimpernel]

Christine Keeler DCA agent??

 

Profumo was a liar, so I think he'd be more of a candidate for the debt industry. Christine Keeler was (allegedly) someone who'd do anything her client asked as long as she was paid, so is much more like a solicitor.

[May Fly]

The OFT have - and do - take licences off companies who fail to follow their guidlines. So make sure you compain to the OFT direct as suggested by ghost. You can do this via their webiste

 

And don't forget to include the letter you received - I am sure the OFT will be interested.

 

If the OFT are so good at regulating these companies, why do we read every day on this site about the misery they cause?

 

To be fair, Egg were partially correct, the guidelines are just that - a guideline to interpretation of the legislation.. It is the legislation that is the governing article. Guidelines are just that. They are a guide as to how to act to stay within the legislation. Breaking the guidelines in itself is not a breach of the legislation .

 

I did in fact send the letter to the OFT and the above is what they said. Action may be taken against a lender for breaches of legislation, but not solely because of a breach of guidelines. The OFT has to be satisfied that a breach of the legislation has taken place.

 

When I pointed to the OFT that Egg stated that they felt following the guidelines were 'optional', and asked the OFT what was the point of having guidelines that lenders felt could simpl;y be ignored, the OFT declined to answer.

 

I'm not saying the OFT don't take action, but they are woefully slow at doing so, and very inefficent also. If they were anything else, this forum would be empty wouldn't it? Lets face it, lenders and their agents break these guidelines and indeed the legislation every day. This fact is well known, hence:

 

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): The purpose of this debate is to draw the House’s attention to the abysmal state of debt collection methodology and the spirit governing it in the UK and the wholly inadequate safeguards for good and innocent people who are endeavouring to pay debt or who dispute it. It is a matter of fact that the debt collection industry relies on a combination of fear and ignorance to make a profit, and that is despicable. In 2006, the Office of Fair Trading and related agencies received some 5,700 complaints. In 2007, that figure had reached 8,000 and more than 11,000 complaints had been received by August 2008. That is a total of 25,000 complaints in three years, but the Office of Fair Trading took formal action—such as licence revocation or suspension, or the imposition of other requirements on debt collection agencies—in only four cases. I shall illustrate tonight that that is a wholly inadequate response and that Parliament has failed to stiffen the sinews of the OFT and give it legislative powers and duties to protect and promote the interests of innocent people.

Hansard 22 Apr 2009 : Column 338, Debt Collection (Consumer Credit Act)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090422/debtext/90422-0019.htm

 

Now, maybe things have changed since 2009, in which case all posts on this thread must relate to cases before that date..... or maybe things haven't changed much at all.

 

One big problem is that the Guidelines are just that, and it has to be proved that legislation has been broken. Take the case of relentless persuit by an creditor. You may complain that theoir frequent phone calls amount to harqssment. Thing is, you have to prove in court that harassment is taking place... now, I daresay that their will be some of you that claim that pointing out to a lender that their actions were harassment got them to stop. In my case, when they were phoning me on a phone I had given to my 14 YO son, NONE of the so called regulators said they had any power to stop them. It wasn't harassment because that was subjective, and only court had the power to decide if harassment was occurring. They weren't breaking teh Data Protection Act because they were calling on a number I had provided (several years ago) to a bank who had then passed it to a DCA and they weren't actually discussing anything with him, just asking to speak to me..... a get out for every claim.

 

Now, feel free to tell me how rosy the garden is and how law abiding DCAs and teh rest of the industry is......and then say the forum is closing down because as the industry is so law abiding, it isn't needed any more. But count the new posts where guidelines and legislation are being breached, or the consumer is being treated unfairly, before you do.

[dadofholly]

If the OFT are so good at regulating these companies, why do we read every day on this site about the misery they cause?

 

To be fair, Egg were partially correct, the guidelines are just that - a guideline to interpretation of the legislation.. It is the legislation that is the governing article. Guidelines are just that. They are a guide as to how to act to stay within the legislation. Breaking the guidelines in itself is not a breach of the legislation .

 

I did in fact send the letter to the OFT and the above is what they said. Action may be taken against a lender for breaches of legislation, but not solely because of a breach of guidelines. The OFT has to be satisfied that a breach of the legislation has taken place.

 

When I pointed to the OFT that Egg stated that they felt following the guidelines were 'optional', and asked the OFT what was the point of having guidelines that lenders felt could simpl;y be ignored, the OFT declined to answer.

