OFT debt collection guidance

[vinty]

"I have a thread on this elsewhere in this forum, so I hope its OK me asking this here. Does that mean that they cannot add charges that are disproportionate to their costs, or that they cannot add charges at all?"

 

They can not add charges full stop.

 

In answer to your other question - the CCA would show what ou agreed to. If they fail to supply it (or say you can't have it) after 12 working days from receipt of the request they are in default. Once they are in default the debt is unenforceable without them producing a copy of the agreement and so you can withold an payment.

 

Supplying you with a copy of the agreement is your legal right. Whether they feel obliged to do so or not is neither here nor there. If they refused and then produced it in court the case would be thrown out on the isue of discloser.

 

If you give me a link to your thread I'll have a look at it.

Does the copy have to be the original signed one.

[payback68]

Hi folks forgive me if i am changing the subject here but i thought i would just post a link from the OFT website regarding Statute Barred Accounts and what they say i.e "it is not illegal to collect on Statute Barred Accounts". Now although the page is very vague it does state this:-

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/guidanceadvisers.pdf

 

Regards

 

PB68.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Payback,

That is correct, in my understanding they are allowed to request payment initially. (Which they obviously do in the hope that the debtor will not know their rights).

However, if the alleged debtor then informs them that they will not be paying because the debt it statute barred, then they have to abide by the rules and should not threaten court action etc knowing it cannot be enforced in court.

 

Elsa xx

[Seminole]

Hi Payback,

That is correct, in my understanding they are allowed to request payment initially. (Which they obviously do in the hope that the debtor will not know their rights).

However, if the alleged debtor then informs them that they will not be paying because the debt it statute barred, then they have to abide by the rules and should not threaten court action etc knowing it cannot be enforced in court.

 

Elsa xx

 

Agreed. Someone posted a link the other day to an article where the CSA's head of compliance explicitly confirmed this. Unfortunately I can't find the link but I think it would be useful to quote straight back at any DCA that tries to extract payment after being told to go away.

[Undercover-Elsa]

There you go:

http://www.csa-uk.com/csa-news/6/statute-barred-debt…-to-collect-or-not-to-collect-that-is-the-question

[payback68]

Hi Payback,

That is correct, in my understanding they are allowed to request payment initially. (Which they obviously do in the hope that the debtor will not know their rights).

However, if the alleged debtor then informs them that they will not be paying because the debt it statute barred, then they have to abide by the rules and should not threaten court action etc knowing it cannot be enforced in court.

 

Elsa xx

 

Hello Elsa,

 

Thanks for your clarification on this, although it does seem absurd that statute barred accounts are unenforceable in a court of law, however the OFT allow the idiots (DCA's) to try and collect on unenforceable debts bearing in mind that some people are unaware of their legal rights regarding unenforceable debts. Typical example of the retarded regulators in my opinion.

 

P.S glad to hear your hubby sent father christmas in early regarding your P.C

 

PB68

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi PB,

The whole system is flawed, if not corrupt. What does it tell you when a Government Department like the OFT even has to set foot in Court against a commercial organisation such as a bank? And then to lose?

Surely these issues should be clearly predefined within the relevant statutes, not open to chance and manipulation to feather corporate nests?

Elsa x

PS My new PC is FLYING!!! It's wonderful

[Seminole]

There you go:

Statute Barred Debt? To collect or not to collect, that is the question?! | CSA News

 

 

Thanks. That quote about what a DCA should do if someone tells them they're not paying a SB debt is quite useful I think.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Morning Seminole

No probs.

We can quote statutes at them all day without effect, so it's particularly satisfying to throw their own words back at them instead.

[payback68]

Hi PB,

The whole system is flawed, if not corrupt. What does it tell you when a Government Department like the OFT even has to set foot in Court against a commercial organisation such as a bank? And then to lose?

Surely these issues should be clearly predefined within the relevant statutes, not open to chance and manipulation to feather corporate nests?

Elsa x

 

Totally agree Elsa,

 

The Supreme Court ruling in favour of the Banks was a travesty to say the least, in my opinion it also made the OFT to look amateurish also, i can't wait to see the new letter templates that Martin Lewis is having drawn up by the top QC he has employed and as he says this battle maybe lost but the war ain't over yet. We will no doubt see soon what he comes up with.

 

Regards

 

PB68.

[maybelline]

where is the template for letter of Assignment request - I cannot find it, site it so large now? is it in the a-z (brown)?

[platinum]

There is a template letter here if you think a DCA is acting unlawfully.

 

This takes you down the route of the Financial Ombudsman Service who will treat your complaint individually rather than simply as "evidence".

[suziq]

Hi,

 

I'm probably not doing this right, but I am being harrassed by a DCA (Cabot) for a CC debt for which we made full and final settlement some time in 2008! I've checked on Experian and it still shows the remaining amout outstanding. We wrote to Aqua asking for confirmation of payment and for them to amend the record, but got a reply from Cabot saying WE had to provide proof of payment etc. I don't have bank statements from then. Can I just ignore them? HELP:confused:

[sequenci]

Hi Suziq,

 

Please consider starting your own thread, it'll be easier for people to help you that way. Do you have written proof of the exceptance of the F&F settlement?

[allieeyes]

okay so its probably a silly question and may have been answered on here already but my eyes are sore cos ive been glued to this site since teatime and im being lazy in looking for this answer but do debt collection agencies such as robinson way&co have to notify you in writing of a possible doorstep visit or do they just turn up?

