Daniel Silvermans charges add to alleged debt as they threaten me with BR.

[DonkeyB]

I imagine a statement of ‘30 days from the document date’ is unfair, unless they can show it was delivered promptly. Otherwise they could collude with Silvermans to not post invoices for 15 days, stuffing everybody. I’m amazed they keep their business...

[lookinforinfo]

This is not quite so simple as it would normally be with DCAs.

First, I haven't seen the T&Cs but I would expect the Site team who have seen them would confirm that in the event of late payment, they will invoke

The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.

 

According to that Legislation, the creditor is allowed to charge the current bank rate plus 8% interest on any outstanding payments that are deemed to be late.

They are also allowed to charge a more punitive rate if the debtor is in agreement. I guess that by not complaining about the 15% interest rate on their invoices

could mean that you have accepted their terms.

 

However, as I said on an earlier post, these charges are intended to be punitive and encourage a late payer to pay up quickly. I therefore read the legisaltion as being

a sharp short term charge to encourage the debtor to pay quickly and not a method to severely punish someone who is in financial difficulties.

 

Sarah, Have you asked TS about whether it is right that you are being charged under this Legislation when you are in the position you are in, since it does seem to fly in the face of the

usual guidelines on Debt Collection.

[BASFORDLAD2]

It may be different to other debts but DS still operate the same and dont really change their tactics.

 

What is the chance of your business recovering?

[sarahsacc]

It may be different to other debts but DS still operate the same and dont really change their tactics.

 

What is the chance of your business recovering?

 

The chances of our business recovering are fair-good however it means that we have to tighten our belts further but it should all be resolved by mid August? Provided they don't inflate any other charges.

[sarahsacc]

This is not quite so simple as it would normally be with DCAs.

First, I haven't seen the T&Cs but I would expect the Site team who have seen them would confirm that in the event of late payment, they will invoke

The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.

 

According to that Legislation, the creditor is allowed to charge the current bank rate plus 8% interest on any outstanding payments that are deemed to be late.

They are also allowed to charge a more punitive rate if the debtor is in agreement. I guess that by not complaining about the 15% interest rate on their invoices

could mean that you have accepted their terms.

 

However, as I said on an earlier post, these charges are intended to be punitive and encourage a late payer to pay up quickly. I therefore read the legisaltion as being

a sharp short term charge to encourage the debtor to pay quickly and not a method to severely punish someone who is in financial difficulties.

 

Sarah, Have you asked TS about whether it is right that you are being charged under this Legislation when you are in the position you are in, since it does seem to fly in the face of the

usual guidelines on Debt Collection.

 

I have emailed TS with regards to this matter and waiting for a response? Although that said they said I should speak to the National Debt Line as they would be better able to advise me so i will also try them on this legislation?

[lookinforinfo]

What TS do is to monitor that the supplier and Silverman's are acting within the guidelines.

The National Debt Line are there provide help to negotiate with your supplier a way out of the current impasse.

 

What would be ideal is that TS would take the view that using Late Payment legislation is inappropriate in your situation.

[sarahsacc]

I will address that point with them and let you all know what transpires

 

Thank you all once again for great advice once again

[zydeco]

All overdue invoices will be referred to Daniels Silverman and will be subject to a surcharge of 15% plus VAT to cover the collection costs incurred. This surcharge together with all other legal fees incurred will be the responsibility of the customer and will be legally enforceable.

1. The supplier has a contract with DS so they won't talk to you.

2. DS think they have a contract with you which gives them the right to add charges.

3. If it goes to court, (which I very much doubt), and you win, according to them you will still have to pay the legal costs which is total [expletive deleted]

 

As Martin says

Just because its in their terms and conditions it does not mean that these charges are fair or in proportion.

For example how can 15% of an outstanding balance of £100 which with Vat would be £18.50 for DS for writing a couple of letters be considered fair to someone with an outstanding balance of £10,000 which would involve the same work from them yet give them a tidy earner ?

Earlier in this thread DS were asking for 15% + vat + interest. According to the t & c's that the op ( hi sarah ) posted,. there's no mention of interest.

 

Just my 2 pen'oth having had dealings with suppliers as a sole trader.

( wish I'd been LTD.)

[lookinforinfo]

Sarah, I think it is quite legitimate for you to query Silverman's figures.

The LP legislation allows you to be charged currently £70 plus vat as well as 8.5% interest on the outstanding amount including vat, but cannot charge vat on that last amount.

So the figure should be £84 [£70 + 20% vat] plus interest on the debt at 8.5%.

 

Therefore , you need clarification on what amount they are charging 15% on and you need a breakdown of how they arrived at the interest figure and their total collection charges.

