Robinson, Way & Co

[spurious]

They are pure **** the whole lot of the and in my peronal opinion anyone who lowers themselves to work for them was probably bullied at school.

 

You're undermining a lot of the valid points you make with silly remarks like that. I worked for RW&C for a while a few years ago, and didn't realise what they were like until I got there. Once there, I never ever talked down to any customer, never gave glib, stock replies and always tried to treat customers with respect, even when respect is the last thing they deserved. In short, I did everything I could to act with honour in an industry and for a company where honour is a scarce commodity. It affected my performance in the job but at least I could walk home at night with dignity and self-respect.

 

RW&C are a scummy company, and there are some scummy people who work there, I agree with you. The nature of the industry will bring out the worst in people. I'm first in the queue of people lining up to complain about them, but I'll refrain from making personal judgements against every single employee because I know better, and so should you.

[ODC]

......

[clutchingatstraws]

"even when respect is the last thing they deserved"

 

Spurious, why do you feel this way?

 

About someone you have never met and probably could never understand why they are in a situation where you are phoning them asking a haemoraging man for his last pint of blood.

 

"The nature of the industry will bring out the worst in people"

 

The law is the law, anyone who knows the law and abuses their position should be held accountable, the majority of DCA operatives hide behind false names.

 

Come the day we will all be equal but some will be more equal than others.

 

Cas

[spurious]

"even when respect is the last thing they deserved"

 

Spurious, why do you feel this way?

 

There are a small minority of people who spend most of their financial lives abusing the credit system at place in this country. Like it or not, it's true. Once you've worked in the industry, you can practically smell it on a caller within seconds. They have a moderately good understanding of the way the laws work, what they can get away with, excuses for delays, tend to have a string of broken promises under their belt, and are generally quite happy to have a splurge of credit every six or seven years and spend the next half a dozen attempting to avoid paying for it. While most customers are people in genuinely difficult situations; or are justifiably practising non-cooperation due to how they've been treated by a DCA, there does exist a number of people who are just playing the system. I have very little time or respect for these people and they are, in many ways, to blame for the behaviour of the DCA agents to the wider public, because the default position among most workers is that the customer is trying to get away with not paying, or paying as little as possible.

 

The law is the law, anyone who knows the law and abuses their position should be held accountable, the majority of DCA operatives hide behind false names.

I've never met a DCA operative hide behind a false name, ever. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'd put money on it being rare. The law may be the law, but within it there is room for manoeuvre. If the law really was the law and that was that, no call centre would ever be allowed to operate predictive dialler machines that result in scary amounts of silent calls and hang ups. RW&C's greatest offence, in my opinion, is the impression given that legal proceedings are imminent when they are anything but. Letters sail about as close to the wind as it gets, regarding the impression that they are part of litigation; their collectors deliberately project the false idea that the 'legal department' (more accurately called the pre-legal department and 99% of cases just move back into routine collections after a couple of months) has powers it does not. None of what they do is actually illegal as such, but the way they do it could easily be more legal, if that makes sense.

[rory32]

and they are, in many ways, to blame for the behaviour of the DCA agents to the wider public, because the default position among most workers is that the customer is trying to get away with not paying, or paying as little as possible.

Ah, so harassment and the flaunting of numerous laws isn't the DCA's fault, phoning someone 20 times a day isn't the DCA's fault, driving people to suicide isn't the DCA's fault!!

 

IGNORING ALL OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE ISN'T THE DCA's FAULT.

 

WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE KIDDING.

[rory32]

If the law really was the law and that was that, no call centre would ever be allowed to operate predictive dialler machines that result in scary amounts of silent calls and hang ups.

That's simply because most of the people they prey on don't know the law. This is harassment.

 

None of what they do is actually illegal as such, but the way they do it could easily be more legal, if that makes sense.

Much of what they do is illegal. Have you ever read the Administration Of Justice Act?

[spurious]

I've just written a fairly lengthy reply to that, but I don't wish to derail somebody else's thread so I've deleted it.

 

I disagree with most of what you're saying and where I suspect you're coming from.

[rory32]

Before an account gets to a DCA, the debtor has had ample opportunity to state their case, present their argument and sort things out.

That's very niave of you. Most debts are passed due to the debtor only being able to meet reduced payments due to personal circumstances. The OC realises they probably won't be able to pay off the debt for a considerable amount of time so take the tax breaks instead.

