Mercers Debt Collection

[ODC]

- A local collector calling at your home to secure full repayment

 

 

And exactly what could a local collector actually do if you told him or her to Feck Off and leave your property.

 

 

 

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

 

 

Yet another empty threat designed to intimidate

[CCAMAN]

Hi unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a solution where Mercer's are concerned. I have wrote to the company asking them to stop phoning me, just to correspond in writting. I have wrote to Barclaycard who passed my debt over to Mercer's, and have made a formal complaint in writting.

 

Mercer's are still phoning, Barclaycard doesn't accept what Mercer's are doing is harassment, even though i have had abuse off one gentleman, and even phoning me twice within a matter of minutes.

 

While i accept that i owe the debt, and are paying Mercer's every month, the only solution i have found is not to answer the phone at all now.

 

Dont know if anyone else can think of a solution.

If You have a fax-let the fax answer the calls-then you can decide who want to talk to, I use the fax quite efectively for this situation-its an idea to let those you TRUST in on this idea-anyway hope that is some help.

[oilyrag]

Hi Franmc12

 

Sadly there is no solution to dealing with the group of companies in the Barclaycard fold. This includes in our own case, Mercers,Calders, Power2Contact, Resolvecall and Scotcall. They will ignore everything up to and including injunctions against them. It has been stated to me by Mercers that Barclays Bank can break the law with the full backing of the Supreme Court and Parliament (????)

 

Just remember that they have absolutely no standing in law, none of them despite what they will tell you. The professional legal advice to us was to just ignore them and put the phone down. Actually now we get them to identify themselves and do not be fooled by the friendly christian name approach, enter NO conversation with them At ALL, read the riot act almost just as it is in the CAG doorstep letter template, be rude do not give them a chance to speak and put the phone down. WE have just logged our 500th call from Mercers alone.

 

You can complain to Trading Standards if you wish but unfortunately you may find in your area that you know more about Consumer Credit matters than their officers. Complain if you wish to the Office of Fair Trading but they will not deal with individual complaints they seem to just log the things and when they have enough, whatever that figure may be, they then issue reprimands to the company concerned.

 

Keep the faith there are many of us on here who are battling exactly as you are. Technical detailed advice from those more expert than me will also come your way here. If you need then ask and someone will be along.

 

Regards

oilyrag.

Edited February 4, 2010 by oilyrag
typo

[diddydicky]

If You have a fax-let the fax answer the calls-then you can decide who want to talk to, I use the fax quite efectively for this situation-its an idea to let those you TRUST in on this idea-anyway hope that is some help.

 

truecall around 70 quid from this site- total utter and complete solution AND will record offensive phone calls if you want to report this guy

[AA99]

Since Sep 2008, while dealing with BC directly, I have had written threats in the last 4 months alone from Mercers, Calders, Credit Solutions, Power2Contact, all passing back to BC in between and my case is now with the FOS. Most have been demanding full payment, not just arrears:confused:

 

At least TrueCall has stopped the calls

[dizzyhead90]

can anyone give me advice mercers are hasseling my husband for money owed to barclaycard my husband has sent a letter to barclaycard offering them £30pound a month by direct debit he also told them contact was to be by letter only but they keep calling he has had no word back from barclaycard mercers are threating to send someone round help

[oilyrag]

Hi Dizzy

 

Please read my post 478 above. There is no real way of shaking these people off. Diddydicky advocates the TRUECALL if you can afford it and many have said that this changed their lives.

 

However down to your business, have you made a section 78 CCA1974 request yet to BC? If not then do so as this is your real starting point on all this. Their usual failures will allow you to get the account into dispute, they will dispute this but it is where you start out I'm afraid

 

Do not under any circumstances enter into conversation with anyone on the phone about these matters. Writing ONLY and do not sign any more letters with your normal signature just print your name. There are many template letters in the CAG library for you to modify and use to your advantage. You will find by reading these forums that telling the truth is a million miles away from the cogniscence of these people. The phone calls and letters are just "threatograms" designed to put you on the wrong foot. Mercers are BC by the way and the next lot will be Calders who are part of Mercers. Just put the phone down as rudely or as politely as you wish, they have NO standing in law whatsoever, they have NO control over you or your affairs. Log all the calls and keep any correspondence complete with envelopes. As I have said to others and experienced caggers will tell you, this crowd eventually shoot themselves in the foot with defective paperwork.

