Vampyra -v- Various DCA's

[PriorityOne]

.

 

PS. Richard, my views are the same as yours where there are subsidiary companies-there must be some tax advantage. I have said I do not think they were set up as 2 or more companies to confuse us but may be taking advantage by using 1 to hide behind the other (I was thinking perhaps rights with one and duties with other).

 

One of the in-house DCAs who were chasing me not so long ago changed their trading status a few years ago. Before then, they had been collecting regular payments from me and passing them on to the OC. However, they were not registered as a separate limited company for processing data, were not registered/linked up as part of a hive with the OC and were listed as dormant and non-trading at Companies House.... 8-) and no-one had a CCA anyway. :grin:

 

Fortunately, I had kept details of all payments made and to whom.... some of these were direct payments from my bank account and clearly showed the name of the in-house DCA on my statements. When they realised this.... they dropped all action against me (I have this in writing).... and I haven't heard from them in months. :grin:

 

One of things I queried on my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) info. from the OC was the nil balance recorded on the account by the OC before it went to the in-house DCA. Their explanation was that this date represented the natural end date of the loan.... so I assume that the amount outstanding was charged off against tax or whatever.... and then transferred over to the in-house DCA for collection.

[Guest Mincemeat]

2) Assign rights and delegate duties (all performed by DCA although technically the duties remain responsibility of OC). Obviously as we all know, this concept conflicts with CCA 1974. I am not sure what is in the contract but this is the songsheet DCA’s appear to be singing from. If we report OC within 6 (?) months of default we win!

 

I don't suppose you could expand on this 6 month thing could you?

[rory32]

I believe Aktiv is refering to the offence of not supplying a copy of the credit agreement being statute barred after 6 months. However I believe this is 6 months from the commiting of a summary criminal offence and not from commiting the default.

[Guest Mincemeat]

This is a new one on me. Are you sure this is 6 months? If so, there are loads of posters on here who are home and dry? Rather interesting. Could anyone quote chapter and verse on this so I can check it out?

[make them aktiv runners]

I don't suppose you could expand on this 6 month thing could you?

 

I do not know much detail of where the timescales come from. It was part of a long post Elizabeth made from PM's Richard agreed she could disclose. Anyway it is in the 2nd paragraph of first posting on the following thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/85949-cca-non-compliance-stuff.html

I would guess that it is right but it does mean anyone wanting to report the original creditor now may be time-barred from Trading Standards taking action (unfortunately).

 

Sarah, it was a much earlier posting when I was looking at the most simple of possibilites before embarking on the legislation.

[NitrousOxide]

Hi,

My old boss had 3 companies all ltd. We used the main company name to do all the work under, even though we still sold a great amount branded from the comapny that apparently sold nothing.

It's a huge tax fiddle. The company doing badly has tax relief.

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[rory32]

hence a further 6 months begins running for a prosecution to be brought from the date of said offence was committed or, I suggest, THE DATE SAID OFFENCE CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMPLAINANT, i.e. the Debtor making a statutory request.

Sorry Richard, I didn't make myself clear. What I meant by the offence being statute barred after 6 months was 6 months after the offence came to the attention of the complainant. This would be 6 months after the summary criminal offence was committed.

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[rory32]

Much clearer now......thanks Richard

[andrew1]

Thank you Richard for explaining this in such detail. This renders one or two of the people we know who are offices of companies suitable candidates to report themselves to the local nick ! - very interesting and this assists in our quest to bring DCA's into line.

[Rhia]

Thank you Richard. What also leaps out from your posting is the fact that Trading Standards in particular should be acting upon these default notices upon the consumer's behalf and are failing to do so.

This in turn is allowing these widespread unjust and abusive practices to continue almost unhindered.

Pressure should be brought to bear via the OFT and MPs/Parliament about the failings of TS.

I think we are aware that TS generally seems to be underfunded and happier dealing with weights and measures etc. Perhaps it's time for a specialist department of TS to be set up to deal with CCA cases. Experiences right across CAG with TS seem to be patchy and the odd individual has had success with gaining police involvement only for it to be brought down to that although a criminal act has been committed it is up to either TS or the individual to bring action and that then distils down to it being down to the individual consumer to bring action.

Failing that we just go around and around. It is highly unsatisfactory.

[Rameses]

With al the terrible things happening, (war, guns, murder, fraud etc), providing a copy document within the prescribed timescale is not so important is it?

 

As regards, "Getting these documents allows us to see exactly what they are contracted to do", why didnt YOU keep a copy?

 

More often than not asking for these documents is a delaying tactic or an attempt to avoid a debt you KNOW you owe.

[remus]

Rameses,

you mention fraud etc, I think you will find that this thread is evolving to show that there is dubious practises going on in the industry, to the detreminant of you and I, and by requesting the cca, this is one way of bringing it to the attention of the legal bodies, to the end that a lot of people going through terrible times pushed to desperate measures can get some reprieve from the constant harassment by companies.

[Flyguy77]

With al the terrible things happening, (war, guns, murder, fraud etc), providing a copy document within the prescribed timescale is not so important is it? .....Ah actually it is - because its the law and lets`face it no DCA is above the law nor or are their employees

As regards, "Getting these documents allows us to see exactly what they are contracted to do", why didnt YOU keep a copy? ....er why didn't the DCA who bought the debt get a copy, most unprofessional really:p

 

More often than not asking for these documents is a delaying tactic or an attempt to avoid a debt you KNOW you owe.

