FCA requests dodgy letters :)

[tonsofbrass]

Yup, but they bought one of my alleged debts back in 2007 and when I didn`t give in to their infamous "pre legal department" they "passed" it to MIDAS (in house legal department, lol!) who purported to be an external "litigation" company. The debt is well and truly buried in line with Limitations Act but they still need an ar*e kicking IMO.

[OnMyWayOut]

What about Marlin/Mortimer Clarke?

[thunderballs]

Cabot and FIRE.

Lowell and Red.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Lloyds - Sechiari, Clark and Mitchell (S.C.A.M.)

 

HBOS - Blair, Oliver and Scott (B.O.S. - geddit?)

 

HSBC - Metropolitan Collection Services, Central Debt Enforcement Agency, DG Solicitors (these are real solicitors, but they are HSBC staff)

 

Barclays - Mercers (I read recently that Barclays have said they'll stop using this dormant company)

 

NatWest/Ulster Bank - Triton

[renegotiation]

Blair Oliver and Scott spring to mind according to Daily Wail that's B (ank) O (f) S (cotland) which does sound plausible

 

HBOS - Blair, Oliver and Scott (B.O.S. - geddit?)

 

Not posted in a long while and I hope all the 'old timers' ('new timers' too ) are well. I am scouting out for more information to contribute to a case on behalf of my father and we were both just looking at the recent email newsletter.

 

Yes, I found 'Blair, Oliver And Scott' very suspicious too and mentioned it on the forum back in 2007/2008. In my opinion, it is more naughty to dream up names purporting to be specific people; rather than using some sort of generic company name. If the Daily Mail have wind of this, they must have the evidence, then there can't be any need for us to send in copies of my father's old BOS letters. Someone sat there and dreamt up the idea and it must have been sanctioned at a high level, but as with Wonga not much will happen i'll warrant. The best we can hope for is to put a stop to such activities by shining a bright light on all the companies doing this. Since Wonga hit the headlines they are probably all already winding down on the deceitful practice.

[Brummagem Flash]

Bully-boy bankers are nothing new.

 

I remember being visited circa 1984 by two burly bank employees: trying to reclaim some money their bank had paid us, when they hadn't checked our account balance. This was just a day or two after a letter from the bank had arrived: asking for the same repayment.

The letter may well have elicited a refund from us; being reasonable folk; but the bully boy approach made us dig our heels in: and we closed the account without repaying a penny!

----------------------------------------

This year, I have been outraged by Birmingham Council's Council Tax "late-payments" collection system.

For some banking reason, one monthly direct debit Council Tax payment failed to go through: so Brum Council issued (they say) a reminder letter, then a Court summons followed with added court charges.

 

Here's the thing related to the current FCA question: Birmingham Council staff issued the summons, on Magistrates' Court paper with a printed facsimile of the Magistrates' Clerk. They have an office within the court; but do NOT refer to the court staff at all, before issuing these summonses! How lawful can be summonses issued thus?

 

We did not receive that first "reminder" letter; and anyway would've expected a "final demand" letter: as specifically described in the late payments procedure on the Council's website!

I am now told they no longer have to send a final demand; due to some High Court (or similar) ruling that only sending one reminder was necessary. If arrears are not cleared, a summons for the WHOLE YEAR's TAX will be issued after 28 days!

 

 

We do not condone the non-payment, or late payment of Council Tax; but its collection must be done fairly:

(i) The Council MUST update its website to reflect current practice: and not include a promise of a "final demand" which apparently they haven't sent out for many months, if not years! To deliberately leave it showing "final demands" is FRAUDULENT.

(ii) For the fastest reminders about late payments; should the Council not issue both text and email reminders? These would be much cheaper, quicker and less likely to go undelivered. Paper reminders waste resources: so to allow residents options of texts and emails would be an ecologically sound move, too.

 

I can report that I argued about the extra summons charges, pointing out the website anomaly; and the Council did remove them, and we set up a new direct debit.

We are concerned that hundreds of other Brummies are continually being fleeced by their Council: which is still pretending, according to the website, to send TWO reminders before any court summons.

[oleg]

I've been wondering why two old chestnuts are missing from this thread.Firstly, MBNA's infamous India-registered affiliates Aegis /Global Vantedge whose letters showed no clue to the MBNA link other than the Chester return P O Box onthe envelope. Secondly, Capquest's disgraceful wheeze whereby they used to send letters under the name Telogram - and even phone neighbours until the regulators forced them to stop. In about 2011 they decided to rebrand it as Data Verification Services Ltd. A credible post on another site from someone identifying as an ex-employee revealed that D V S L was chosen deliberately to catch ppl out into thinking it mightbe something to do with D V L A. Are the above surrogate villains still being employed?

[TM123]

HSBC - Metropolitan Collection Services, Central Debt Enforcement Agency, DG Solicitors (these are real solicitors, but they are HSBC staff)

 

 

I was hoping someone could clarify a few points.

 

Who can take you to court, as I was taken to court by DG Solicitors (not a law firm) and the court document where signed by the Litigation Officer (not a solicitor). Is this legal and also if this person then acts dishonestly who does one make a complaint to. I presume you can't make a compliant to SRA as neither the firm or the person is regulated by them.

[citizenB]

I was hoping someone could clarify a few points.

 

Who can take you to court, as I was taken to court by DG Solicitors (not a law firm) and the court document where signed by the Litigation Officer (not a solicitor). Is this legal and also if this person then acts dishonestly who does one make a complaint to. I presume you can't make a compliant to SRA as neither the firm or the person is regulated by them.

 

The claimant would have been HSBC and they would have ben identified as such in the first box on the claim form. DG Solicitors details would have been in the box for the acting solicitors.