 

They will trash your credit file anyway whatever so you have nothing to lose. If it goes to court let them take you and you are a very long way from this at the moment, then you defend, you will get all the help need from here if you wish to go as a Litigant In Person. Even if you lose and we all would hope that you didn't (defended properly the probability is that you will win), the court will then make the orders and they will only make you pay what you can actually afford to pay. This scenario is unlikely anyway. Do more reading on here and the picture will become clearer and clearer giving you much more confidence to deal with these appalling people. But you will have to have lots and lots of patience, the wheels of justice turn very slowly.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[cloggy]

Dizzyhead90,

 

Been there myself, these guys are complete ar**@^&)>!

 

Follow the advice here on the forum.

Tell them to go away, log every call they make to you but do not tell them anything, send them the 'communicate in writing only letter'.

Send them 'the you are not welcome on my premises letter'.

 

I had the same grief from them, they would phone up to 8 times a day from 08.30 to 21.00. even on a Sunday.

Always ask them for their full name, direct dial telephone number, Consumer Credit Lic (they never have this) as it takes them off script.

Then keep them hanging on for as long as you like, then hang up.

Sooner or later they get the message and give up calling.

 

I took my complaint to the FOS and have just been awarded (???) a credit of the interest and charges added to the account since a year ago when I offered them £25 a month and they refused it. The FOS said the business should have listened to my offer.

 

I am no further forward but I have not paid a bean to BC'd/Mercers/Calders for over a year.

 

They never sent anyone to me despite the constant threat just harassed us on the phone until the message dropped that it was getting them nowhere.

The advice on this forum is very good, use it and you should get through it all

[dizzyhead90]

thank you oilyrag the girl on the phone was very rude this morning and told me they were within there rights to phone or call whenever they wanted i know that is rubbish because i have a friend in belfast who works for a dca and they cannot phone anyone before nine oclock in the morning or after nine at night i just do not know how to stop them

[Desperate Daniella]

And send them a letter referring to their threat of a doorstep caller and continuing:

Please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make an appointment with you.

 

There is only an implied licence under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke licence under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so, then you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.

 

As you have been given this notice, should your representative then come to my property and cause any embarrassment which results in financial loss to me you will also be liable for damages.

You don't have to talk to them. Just put the phone down. They'll go quiet eventually, but we've all been through it, and it's not nice. Actually I do talk to them, but that was only after I'd been on CAG for several months and know what to say to get them to go away.

If you want to pay this off, call CCCS and get a reference number. You don't need to follow the CCCS advice, but as soon as you quote that reference number they will back off because they will know that their actions are being monitored by someone else. CCCS may well advise you to offer just £1, and if you explain all your income and expenditure to CCCS they may also advise you that you should offer barclaycard even less than the £30 you are offering.

DD

[dizzyhead90]

thank you daniella just about to send them that letter just hope it works

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Dizzy,

 

I doubt if they'll send anyone. I did have someone turn up once - not barclaycard, can't remember who it was - and I just handed him a copy of that statement with my address at the top and signed (not usual signature) and he went away without a word.

 

I was sooo frightened before I found CAG. I didn't know how to cope with any of it. Look at other barclaycard/mercers threads and you'll see that so many of us are dealing with them (and all the other banks too), and I promise you it does get easier.

 

Before we come here we get letters threatening God-knows-what and we are absolutely terrified. We think that phrases such as "we may instruct" mean that we are going to be taken to court next week, lose our homes, and more, and then through this forum we learn that "may" means exactly that, and they almost certainly won't be doing anything of the sort.

 

Before I found CAG I knew there had to be other people just like me, worried sick about it all, but I didn't know where to find them. Just being part of CAG will make you feel better, and as you learn more you'll feel much more confident. When I first came here and started reading my head was absolutely spinning with all the information - prescribed terms, CCA 1974, enforceable agreements, and so on. I still don't understand the finer points of a lot of things, but the great thing is that there are people who do and will help.

 

Just shout any time you need anything and I know someone will come along with advice.

 

DDxx

[oilyrag]

Hear hear Desperate D.

 

We were terrified as well. We are getting through it because of CAG although we had to instruct solicitors in the end on medical advice. It does not stop the likes of Mercers/Calders they even ignore their letters and an injunction. I recently posted that we had just logged our 500th call from Mercers/Calders but we have got it down to a couple a day, PLUS when they hear its me and not the OH THEY often put the phone down straight away PLUS they instructed Moorcroft on one account who ran away after two phone calls and a stiff letter (on cardboard:D) giving them the sols contact details along with the CAG bits from the template.