 

Yes I have actually, have you? Thought not.

You must have missed this bit then (suprise, suprise):

 

The Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;(b)falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;©falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;(d)utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

[spurious]

Ooops - I appear to have messed this up somewhat - this is the message rory was responding to above. I deleted it, then changed my mind and decided to include it again - after he had already responded to it! Anyway, this is what I wrote....

 

Ah, so harassment and the flaunting of numerous laws isn't the DCA's fault, phoning someone 20 times a day isn't the DCA's fault, driving people to suicide isn't the DCA's fault!!

 

How many people do you know have committed suicide because a DCA operative was rude to them? Not one, I'd bet. To blame a tragedy (if you have one in mind) on an industry with whom you no doubt have personal grievances, in order to provide your argument with greater gravitas is deeply disrespectful. The DCA is there to make money; it's not there to counsel people or provide financial advise - it's a business, not a charity. I agree with you that DCA's often do dance on the edge of what is legal but eight times out of ten, what they're dealing with is nothing more then an outstanding account to which the account holder is legally obliged to repay and for one reason or another has failed to do so. Before an account gets to a DCA, the debtor has almost always had ample opportunity to state their case, present their argument and sort things out. Not always, granted, but most of the time they have and to argue otherwise is simply to be ignorant of the way things work. If the debtor states they cannot afford to pay, it is not illegal for the DCA to challenge that person's expenditure or reasons for not paying more. It is entirely fair that the debtor be asked to substantiate their position by submission of a financial breakdown and should their offer be low, it is also entirely fair that the debtor be asked regularly to increase it.

 

The onus here is on the debtor to repay the account that they signed an agreement to pay. This is a fact that seems to be conveniently sidelined here at times, but the only reason a DCA even exists is because of the number of people who make a legal commitment then fail to abide by it. As much as the DCA has a legal obligation to behave appropriately, the debtor has a legal obligation to take accountability and responsibility for their debt; to communicate financial strife and make determined efforts at repayment. I think you'd be surprised at the percentage of accounts DCAs deal with simply because the debtor has failed to do these things.

 

Much of what they do is illegal. Have you ever read the Administration Of Justice Act?

Yes I have actually, have you? Thought not. Look - DCA's are not illegal institutions - they have a job to do, and are there because so many people can't or don't or won't pay back money they've agreed to. Nobody is 'preying' on anybody - it's largely an automated system of default, referral and eventual sale of debt. It's just business. Their methods can be flawed, but they're rarely illegal. Trust me, for every new thread triumphantly announcing that they'll be taking some DCA to court, it's been done a hundred times before. DCAs regularly see off legal attempts to cut them off at the knee because behind it all lie an unscrupulous band of lawyers and legal advisors who know the law much better then you do and get away with as much as they know the law will allow.

 

For every example of somebody who's been at the end of some dingbat who's managed to find a job at one of these places, I could give you ten stories of dingbats I've had to speak with who have no intention of paying what they owe and treat the whole thing as some kind of game.

[spurious]

Like I said, the DCA and OC know the law far better then your ability to google it and cut and paste bits that look good to you. A high frequency of calls made to a debtor which never connect because the stupid machine that makes them cuts them off before the debtor can answer, or as the debtor answers, is not classified as contact. Twenty calls a day (to quote your probably made up example) that all connect to the debtor and result in a conversation in which the debtor is asked to pay, is harassment - no argument. This hardly ever happens. Predictive dialler machines have been reviewed time and time again, and they are still in existence - not just by DCAs but more or less every major call centre out there. What does that tell you? The letters DCAs send are also carefully reviewed down to every single word used, even if the presentation of the letters appears otherwise. Every major DCA makes sure not to break the law and 9 times out of 10, when a debtor has a problem with it, they haven't read it, have deliberately misinterpreted it, or are making an issue out of it to delay payment of the account.

 

Heh, I don't particularly want to be defending DCAs here, but getting hysterical about them, demonising all the employees and worst of all making up things that never happened and using them to cobble together an argument is singularly unimpressive. Perspective is needed.