[Old Cogger]

DG not being solicitors N1 form states just DG Solicitors not human signature, all letters signed non descript DG, goes back to the days of Pankhurst (non person) do as I am doing formal; complaint to Litigation department.

[TM123]

I have made a formal complaint to HSBC and the Chief Executive, but have been fobbed off.

 

I wish to make a complaint to SRA, but the court documents and other correspondence does not identify the qualified solicitor.

 

Lloyds defended them self with the following.

 

"It pointed out that every letter sent out bore the name of a solicitor within the department who took responsibility for that letter. The correspondence also confirms the solicitor is authorised and regulated by the SRA, and gives that solicitor's registration number."

 

But this does not seem the case with DG Solicitors, have they not acted illegally.

[caro]

Why not send it to the FCA?

[renegotiation]

I've been wondering why two old chestnuts are missing from this thread.Firstly, MBNA's infamous India-registered affiliates Aegis /Global Vantedge whose letters showed no clue to the MBNA link other than the Chester return P O Box onthe envelope. Secondly, Capquest's disgraceful wheeze whereby they used to send letters under the name Telogram - and even phone neighbours until the regulators forced them to stop. In about 2011 they decided to rebrand it as Data Verification Services Ltd. A credible post on another site from someone identifying as an ex-employee revealed that D V S L was chosen deliberately to catch ppl out into thinking it mightbe something to do with D V L A. Are the above surrogate villains still being employed?

 

All the old memories are flooding back now.

[Old Cogger]

already complained to SRA sent all paperwork etc 18 months and guess what =NOTHING, they state we do not contact you unless we require further information, OR file away in case of inundated with complaints basically, utter useless, sent two complaint the other being a known solicitors = no more heard, law society/ barraster orgs pass the buck!

[rebel11]

That's a big whopping untruth. Why make that up, when thousands of people can prove otherwise.

 

Mercers Debt Collections Ltd previously managed some collections work on behalf of Barclaycard but it was made clear to customers that they were a company within the Barclays Group and collecting on our behalf.

[Hacked_Off]

is there any point in passing along these letters to the FCA? surely, as they have said with Wonga, if the letters were received at a time the fca was "not in our jurisdiction" then they'll do nowt?

[Old Cogger]

they still want the letters to complie evidence

[rameses_qc]

Let's just remember. "In house" solicitors are not unlawful, as long as they are entered on the Roll of Solicitors and regulated by SRA. Many companies employ In House solicitors and some employ in house barristers. What is unlawful is a DCA setting up a bogus company which states or gives the impression that they are solicitors when they are not. I'm getting the impression that some are thinking that ALL inhouse solicitors are unlawful. They're not.

[rebel11]

A debtor has a right to know who he is dealing with whether it's the creditor, solicitor or a DCA, whose acting on whose behalf, what they've been instructed to do and if they are part of the same organisations.

 

Let's just remember. "In house" solicitors are not unlawful, as long as they are entered on the Roll of Solicitors and regulated by SRA. Many companies employ In House solicitors and some employ in house barristers. What is unlawful is a DCA setting up a bogus company which states or gives the impression that they are solicitors when they are not. I'm getting the impression that some are thinking that ALL inhouse solicitors are unlawful. They're not.

[oleg]

A debtor has a right to know who he is dealing with whether it's the creditor, solicitor or a DCA, whose acting on whose behalf, what they've been instructed to do and if they are part of the same o

rganisations.

 

I would go one further and require that any statement of ownership or other affiliation should be made to be in a font no less prominent than that of the text of the body of the letter itself.

[rebel11]

It's deceitful, but why? they try and distance themselves from the dirty part of their business, why? to protect their corporate image, they don't want to put potential customers off. It always better off to get someone else to do your dirty work for you.

 

I w

ould go one further and state that any statement of ownership or other affiliation should be required to be in a font no less prominent than that of the text of the body of the letter itself.

[Old Cogger]

In house solicitor = then a wet signature with an actual name of the person & grade!

 

Not just DG solicitors etc, N1 DG followup paperwork DG = this is what is in the news etc?

[rameses_qc]

I'm not suggesting that this practice is acceptable; it's not and it's deceitful as has been said. All I'm saying is in House solicitors are lawful. I agree they should actually tell you that they work for the DCA/Creditor, and that they are part of the same company. Complaints to the SRA with, of course, as much evidence as you can muster, MAY get them interested in looking into this side of the business. Purely from an SRA point of view (and I'm not talking about the consumer credit legislation) They're doing nothing wrong.

[rebel11]

I would say No.3 conveys how they should conduct themselves.

 

http://www.gosportcab.hampshire.org.uk/OFT_Debt_Collector_Guidance_Oct_11_Rev.pdf

 

I'm not suggesting that this practice is acceptable; it's not and it's deceitful as has been said. All I'm saying is in House solicitors are lawful. I agree they should actually tell you that they work for the DCA/Creditor, and that they are part of the same company. Complaints to the SRA with, of course, as much evidence as you can muster, MAY get them interested in looking into this side of the business. Purely from an SRA point of view (and I'm not talking about the consumer credit legislation) They're doing nothing wrong.

[rameses_qc]

I agree wholeheartedly, but these "rules" are for those not regulated by SRA I agree that any DCA who has an In house solicitor should make it clear that they are an in house solicitor. They shoud state something along the lines of "we will be passing conduct of the account to our in - house solicitor A.N.Other"

Some will say that an in house solicitor, as long as he is on the Roll of Solicitors, is a solicitor nonetheless. I agree without question that the DCAs are trying to cause maximum stress. I'm not saying that such occurrences should not be reported to FCA