 

But we now pay nothing and they won't go to court. Sols have said to ignore all the worries of added interest and charges and the like, they will recover all that and more despite we haven't paid it (LOL) at court if they ever dare to go.

 

I can live with stalemate and telling the idiots they can B****R off anytime we like, its their money they are wasting not mine now.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

oh and by the way Dizzy, they have NO RIGHTS at all, they actually have no standing at all in law. Like I said you will have to sit it out and be thick skinned about them. It came very hard to be so discourteous when we started but now even if it gets as far as speaking they don't get a chance to speak, we read the "riot act" and put the phone down rudely. Now it has become normal practice and DO NOT LET THEM GET UNDER YOUR SKIN. They are liars, cheats, deceivers they will stop at nothing verbally to get you wrongfooted and trick you into making a mistake. Don't give them that chance. They WILL make a mistake with their paperwork which leads into unlawful recission of the agreement if it ever existed in a proper form and at that time they can only ever claim the arrears NOT the full outstanding balance whatever their toilet paper letters say even if they can get that!!

 

Hope that this all helps a bit

regards

oily.

Edited March 3, 2010 by oilyrag

[dizzyhead90]

hi oilyrag i have already made them an offer but heard no word back the girl that phoned this morning told me she could not discuss it as it was not acceptable i cannot afford any more than £30 per month i told her to stop calling and to send letters instead she told me they didnot work that way i barred the number after i put the phone down

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Dizzy,

 

oily has given you some very good advice.

 

They really will say anything on the phone to try and bully you into paying more than you can afford, and of course they won't want to put anything like that in writing. One of the women at Calders actually told me I should borrow from someone else in order to pay them and that is strictly against OFT guidelines. I didn't know that at the time of that call, but I do now and I'd report them instantly.

 

There's a telephone harassment template letter somewhere on the site and I'd include that in your letter if you haven't already sent it. They do have more than one number so if they do get through just put the phone down, or tell them that you are recording the call and logging every call they make and will be reporting them, and then hang up.

 

There was one absolute ******* who had me in floods of tears one night because he threatened to send someone round the following day if I didn't give him a debit card payment for £50 - and that was all the money I had to live on. That was before I was on CAG of course, and knew what a lying ******* he was. ****, total ****.

 

DD

[dizzyhead90]

hi dd i will not be giving them any money by debit card they are **** and i will bar all thier numbers if need be i got bt to put on choose to refuse

[oilyrag]

Hi Dizzy,

 

Good to see your spirits seem to be lifting a bit. Take a good look at the Cag template letters and try to get a paper trail going now. Use the forum search engine to find letters others have used in your position then you can see how they are modified to suit your own particular case. Remember SIGN NOTHING, DISCUSS NOTHING VERBALLY and MAKE NO OFFERS.

 

Whilst I know that nothing stops these animals from harassing you at least you know that YOU are in control now. You have the combined brains of several thousand people on here who have all been through what is happening to you and more. Many have fought and won hands down right through the courts system

 

I would respectfully suggest that you make a start on finding out exactly what your legal position is. Think about making your request for a copy of your agreement under section 78 of the CCA1974 to Barclaycard, use a postal order endorsed on the back "for section 78 request only". They have 12+2days to respond. They either won't respond at all or will send you some terms and conditions along with a stupid letter telling you in legalese that they have complied in full with their obligations, which they have not. All the templates are on here. When they fail as they will, send a reminder and after seven days send the Account in Dispute letter and then you can legitimately pay nothing at all until they comply in full. They will not accept this of course but get them to say in writing that this is their final response and you can then complain to the fos.

 

You are already getting the standard hassle anyway so why pay them anything at all until they obey the law. You can tell Mercers/Calders/BC to back off until they comply and that it is with the fos. There has been some success in getting a proper copy of your agreement via this route. On the back of this you can Subject Access Request them under the Data Protection Act 1998 for a tenner and they have 40 days to respond in full. You would then be in "game on" mode as you should read up on slick132's posts. He is the BC guru and you should be able to start claiming back PPI and unlawful penalty charges. Remember this is not a bank account so the test case in the Supreme court bears no relevance. This is a credit card and unlawful charges may still be claimed. There are spreadsheets on this site to help you calculate what is rightfully yours. I won't confuse the issue with any more, there is something for you to think about.

 

Best regards

oilyrag.