[rory32]

the DCA and OC know the law far better then your ability to google it and cut and paste bits that look good to you

I won't even mention deeds of assignment then

 

Or the Money Laundering Regulations

 

Or the Proceeds of Crime Act

[clutchingatstraws]

Search for suicide debt on Google

 

"A woman whose husband killed himself after running up £130000 of credit card debt has pleaded with seasonal shoppers not to overspend."

 

"Halifax 'last straw' for suicide dad. **** ********, Daily Mail 15 February 2006 ... Mr *****'s death is the latest in a string of 'debt suicides'."

 

 

 

Quote from Spurious

 

"How many people do you know have committed suicide because a DCA operative was rude to them? Not one, I'd bet."

 

Also on Google

 

Debt & Bankruptcy UK: Spectre of debt suicide haunts the UK

 

"17 people in the UK have committed suicide in the last three years, and their deaths were directly attributed to debt problems."

 

It's real

[delta6370]

Search for suicide debt on Google

 

"Halifax 'last straw' for suicide dad. **** ********, Daily Mail 15 February 2006 ... Mr *****'s death is the latest in a string of 'debt suicides'."

 

If this is the story that I think it is, then I know the guy that killed himself, he was a member of another forum (nothing to do with debt and money), it was a retty rough time for all of us, first he went missing, then the news came through that he was dead. No one had any idea what was going on with him, and it came as a real shock to us all. Made all the more painful when his wife came onto the forum to thank us all for the support etc.

 

Not nice to hear of it happening.

[ODC]

. Once you've worked in the industry, you can practically smell it on a caller within seconds. They have a moderately good understanding of the way the laws work, what they can get away with, excuses for delays, tend to have a string of broken promises under their belt, That is a ridiculous remark, bearing in mind that most DCAs talk over the customers 'they are trained to negotiate' without even listening to the reason behind their problem or their reasonable attempt to come to a satisfactory amicable solution. The simple fact is the more money a DCA employee can squeeze out of a debtor then the bigger their monthly bonus will be. Its no wonder people use the law to ensure that the DCAs comply with THEIR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. Using the law by a debtor is not 'getting away with it' any more than a DCA getting anusing the law to try and coerce someone into paying a debt which may not even 'legally exist'

I've never met a DCA operative hide behind a false name, ever. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'd put money on it being rare. The law may be the law, but within it there is room for manoeuvre. Its a well known practice for employees of DCAs to use false names. Indeed this is acceptable by the OFT provided the DCA in question keep details of which partivular 'alias' is used by which particular employee. There are numerous cases on here where DCAs have denied that certain people even work for them even when the compainant has a taped conversation of their name being given out. What about the ubiquitous Mr Green/Brown who is going to call in houses the length an breadth of Britain on a Tuesday between 8 am and 9pm. He must clock up some miles on a Tuesday night (if that is his real name of course)

 

Letters sail about as close to the wind as it gets, regarding the impression that they are part of litigation; their collectors deliberately project the false idea that the 'legal department' (more accurately called the pre-legal department and 99% of cases just move back into routine collections after a couple of months) has powers it does not. None of what they do is actually illegal as such, but the way they do it could easily be more legal, if that makes sense.

They give some poor uneducated people the impression that they are more legal than what they are though and this is in itself a breach of the law. They make threats that they have no intention or ability to carry out yet persist in peddling these half truths even when they get through to people on the telephone.

[ScarletPimpernel]

How many people do you know have committed suicide because a DCA operative was rude to them? Not one, I'd bet.

 

In my work I quite often see people with suicidal ideation, and debt is one of the major reasons for them thinking about killing themselves. There is no question in my mind that the behaviour of DCAs is a major factor. The vast majority of people in debt are there because of unexpected changes in their lives that have affected their financial circumstances. Given the opportunity to resolve the problems in a realistic way, they would do so. However, when someone is already dealing with a major stressor (relationship breakdown, redundancy, bereavement and so on), bullying and harassment by a DCA can only contribute to the problem. And it is bullying; rudeness is one thing, but sustained campaigns of harassment is quite another.

 

By coincidence, I have also done a fair amount of work in bullying cases. Interestingly, one of the characteristics of bullies is that they are often weak and incompetent - they bully to divert attention from their own inadequacies, and in order to gain control. It seems to me that the way in which DCAs often behave illustrates this point very well; most of their tactics involve threats, harassment and bluster, but the truth is that they have no real powers at all. This is reinforced by their advertising - look at any DCA's website, and see how they portray themselves - a very different picture to the grubby reality of how they operate, and how many times they fail. The inappropriate use of rules and regulations, regardless of whether they are applicable to the case or not, and the threat or use of legal processes as 'punishment' are recognised forms of bullying.