 

I'm not saying the OFT don't take action, but they are woefully slow at doing so, and very inefficent also. If they were anything else, this forum would be empty wouldn't it? Lets face it, lenders and their agents break these guidelines and indeed the legislation every day. This fact is well known, hence:

 

 

Hansard 22 Apr 2009 : Column 338, Debt Collection (Consumer Credit Act)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090422/debtext/90422-0019.htm

 

Now, maybe things have changed since 2009, in which case all posts on this thread must relate to cases before that date..... or maybe things haven't changed much at all.

 

One big problem is that the Guidelines are just that, and it has to be proved that legislation has been broken. Take the case of relentless persuit by an creditor. You may complain that theoir frequent phone calls amount to harqssment. Thing is, you have to prove in court that harassment is taking place... now, I daresay that their will be some of you that claim that pointing out to a lender that their actions were harassment got them to stop. In my case, when they were phoning me on a phone I had given to my 14 YO son, NONE of the so called regulators said they had any power to stop them. It wasn't harassment because that was subjective, and only court had the power to decide if harassment was occurring. They weren't breaking teh Data Protection Act because they were calling on a number I had provided (several years ago) to a bank who had then passed it to a DCA and they weren't actually discussing anything with him, just asking to speak to me..... a get out for every claim.

 

Now, feel free to tell me how rosy the garden is and how law abiding DCAs and teh rest of the industry is......and then say the forum is closing down because as the industry is so law abiding, it isn't needed any more. But count the new posts where guidelines and legislation are being breached, or the consumer is being treated unfairly, before you do.

 

I have neither defended DCA's - nor claimed all is Rosey - and i agree that legislation is needed, and overdue.

 

But if enough people complain about an organisation - and provide evidence the OFT will act - i can tell you that from personal experience. But Rome was not built in a day and the OFT is under resourced.

 

I sympathise with the disgusting harrassment example you give - but the OFT cannot deal on individual complaints - thats the role of Trading Standards - or even the police who you could complain to.

 

It is up to people like you and I to continue to bring thses issues to peoples attention and become involved in groups and organisations that will fight back.

 

I dont disagree with any of your sentiments at all - and certainly do not in any way excuse the actions of DCA's. I am just pointing out they way things are - right or wrong - though we both probably agree they are wrong.

[May Fly]

well, I'm glad you cleared that up!

 

As for the police, well, the police don't know this end of the law.. there is a case (or maybe two) that I read today from the Newsletter where the police assisted a Debt collector even though he had no court order.... I've read several times on this site about similar reactions from the police.

 

Many people feel that if you have debt that yu don't repay, the lender is entitled to get the money back from you, literally anyway they can. The other day there was an article on the radio. I didnt hear it all, but it was about curbing debt collectors. Some pensioner phoned in to say he was being chased for someone elses debt, and if the debt collectors had more powers they'd be able to chase the right person (yes, he did say that). he completely missed the point that by chasing him the DCA was actng improperly and it was because of actions like that that people want more restrictions.

 

I daresay the forthcoming documentary about bailiffs will show more shocking examples of fear and intimidation and law breaking... will it change anything? will it cause anyone to act?

[dadofholly]

Am posting this link in response to some of the arguments here over the limitations for statute barred debts - and many companies now doing credit checks on potential employees.

 

The Government are now cutting the time before a conviction becomes spent - so you can steal a couple of thousand from your employer - get less than six months and your slate is wiped clean after 2 years - but owe a couple of hundred to a DCA and get defaulted - even if you later clear the debt - and you will be reported for 6 years.

 

So it's official - being in debt is now considered worse than committing a crime.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16857388

[theghost]

CRA are not Govt operated though are they? So does the Govt even have a remit to limit CRA (without introducing legislation).

 

The main thing CRAs have to comply with is the DPA - I presume it is the DPA that allows them to hold data for 6 years?

[dadofholly]

CRA are not Govt operated though are they? So does the Govt even have a remit to limit CRA (without introducing legislation).

 

The main thing CRAs have to comply with is the DPA - I presume it is the DPA that allows them to hold data for 6 years?

 

Then change the law dingbat

 

Does statute barred - not mean barred by statute?

[theghost]

I do not have problem with the general statute barred period being 6 years in order to recover money. There is no way this will change.

 

I wouldn't necessarily be too bothered in the CRA file period was reduced to say 4 years - is the CRA record 6 years long because of the Limitations Act or the Data Protection Act?

[dadofholly]

I do not have problem with the general statute barred period being 6 years in order to recover money. There is no way this will change.

 

I know you dont and have already said what i think in response to those views earlier in this thread and have nothing more to say to you on the subject. Just read previous posts.

 

It's strange that the government are happy to reduce the time that convictions become spent to help get people into employment - yet people cannot get some jobs because of credit reference checks.