[dizzyhead90]

Hi Oilyrag Do You Know If The Credit Is After 2006 Does It Still Have To Be Signed And Is It Enforceable

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Dizzy,

 

oilyrag is offline just now so I thought I'd reply.

 

Some agreements after 2006 are enforceable, but it depends on the date in 2006 and what the agreement actually says. You won't know until you see what they send in response to your request for a copy of your agreement - unless of course you are one of those brilliant people who keep a photocopy of everything you ever sign - unlike me!!

 

DD

[oilyrag]

Thanks for responding on my behalf DD and yes Dizzy that would be my advice as well. It would seem that every case has to be made on its merits really, although if you listen to any of those recorded message telephone calls from Claims Management Companies (and I do NOT advocate you use one) they will claim that the actual cut off date is April 2007. This is when the last amendment, I believe, to the CCA came into force. This if memory serves correctly actually removed clause 127 and weakened some others against us for current agreements. I would stand corrected by those with greater knowledge.

 

As ours are very much older and come under the original act hence I will admit to not having studied the latest small print in any detail. I know I should. However, the European Convention of Human Rights under the Lisbon Treaty which our courts can no longer ignore, (its a bit they forgot to opt out of) you CANNOT be made a victim of new retrospective laws. This means that things like running agreements, as CCs are, will be treated by the law appertaining at the time of signature. I believe some matters are already being brought before the EU courts which will settle some of this, in all probability in our favour.

 

I think you should wait and see what comes back to you. in the mean time study up the unenforcability critieria available on this site. This will give you a good guide to the format, prescribed terms etc. Then come back and better people than me can probably make a more accurate judgement.

 

We are all here to help each other.

regards

oilyrag.

[dizzyhead90]

thank you dd and oilyrag

[brooooooooooce]

The Truecall gadget really is worth investing in, if you can afford it. No more calls from these scumbags.

[HAWC]

Consequently, if anyone has thier barclaycard debt sold to equidebt, please contact me. i have a small warning for you about a possible breach of your personal details and data security.

 

I have not had a Barclays Debt passed to them.

However, I have had a Shabbey (Stantander) debt passed to these sad peeps

 

Any info would help

[Dougal16T]

Morning all,

 

I would just like to add a letter I have put together which I have sent o Equidebt, Allied International and a two or thee others. It is long winded but I believe it closes all of the doors for the company that receives it! I anyone has any comments (good or bad) I will be pleased to hear them.

 

Here it is:

 

 

For the personal attention of Mr Willimason

Allied (International) Credit

Anderston House

389 Argyle Street, Glasgow G2 8LR

 

First Class recorded delivery. 30th July 2010

 

Dear Sir,

WARNING – DO NOT IGNORE THE CONTENTS OF THIS LETTER

 

Re: XXXXXX

 

I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding the telephone calls that have been received from yourself on behalf of your company.

 

Enquiries reveal that your company have been under investigation by the Office of Fair Trading, and by the Police in connection with your approaches to the public and your business dealings.

 

I therefore demand that these phone calls stop immediately.

 

I do not acknowledge any debt to your company or any other person.

 

For your information all telephone calls to and from the number you have called are recorded for security purposes, therefore I will not be calling you.

 

This is because I do not carry out any financial business on the telephone, all business between us must be in writing.

 

You are to read this following section carefully and ensure that you are fully aware of the implications of any action you may take either now or in the future

The Fraud Act 2006

 

The appropriate sections read:

Section 1. Subsection (3) sets out the penalties for the offence. The maximum custodial sentence of 10 years is the same as for the main existing deception offences and for the common law crime of conspiracy to defraud.

 

Section 2. This section makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation.

Subsection (1)(b) requires that the person must make the representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another. The gain or loss does not actually have to take place. The same requirement applies to conduct criminalised by sections 3 and 4. Subsection (2) defines the meaning of "false" in this context and subsection (3) defines the meaning of "representation". A representation is defined as false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. Subsection (3) provides that a representation means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to a person's state of mind.

 

Subsection (4) provides that a representation may be express or implied. It can be stated in words or communicated by conduct.

There is no limitation on the way in which the representation must be expressed. So it could be written or spoken or posted on a website.

 

Subsection (5) provides that a representation may be regarded as being made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention). The main purpose of this provision is to ensure that fraud can be committed where a person makes a representation to a machine and a response can be produced without any need for human involvement.

 

Section 3. makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information. A legal duty to disclose information may include duties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The concept of "legal duty" is explained in the Law Commission's Report on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29:

"7.28 ..Such a duty may derive from statute (such as the provisions governing company prospectuses), from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance), from the express or implied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as that of agent and principal).