You should also point out that the supplier is aware that you are unfortunately unable to pay the outstanding amount, and so you feel that you should not be subject to the Late

Payment legislation as that is designed as a short sharp shock to encourage a slow payer to pay now. You have already informed the supplier that you are not in a position to pay

the amount now and so the LP legislation is adding an extra burden to your debt that is inequitable and you would welcome their observations.

 

Once they have given a breakdown of the figures with starting and finishing dates dates of when the interest rate was applied and then dispute the amount from there.

[MARTIN3030]

Never saw this site before-business debtline.

http://www.bdl.org.uk/englandandwales.asp

Maybe worth a look !

[sequenci]

Never saw this site before-business debtline.

http://www.bdl.org.uk/englandandwales.asp

Maybe worth a look !

 

Good site, that.

[MARTIN3030]

Indeed it is.

[MARTIN3030]

any further news ?

[sarahsacc]

Hi there just to keep you all up-dated.

 

MARTIN3030 I have looked at the website and telephoned the number shown after a lengthy conversation on the phone with these people in your link - http://www.bdl.org.uk/englandandwales.asp I am now in possession of some very thick literature to read through to see if the late payment regs apply to me? There's over 100+ pages

 

I have heard back from DS after using their complaints proceedure and being ignored I emailed again and asked why I was being ignored - I also have the TS Lady copied in on every email now and the tone of the emails have changed although they maintain that what has been written is non threatening (OMG I did laugh at this) they also casually asked in what capacity TS was being involved to which I have neglected to answer lol!

 

Under the instruction of the Business Debtline I have asked for a complete breakdown on when the interest was charged from and too and at what rate this was calculated.

 

Surprise surprise they have yet to answer

[MARTIN3030]

Thanks for update.

It is not for DS to ask to be given specifics as to what capacity TS are

involved,since their capacity should be fairly obvious.

Unfortunately consumer protection regulators are over stretched and so it can make all the difference if you do some homework and present it to them on a plate.This is a benefit of sites such as CAG,where you will get some help to put your case over.

If DS have failed to supply you with a copy of their complaints procedure when requested,this is a serious concern and one which should be reported.

 

DS should know by now,that where these instances are reported on this site,that they will be further exposing continued practices which we have seen fromm the past.

At no point have you denied any liability to what you legitimately owe,nor have you sought to avoid to deal with these arrears.

The CAG does not condone nor support debt avoidance,and we understand that in a recession late payments and non payments can threaten the survival of businesses,but there is always a case to look who will be the biggest victim,and from where I am standing,and from what we know,Daniel Silverman appear to be the only beneficiaries at the end of the day.

I am not in receipt of info as regards any contractual details between your supplier and DS for obvious reasons,but it could be the case that they are using DS for other collections.

I do know the usual arrangements since I have copies of docs they furnished to a good friend of mine who engaged them to deal.

It would be nice to be able to report something good about DS,as I cannot believe that any company can continue to trade for so long without achieving some success in what they do and achieve it by playing by the book.

Keep us updated.

[sarahsacc]

Just a quick note to bring you all up to speed so far;

 

I have again contacted DS and requested a complete breakdown of the interest charges that have been added to the account (as advised) I have asked from when they were first applied and to what date they relate. I have also asked what was the interest rate used to calculate the sum of interest owed? To my surprise DS messaged back to say they have asked my supplier to furnish me with the requested information as they were ones the ones who applied the interest to the debt judging by the message received? I have also been told by DS that thye have been instructed to take full legal action if I default on any payments!

 

It would seem that my supplier seems to be the organ grinder and DS are the monkeys? or is it a case that DS could be passing the buck?? They have been very polite in all communications since they have realised that TS are involved somewhere in all this but they do not know to what extent. (That's the way I want to keep it )

 

Any thoughts guys???

[BASFORDLAD2]

Daniel silverman won't do anything but Bluff and bluster

[lookinforinfo]

Sarah, are you having any luck querying whether you should still be coming under the Late payments Act?

 

I note that there is a method of going to Court to challenge the costs incurred though it would appear that you cannot do it, but if you are a

member of a Business organisation they can act on your behalf.

[MARTIN3030]

Its hard to say just what the real truth is.

In any event,you are not really going to know just who DID arrive at the figures.

You are entitled to be furnished with this information by the supplier.

It may be an idea to actually ask the supplier to give you this breakdown,on the basis that you have sought it from DS but they maintain that they are not able to say,since their client have calculated the amount due and payable.

 

This is usually referred to as lighting the touchpaper and standing well clear

[MARTIN3030]

Its also interesting that this thread has almost 2000 views.

There have been 13 different posters.

[lookinforinfo]

Hi Sarah, we haven't heard from you for a while so just asking how you are getting on with the late payment regs and how your correspondence is going with DS?

