OFT debt collection guidance

[MARTIN3030]

More good points theghost,but if you have taken time to read lots,you should observe that the CAG predominantly does not advocate ignoring.

If the creditor wants to deal in writing only,and makes that clear to the lender,or collection agent and they still persist in calling by phone,then that is tantamount to harassment,and a breach of codes.

[payback68]

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..

 

Hi theghost,

 

You have made some valid points however, i disagree with your statement, you may find it beneficial to read the following link which explains "The Limitation Act 1980" in detail and also refers to the OFT and their guidelines.

 

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/factsheet.php?page=25_liability_for_debts_and_the_limitation_act

 

Also having dealt with many DCA's and still dealing with them, i must admit i have never dealt with one who actually runs a "Legitimate Business". Just my personal opinion.

 

Regards

 

PB68.

[theghost]

Hi

 

The OFTs DCG guidance only says it can be unfair if they have come out of nowhere after 6 plus years to pursue a debt without any prior warning. Thats not the same as a creditor trying to contact someone but them ignoring them. They have been careful to say that they accept the debt still exists and it could be something of a gray area is the creditor is saying they did send letters but the debtor is saying they never recieved any for whatever reason.

 

DCA are certainly views by the Government and Regulators as legitimate business - of course they are - its some of their practices that are questionable.

[DonkeyB]

We have a specific problem on this forum with HFO, who are currently sending out huge numbers of ‘reminder’ notices of assignment, having sat on a portfolio for four years or more.

 

Yet we know they have not sent out the original NoAs – they are, IMO, trying to bypass the lack of contact by pretending to have sent out correspondence in the past. They simply have not done this. They even say ‘we have attempted to call you several times...’ when they haven’t. The other reason I believe they do this – apart from the SB issue – is so they can claim the back interest and claim to have complied with the LoP 1925.

 

I always advise Caggers to refute their statements of alleged contact, because HFO usually put these letters into court as ‘evidence’ of contact. I do not believe you have to acknowledge any debt to do this – ICO regs mean you can ask to see any letters they claim to have sent on submission of the £10 fee.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes good point DB.

Theres also been reports of Judges rapping DCAs who rack up the interest and just before SB-then litigate.

[DonkeyB]

Exactly Martin – where else can you make 12%, 17% or higher interest? Not giving people a chance to pay early is out of order but you have to be on your toes to know how to counter it. Sadly, most people are not aware.

[MARTIN3030]

Yet we know they have not sent out the original NoAs – they are, IMO, trying to bypass the lack of contact by pretending to have sent out correspondence in the past. They simply have not done this.

 

 

All the more reason also that its important to check details on credit files.

After assignment any default should be re-registered and dated on the CRF.

Therefore those dates should reconcile with any purported NOA periods.

I caught one of the DCAs out with this on one of my own.

Both the OC and the creditor had to be in cahoots to try it on.

After spotting a big discrepancy in dates,I put the DCA on notice I was taking them to the cleaners.

My worry was that they would simply give the account back to the OC.

In the end,I did a deal that they close my file and remove all adverse info-and gave an undertaking that they would not pass the account tom anyone else.

I got the deal and they lost all title to 800 quid.

They didnt want to do it-but I had them by the short and curleys.

So it does pay to be on the ball and check things out.

[Guest]

thanks for that interesting info DB, Martin.

[payback68]

Hi

 

The OFTs DCG guidance only says it can be unfair if they have come out of nowhere after 6 plus years to pursue a debt without any prior warning. Thats not the same as a creditor trying to contact someone but them ignoring them. They have been careful to say that they accept the debt still exists and it could be something of a gray area is the creditor is saying they did send letters but the debtor is saying they never recieved any for whatever reason.

 

DCA are certainly views by the Government and Regulators as legitimate business - of course they are - its some of their practices that are questionable.

 

Ghost i said RUNS a legitimate business, that means employees, besides this i was questioning your views of SB Accounts, nothing more nothing less!.

 

Let me enlighten you and be blunt, so to speak:

 

Under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 "an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued".

 

Furthermore, The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that "continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970".

 

Lets just agree to disagree shall we!.

 

Regards

 

PB68.

[theghost]

I dont think I have disputed what you have posted........?

 

The DCG does nothing to prevent a DCA contacting a debtor for a SB debt - what they cannot do, as you have pointed out is keep contacting them if they have made clear they won't be paying the debt because it is SB.

 

What the OFT cannot do is provide a blanket statement to say if debt is SB then thats it, no more chasing.

 

 

 

 

--

 

Not sure I get your first point. There are plenty of DCAs that employ plenty of people, pay taxes, follow lots of law and claw back legitimate bad debt for their client.

[sequenci]

Also, 'action' as defined with in the LA1980 means 'proceedings in a court of law', not simply trying to chase people for payment.

[Undercover-Elsa]

However they must not tell you that they can take legal action when they cannot - that would fall foul of CPUTR 2008

[DonkeyB]

Also falls foul of OFT Debt Collection guidelines – misrepresenting the true legal position.

[theghost]

Indeed, once the consumer makes the DCA aware it is SB - the DCA doesn't really have much else to go on. They cannot threaten court and if the consumer knows its SB and is refusing to pay then the DCA will be making needless phonecalls - which would come under harassment.

[seen this before]

really it should not be the case that an agreement without a signature should be excepted in any form and that could be enforced in anyway.

 

they create when correspondence is sent without one.

Edited June 18, 2011 by seen this before

[Guest]

in consideration of the oft guides (see post #96 for eg), the oft revokes a dca credit licence. and warns debt collectors not to mislead and to communicate clearly and fairly.

http://oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2011/98-11

 

'This decision reinforces the need for licensed debt collection businesses to comply with the relevant OFT guidance, otherwise they risk losing their licences.

'These businesses need to treat consumers fairly and be clear in all communications, providing accurate information that does not have the effect of misleading consumers.' OFT

[coledog]

Good!

[Guest]

for info

the Irresponsible Lending OFT Guidance (due to be updated again soon)

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30437[/ATTACH]

Edited September 28, 2011 by Ford

[Guest]

and, some related OFT info re unfair relationships

(the oft guides may be considered re an unfair relationship)

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30439[/ATTACH]

[42man]

UPDATED WITH REVISED GUIDANCE FROM THE OFT - http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer_leaflets/credit/OFT664Rev.pdf

[Guest]

for info. logbook loans credit licence appeal struck out by 'first tier' tribunal.

oft debt guidance, and debt letter guidance, considered.

http://oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2011/125-11

[Guest]

for reference.

the CSA Code of Practice

[ATTACH]31684[/ATTACH]

[Guest]

UPDATED WITH REVISED GUIDANCE FROM THE OFT - http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer_leaflets/credit/OFT664Rev.pdf

 

broken link

 

now http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/OFT664Rev.pdf

[ScarletPimpernel]

for reference.

the CSA Code of Practice

[ATTACH]31684[/ATTACH]

 

To reiterate why this link is useful - under CPUTR a company that says that it has signed up to a code of practice must comply with it by law. The downside is that only Trading Standards can bring an action under CPUTR, so it's unlikely to happen, but it doesn't hurt to remind DCAs.

[Guest]

Yes Loans t/a etc credit licence revoked by oft

 

http://oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2012/15-12