7.29 For this purpose there is a legal duty to disclose information not only if the defendant's failure to disclose it gives the victim a cause of action for damages, but also if the law gives the victim a right to set aside any change in his or her legal position to which he or she may consent as a result of the non-disclosure. For example, a person in a fiduciary position has a duty to disclose material information when entering into a contract with his or her beneficiary, in the sense that a failure to make such disclosure will entitle the beneficiary to rescind the contract and to reclaim any property transferred under it."

Section 5. defines the meaning of "gain" and "loss" for the purposes of sections 2 to 4. The definitions are essentially the same as those in section 34(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 and section 32(2)(b) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. Under these definitions, "gain" and "loss" are limited to gain and loss in money or other property. The definition of "property" which applies in this context is based on section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (read with section 34(1) of that Act) and section 4(1) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (read with section 32(1) of that Act). The definition of "property" covers all forms of property, including intellectual property, although in practice intellectual property is rarely "gained" or "lost".

Section 6 makes it an offence for a person to possess or have under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud. This wording draws on that of the existing law in section 25 of the Theft Act 1968 and section 24 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. (These provisions make it an offence for a person to "go equipped" to commit a burglary, theft or cheat, although they apply only when the offender is not at his place of abode.) The intention is to attract the case law on section 25, which has established that proof is required that the defendant had the article for the purpose or with the intention that it be used in the course of or in connection with the offence, and that a general intention to commit fraud will suffice. In R v Ellames 60 Cr. App. R. 7 (CA), the court said that:

"In our view, to establish an offence under s 25(1) the prosecution must prove that the defendant was in possession of the article, and intended the article to be used in the course of or in connection with some future burglary, theft or cheat. But it is not necessary to prove that he intended it to be used in the course of or in connection with any specific burglary, theft or cheat; it is enough to prove a general intention to use it for some burglary, theft or cheat; we think that this view is supported by the use of the word 'any' in s 25(1). Nor, in our view, is it necessary to prove that the defendant intended to use it himself; it will be enough to prove that he had it with him with the intention that it should be used by someone else."

Subsection (2) provides that the maximum custodial sentence for this new offence is 5 years.

Section 7 makes it an offence to make, adapt, supply or offer to supply any article knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or intending it to be used to commit or facilitate fraud. For example, a person makes devices which when attached to electricity meters cause the meter to malfunction. The actual amount of electricity used is concealed from the provider, who thus makes a loss. Subsection (2) provides that the maximum custodial sentence for this offence is 10 years.

 

Section 8 extends the meaning of "article" for the purposes of sections 6 and 7 and certain other connected provisions so as to include any program or data held in electronic form. Examples of cases where electronic programs or data could be used in fraud are: a computer program can generate credit card numbers; computer templates can be used for producing blank utility bills; computer files can contain lists of other peoples' credit card details or draft letters in connection with 'advance fee' frauds.

 

Section 12 repeats the effect of section 18 of the Theft Act 1968. It provides that if persons who have a specified corporate role are party to the commission of an offence under the Act by their body corporate, they will be liable to be charged for the offence as well as the corporation. By virtue of subsection (2)(a) and (b) this offence applies to directors, managers, secretaries and other similar officers of companies and other bodies corporate. Subsection (3) provides that if the body corporate charged with an offence is managed by its members the members involved in management can be prosecuted too.

 

I am fully familiar with the terms of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and if your actions continue you may be in breach of these acts, both as an individual and as a body corporate.

 

If you continue to call, you will be in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and, as such, I will report you as an individual and as a body corporate to the Trading Standards Office and The Office of Fair Trading.

 

I note it is your intention to arrange a “doorstep call”, please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make an appointment with you.

 

There is only an implied license under Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.).

 

Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so, then you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass , action may be taken which may include calling the Police to remove the offender(s), and Civil action for recovery of damages.the limit of which will be solely at the discretion of the Court.

 

Take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

 

I am now formally instructing you that all further contact be made in writing only.

 

You will be deemed to have been served notice of my request and I will deem it served by 2nd August 2010.

If you are in any doubt as to the contents of this letter I suggest that you seek professional legal advice immediately.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Sorry this is so long, but I have just had enough of the 'tennis' with letters to and fro - it's a waste of my time and I think an infringement on my human rights!!

 

As always best wishes to everyone

 

Dougal