 

I have been looking at this OFT website http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/OFT664Rev.pdf and while it is aimed at Consumer

credit rather than Trade credit, many of the principles surely apply to both. Indeed this extract from the website would appear to agree-

.7 In monitoring and assessing fitness of licence holders and applicants, we will also, where appropriate, take account of their behaviour when recovering non-consumer credit debts.

 

I have listed several examples which I feel you could legitimately write to DS and point out that they are not complying with OFT guidelines on Debt Recovery. I would welcome the thoughts of those on site to see whether they thought that DS should be subject to them notwithstanding the fact that they are marching to The Late payment Regs.

 

2 OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES OF FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE

 

2.1 In the OFT's view, there are a number of overarching principles of consumer protection and fair business practice which apply to all debt recovery activities.

 

2.2 In general terms, businesses should:

• treat debtors fairly – debtors should not be subjected to aggressive practices, inappropriate coercion, or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether unlawful or not

 

• be transparent in their dealings with debtors and others – information provided should be clear and should not be confusing or misleading

 

• exercise forbearance and consideration – in particular towards debtors experiencing difficulty - we would expect businesses to work with debtors with a view to providing them with reasonable time and opportunity to repay debts and, where appropriate, to signpost them to sources of free independent debt advice

 

• act proportionately when seeking to recover debts, taking into account debtors' circumstances - actions taken in respect of arrears or default should give proper consideration

to available options and the likely effect of such actions on the debtor

 

 

establish and implement clear, appropriate and effective policies and procedures for identifying and dealing with particularly vulnerable debtors. and (other) complaints

 

Most debtors may be regarded as 'vulnerable', to some degree, by virtue of their financial circumstances. Of these, some may be, permanently or temporarily, rendered particularly vulnerable by virtue of the fact that they are significantly constrained in terms of their ability to engage appropriately with those pursuing them for the repayment of debts owed.

 

Physical/psychological harassment

 

i. pressurising debtors to pay more than they can reasonably afford without experiencing undue difficulty

 

For example, by using the threat of enforcement action through the courts - including but not limited to applications for charging orders (or inhibitions in Scotland) and orders for sale - to pressure debtors in financial difficulties to pay more than they can reasonably afford.

 

j. failing to allow for alternative, affordable, repayment amounts when a reasonable proposal is made by a debtor

 

 

In the OFT's view, creditors should consider reducing or stopping interest and charges where a borrower evidences that he is in financial difficulty and is unable to meet repayments as they fall due or when he can only make ‘token’ repayments such that his level of debt would continue to increase if interest and charges continue to be applied

50 Even where there is an express provision, a charge may still be unfair if it does not reflect actual and necessary costs.

51 The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 2010 require the agreement to include a statement of 'any charges payable for late payment' and 'any other charges deriving from the credit agreement and the conditions under which those charges may be changed'

 

An 'unreasonable charge' in this context would be a charge, the level of which, is not based on the recovery of actual and necessary costs. OFT664Rev444

 

Deadlocked debt

A.4 Where we refer to discussions about debt repayment being 'deadlocked' we mean that a debtor (or the debtor's representative) has acknowledged (the debtor's) liability for a debt and has proposed a repayment programme – but the proposed repayment programme is not acceptable to the debt recovery business (or the creditor if not pursuing recovery of repayment of the debt on its own behalf).

A.5 While businesses should not be required to accept any offer, we would expect them to give serious consideration to accepting any reasonable offer. Under circumstances in which a business rejects a repayment offer because it considers it to be unacceptable, we do not consider it appropriate for the business to engage in any conduct intended to, and/or likely to, have the effect of intimidating the debtor into increasing his repayment offer.

For example, following receipt of an unacceptable offer from a debtor, the debt recovery business immediately communicates to the debtor that it will be 'sending field agents to visit'.

Many debtors would view such a communication as 'threatening'

A.6 We consider that visiting or 'threatening' to visit a debtor, following receipt of an unacceptable (to the creditor) repayment offer, may constitute an unfair or improper practice.

 

We would have particular concerns under circumstances in which a debt recovery business rejects a debtor's repayment offer as being unacceptable – but cannot subsequently demonstrate to our satisfaction why the offer was considered to be unreasonable (for example, if assessed against the Common Financial Statement or equivalent).

 

The OFT would have particular concerns under such circumstances if the initial repayment offer made by the debtor was the maximum that he could sustainably afford at that time given his financial circumstances. 'Sustainably' in this context means without undue difficulty and, in particular, without incurring or increasing problem indebtedness. OFT664Rev

[MARTIN3030]

Good info.

I think it should be remembered that the OFT Debt collection guidance is primarily concerned with issues regulated under CCA.

But there is certainly scope to be questioning unfairness elements.

We have seen Payday loan Companies sanctioned for bad practices.

 

CPUTR 2008 also offers some gems,and can be applicable to SMEs where other regs give no protection.

I will email the OP to see if they can update.