-or to ascertain the rights of any individual or organisation who claim that they are owed money.

Ah Ramses the failed sun god - you are a card:D

[elizabeth1]

Richard Thank you for this last post here. As Rhia mentions this certainly brings to light that the "bodies" who ought to be helping us are clearly letting us down and are backing away from certain companies involved in these "wrong doings".

We are complaining to the right bodies - I am unsure what the problem is in whether it be a funding or "knowledge" isue with these complaints being so new.

Seems to enforce litigation ourselves is the answer?

[remus]

Hi all something Richard Spud posted, " Furthermore, and VERY IMPORTANTLY, the Director General of Fair Trading can take account of any offences (whether prosecuted or not) when considering the FITNESS TO HOLD A CONSUMER CREDIT LICENCE. This is not subject to time limits and therefore the more incidents of such offences reported to Trading Standards and the OFT the more likely the DGoFT might consider REVOKING the CCL of a defaulting party." why are we not going to the OFT?

[make them aktiv runners]

Thank you Richard. What also leaps out from your posting is the fact that Trading Standards in particular should be acting upon these default notices upon the consumer's behalf and are failing to do so.

 

I think we have all worked out that the fine for each offence is £2.5K, and Trading Standards can prosecute without allowing the other party to submit a defence.

 

What everyone seems to be missing is where would all the proceeds of these £2.5K fines go to? Just remember Trading Standards is part of the very council that requires you to meet the costs of services via council tax, is it not therefore fair to assume this mass of fines would reduce the council tax bills?

 

If you feel that Trading Standards are not doing their job properly you have every right to complain to their superiors, which is your local councillor.

[Rhia]

If you feel that Trading Standards are not doing their job properly you have every right to complain to their superiors, which is your local councillor.

This is where it goes very "pear". If you complain to your local TS (over which your local councillor will have some influence) it is referred to Consumer Direct who no-one seems to have much influence over except the OFT directly. Often you are told to take to the TS in the area where the OC or DCA is. This doesn't really work either as you are unable to complain to your local councillor in a different county.

This is the issue with the entire set up. Some people are getting good support from TS no doubt at all but (and I think many more) are getting nowhere and so becoming confused and wondering if it's worthwhile complaining at all. That's it really, in a nutshell.

[make them aktiv runners]

These are easy pickings and VERY easy money for the council. If the council is not getting in money from such easy cases then your local councillor would be extremely interested to know why. A lack of interest suggests that Trading Standards simply does not have a valid case to submit to court.

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[Rhia]

These are easy pickings and VERY easy money for the council. If the council is not getting in money from such easy cases then your local councillor would be extremely interested to know why.

 

Since when did TS and the county (not district) council earn any income from TS cases? Trading Standards is an arm of local government supported by the council taxpayer directly and the tax payer indirectly.

 

It is not difficult to imagine that the cost of investigating and prosecuting offenders will greatly exceed a £2,500 MAXIMUM fine.

 

This is probably why TS are encouraging many to take civil action. They have finite resources, possibly a lack of specialists in this field and cases can be quite complex. It is a complete nonsense to suggest that councils are looking at a nice little earner and so you can't have a case otherwise they'd jump at the chance.

 

I would support the various avenues of complaint as outlined by RS in the previous post. I am a great believer in complaining about wrong doings and, speaking from my experiences helping others, I have encountered enormous support from TS and OFT directly and am now in communication with a group of cross party MPs who are taking a very active interest in CAG's activities in this arena.

 

I suspect the move towards Consumer Direct has been an attempt to harmonise the ease of access for the consumer and, although a step in the right direction, it is not working with clarity.

 

However, the experience across CAG appears to be mixed and it is disingeneous to suggest that the only reason TS hasn't acted is because there isn't a viable case.

 

As RS states the OFT is seeking powers to prosecute as is Richard Thomas the Information Commissioner. It is obvious that both of these organisations see the consumer abuses at first hand and feel ham strung into not being able to act further.

 

To anyone reading this thread if you have an problem which needs investigating further DO report it to TS, the OFT, the Information Officer your county councillor and MP. Some of these will act, others may not but your complaints will start to stack up so keep the tap dripping.

[Jeff2000]

 

To anyone reading this thread if you have an problem which needs investigating further DO report it to TS, the OFT, the Information Officer your county councillor and MP. Some of these will act, others may not but your complaints will start to stack up so keep the tap dripping.

 

 

Hi,

 

 

Here, Here!

 

If we don't complain, then nothing will happen and there will be no change!

 

It's easy to do!

 

 

Jeff.

[Todge]

shoestring

 

From a close and detailed reading of Richard Spud's truly enlightening and empowering posts, I can come to only one rational conclusion.

 

It is that they are hoping to separate the rights and the responsibilities of the creditor under an agreement.

 

They are hoping to be able to pursue (unlawfully and without liability to consumer law) the responsibility of a consumer to pay a debt.

 

A truly appalling interpretation, and one with no place in society.

 

T.

[tomterm8]

I am no longer welcome on CAG