[sequenci]

okay so its probably a silly question and may have been answered on here already but my eyes are sore cos ive been glued to this site since teatime and im being lazy in looking for this answer but do debt collection agencies such as robinson way&co have to notify you in writing of a possible doorstep visit or do they just turn up?

 

They need to inform you.

[allieeyes]

They need to inform you.

 

ahhh so does that mean that I can use this point against Robinson&way in regards as more evidence in them trying to get me to pay a debt which is already statute barred??

[AdoTornado]

ahhh so does that mean that I can use this point against Robinson&way in regards as more evidence in them trying to get me to pay a debt which is already statute barred??

 

as long as You don't acknowledge the debt itself and do not wish to be visited any more attempts on their side to collect could be treated as harrasment.

[bramblebuster]

many thanks for the information. it's proving very useful in my fight against unreasonable creditors!

[bramblebuster]

many thanks for the information. it's proving very useful in my fight against unreasonable creditors!

[Guest]

for reference - the oft guide is currently under review/consultation and a new one is expected sometime after 2/6.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27312[/ATTACH]

 

however, this is some current info

[ATTACH]27311[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]27310[/ATTACH]

Edited April 30, 2011 by Ford
typo

[theghost]

Hello Elsa,

 

Thanks for your clarification on this, although it does seem absurd that statute barred accounts are unenforceable in a court of law, however the OFT allow the idiots (DCA's) to try and collect on unenforceable debts bearing in mind that some people are unaware of their legal rights regarding unenforceable debts. Typical example of the retarded regulators in my opinion.

 

 

PB68

 

To be fair to the OFT they are not lawmakers and for them to tell companies they are not allowed to chase SB debt would most likely be overstepping well outside of their powers.

 

I believe for companies to be totally barred from chasing SB debt there would have to be somesort of change in primary legislation.

 

To the distaste of most on here I imagine - DCAs are legitimate business. Therefore there is no reason why they cannot chase debts even if they are statute barred - I think the Govt will see it that way too.

 

The issue, which is regulated by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, is whether companies are misleading consumers into thinking the company can enforce the debt in a county court when they cannot - and by chasing those debts after they have been told by the consumer that they know the debt is SB - it could amount to harassment or misleading actions.

 

It is arguable that if a company buys a load of statute debt and then sends legal action letters out straight away they have breached the CPUTR2008 before they have even been contacted by the consumer because they would already have known the debt is SB and they could not take the consumer to court (it does all depend on the wording of the letters though).

[Guest]

To be fair to the OFT they are not lawmakers and for them to tell companies they are not allowed to chase SB debt would most likely be overstepping well outside of their powers. doubt it! cause the oft guide doesn't actually say that!

I believe for companies to be totally barred from chasing SB debt there would have to be somesort of change in primary legislation.

 

To the distaste of most on here I imagine - DCAs are legitimate business. Therefore there is no reason why they cannot chase debts even if they are statute barred - I think the Govt will see it that way too. the oft already does! but they say what may be regarded as 'unfair practice' re sb'd debts.

 

The issue, which is regulated by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, is whether companies are misleading consumers into thinking the company can enforce the debt in a county court when they cannot - and by chasing those debts after they have been told by the consumer that they know the debt is SB - it could amount to harassment or misleading actions. as the oft guide suggests!

 

It is arguable that if a company buys a load of statute debt and then sends legal action letters out straight away they have breached the CPUTR2008 and the oft guide before they have even been contacted by the consumer because they would already have known the debt is SB and they could not take the consumer to court (it does all depend on the wording of the letters though). indeed. as the guide also suggests!

 

 

imo

[sequenci]

Theghost I think you make some really good points. The limitations act only sets timescales in which action through the courts should be brought. It doesn't extinguish the creditor's right to chase the debt in other ways. The Atc 'bars the remedy, but not the right'. The OFT guidance does state that it's an unfair practice for a creditor to continue chasing a stat barred debt once they have been informed that the debt is barred under the Act and there have been a few firms sanctioned for chasing debts when they've not been able to prove that they have the right to continue chasing. It would be nice to see Trading Standards prosecute a DCA under the CPUT regs, to my knowledge (and I may well be wrong) I've not heard of one prosecution yet.

[theghost]

Most enforcement is likely to be done by the OFT by way of the Debt Collection Guidance because it is more specific than the CPUT and it is less faff taking a prosecution when the OFT have the power to hand out large fines (which is probably what they would get in a criminal prosecution - unless they were seriously bad).

 

Under the CPUTs there must be an effect on the transactional decision (and term not heavily defined just yet as there is not much case law). But if you take an exmaple, a company writes to a debtor about a SB debt but the debtor reads an online forum and is advised to ignore them. Has any offence been comitted? I would very much doubt it because there probably hasn't been any major effect of the trasnactional decision - not one to prosecute on IMO anyway. Therefore the advice to ignore DCA in many situations is counter producitve to enforcement.

 

Its also worth pointing out from a harassment point of view, which is a common theme I have been reading about on here, that if someone just ignores a DCAs calls and letters it is difficult to see how you can argue harassment and an affect of the transactional decision. From a Regulators point of view, and it may be mentioned in the DCG, if a DCA makes 10 phone calls to a debtor and the debtor never responds, the DCA could be within their rights to keep calling because until they are told to get lost or speak to the debtor they can keep assuming they havent made contact with the debtor.