BCW and old T-mobile debt - BCW ignored payments, intention of visit.

[jackrangersfc]

Hi there.

 

Ran into difficulty paying my t-mobile bill, which has now ended.

 

Contacted by a company called Buchanan Clark and Wells demanding payment of £155.21.

I checked my t-mobile account, and am still able to pay off my balance on their website, which comes to £140.21.

 

I emailed BCW saying if I can pay them, why should I pay a DCA?

 

I then to be safe set up a payment agreement at BCW's website, and paid on the 14th September by bank transfer.

 

Received however a letter today stating that they would be making a home visit as the agreement

has not been honoured, despite having my own evidence that I sent the bank transfer.

 

Despite this, the balance has not been changed to reflect this.

 

I have sent an angry email along these lines to ask why a payment has been ignored.

 

I refuse to communciate with them by phone, only be letter or email.

 

 

I will soon have enough money aside to pay off the tmobile bill, shall I just pay tmobile directly and tell BCW where to go?

 

Thanks!

Edited September 26, 2013 by citizenB

[renegadeimp]

Do NOT pay BCW. If you can still pay the OC then pay them directly.

 

I will soon have enough money aside to pay off the tmobile bill, shall I just pay tmobile directly and tell BCW where to go?

 

100% correct. If they are silly enough to send someone round to your house, tell them that they leave NOW or the police will be called. Dont get into a conversation with them, just tell them and walk away.

[jackrangersfc]

On the Tmobile account site, there is the 'my bills' section where there is no issue at all paying the OC. I paid off a small amount that I could today, so what does this render the BCW as?

[renegadeimp]

renders them impotent.

 

BCW are acting on behalf of the creditor. However, they will say to pay them, and theyll take a chunk of the money for themselves before they pass it to the OC. You'll then still owe more money to the OC.

 

General rule of thumb is if the DCA does not own the debt, then pay the OC directly. If they OC wont listen, thats their problem.

[jackrangersfc]

Ok. The OC seems to have no problem accepting payment and any payment is instantly reflected in the balance.

[renegadeimp]

Thats good. If BCW come calling tell them to bugger off. It might also be worth contacting t-mobiles complaints department and demanding they call BCW off.

[jackrangersfc]

The thing I don't understand is that the OC still accepts payments despite having BCW chase it, or is that just BCW's loss and risk to take?

[renegadeimp]

BCW cant do anything jack. They are hired merely to yell at you to get you to pay. No other reason.

[jackrangersfc]

Told them that they must stop calling and I will only communicate via letter, if they continue calling can that be classed as harrassment?

[renegadeimp]

Definitley.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

A recent Appeal Court Judgement Roberts - V - BOS has defined harassment quite clearly contacting twice after notification that a matter will be dealt with in writing is harassment.

[renegadeimp]

A recent Appeal Court Judgement Roberts - V - BOS has defined harassment quite clearly contacting twice after notification that a matter will be dealt with in writing is harassment.

 

Cheers for that bit of info Brig. It will come in handy over on the PDL forums.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Cheers for that bit of info Brig. It will come in handy over on the PDL forums.

 

Full transcript available on line.

[citizenB]

A recent Appeal Court Judgement Roberts - V - BOS has defined harassment quite clearly contacting twice after notification that a matter will be dealt with in writing is harassment.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/882.html

 

I don't think there was any reference to Roberts having said she wanted contact to be in writing. Just that she didn't want to discuss the matter any further on the telephone. At which point the 547 calls the bank made subsequently were judged to have been harassment.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It's the stated 'action (s) amounting to harassment' that are useful in any 'continuing' contact after what amounts to to a notification of preference implied in the judgement i.e. two or more instances.

[Peterbard]

It's the stated 'action (s) amounting to harassment' that are useful in any 'continuing' contact after what amounts to to a notification of preference implied in the judgement i.e. two or more instances.

 

 

Please quote the passage where two or more contacts was stated or implied.

 

This was a useful judgement to be sure, but it must be quoted correctly ;

 

"Simpler and cheaper for the local manager to telephone the claimant and try to talk to her,

rather than unleash a monstrous system of 547 automated phone calls followed by a series of futile conversations.

 

In these conversations the caller is always someone different.

His or her knowledge of the claimant is gleaned from notes on a database.

 

In my view, the bank should amend its system so that it treats customers with courtesy,

or at the very least so that it does not commit the crime and tort of harassment.

 

If Mr Counsell is right in saying that the only practicable means by which a bank can contact defaulting customers

is the method adopted in this case, then banks had better build into their costings the damages

which from time to time they will be called upon to pay to those customers.

There is also the matter of criminal penalties to be considered."

 

We must be careful when quoting case law that we get our facts right.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Read it yourself transcript available.

[Peterbard]

Read it yourself transcript available.

 

Read it thanks, and there is no such criteria, of course.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Nonsense.

2 or More instances of contact are defined as harassment.

Perhaps you just can't understand the transcript!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It is also referred to in Section 7 of the ACT.

[Peterbard]

It is also referred to in Section 7 of the ACT.

 

As usual your advice lacks any sense of proportionality, anyone seeking legal redress for harassment after two phone calls from a creditor trying to secure payment of a debt is going to be laughed out of court.

[citizenB]

The act does not refer to "contact" at all, but to "conduct".

 

I would think it would be very foolish indeed for anyone to bring a claim for harassment against a creditor after only 2 telephone calls, unless those calls were recorded and they were pretty nasty. (for example : in the early days of CAG we saw DCAs threatening to have children taken away from the Mother or that the debtor could be sent to prison).

 

This judgment and that of Keith Harrison against Link were for the very high number of calls after both Harrison and Roberts had advise they did not want to communicate by telephone. In Roberts case the calls were over 500 and the bank also started to contact her parents.

 

Once the bank realised that they were not going to move forward with the telephone calls they must at that point have realised to continue was indeed harassment.

 

 

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/882.html

 

 

 

8 Section 7 of the 1997 Act provides:

 

 

"(2) References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress.

 

(3) A "course of conduct" must involve-

 

 

(a) in the case of conduct in relation to a single person (see section 1(1)), conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person, or

 

 

(b) in the case of conduct in relation to two or more persons (see section 1(1A)), conduct on at least one occasion in relation to each of those persons."

 

 

[Peterbard]

The act does not refer to "contact" at all, but to "conduct".

 

I would think it would be very foolish indeed for anyone to bring a claim for harassment against a creditor after only 2 telephone calls, unless those calls were recorded and they were pretty nasty. (for example : in the early days of CAG we saw DCAs threatening to have children taken away from the Mother or that the debtor could be sent to prison).

 

This judgment and that of Keith Harrison against Link were for the very high number of calls after both Harrison and Roberts had advise they did not want to communicate by telephone. In Roberts case the calls were over 500 and the bank also started to contact her parents.

 

 

Indeed as was the British gas judgment( which I cannot lay my hands on at the moment )

[citizenB]

Indeed as was the British gas judgment( which I cannot lay my hands on at the moment )

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html

[ims21]

Indeed as was the British gas judgment( which I cannot lay my hands on at the moment )

 

Ferguson - v - British Gas Trading Ltd?

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html