 

Bullies will also seek to deny responsibility for their actions and their effects. How many DCA staff will behave differently if told you are recording a call? Just why do Royal Mail seem to lose so many letters for DCAs? Why do so many DCAs have their own (made-up) definition of how many calls constitutes harassment? And, of course, none of them will admit that a suicide could be the result of bullying by a DCA...

 

There's no doubt in my mind that many of the DCA staff I've spoken to are bullies, but whether they started out like that or whether the workplace culture has made them that way I don't know - probably a mixture. I suspect that for many it's a miserable situation, stuck in crap job and an unpleasant environment, yet unable to move on (especially in areas of high unemployment or where the alternative is a worse job) - perhaps that's another contributory factor.

[spurious]

Look people - I'm not here to defend DCA's. I abhor the system of debt collection in this country - I think it's an unruly, aggressive and often immoral practice. But some of what's being perpetrated here is coming out of little more then a mutual affirmation society where the facts of the matter are being distorted and extreme cases are being held up as a fair reflection of the industry. The simple fact is that I'd estimate at least 25% of accounts in the debt collection circuit are from people who have no intention of paying or are using excuses to avoid and delay paying. These people are actually fuelled by places like this, where perhaps they've got an unpleasant phone call and feel justified in reneging on the legal agreement they made. They'll come here and you'll all sympathise with them and whinge on and on about how bad DCAs are, apparently oblivious to the fact that the onus is on the debtor to pay, not the DCA to say please and thank you. I know that operatives can be ignorant, but so can debtors.

Its no wonder people use the law to ensure that the DCAs comply with THEIR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. Using the law by a debtor is not 'getting away with it' any more than a DCA getting anusing the law to try and coerce someone into paying a debt which may not even 'legally exist'

But the debt nearly always does exist. The fact you may have sent the DCA a CCA request and they're unable (or more likely too disorganised) to respond appropriately is a legal victory for you, but it's not a moral one. Accounts hardly ever get created out of thin air. Yes, on one level all we're discussing is ways to hold DCAs to account and utilise the law to be as awkward and difficult as they appear to be behaving towards you, but the overtones and subtexts of much of what is discussed in forums like this centres around how to get away with avoiding debt by using whatever law is available to claim legal justification in non-compliance over a debt you know damn well is owed. I'm astonished that you can't see that.

 

Its a well known practice for employees of DCAs to use false names. Indeed this is acceptable by the OFT provided the DCA in question keep details of which partivular 'alias' is used by which particular employee.

This is sheer nonsense, and remember - I've worked at these places, so of the two of us, I'm more likely to know, aren't I. The only time I've ever seen an 'alias' used is back in the day when RW&C had a policy of leaving messages for customers saying they needed to call back and speak to 'Chris Clarke'. Chris Clarke doesn't exist, and it was a way of determining that a message had been left, but only on very rare occasions was anyone brazen enough to say they actually were Chris Clarke. The idea that operatives go to work and assume a different name all day is fantasy.

They give some poor uneducated people the impression that they are more legal than what they are though and this is in itself a breach of the law. They make threats that they have no intention or ability to carry out yet persist in peddling these half truths even when they get through to people on the telephone.

Again, a wild generalisation. I've known some good, honest people work for DCA's. Of course, it's unlikely you'll see that reflected here, because the internet always tend to attract stories of things that went wrong rather then things that went right. I worked for RW&C and I was neither poor nor uneducated. I knew the law better then 95% of the people who I spoke to and made damn sure I stayed within it. I was not alone. I'm not denying that there are people who break the law there, but hell - there are people who break the law all over the place - call centre jobs with their low wages aren't going to attract lawyers and attorneys. When a DCA operative breaks the law, which I conceded does happen and due to the nature of their work, probably more then it should, that is wrong. But you're mistaken to believe that every employee is on the phone all day threatening bailiffs and repossession orders or whatever else they're saying, because that's simply not happening. More often then not, it's the debtor who has either accidently or (often) deliberatrely misheard and is falsely claiming that a 'threat' that was given as a 'possible consequence of further non payment' was given as an imminent danger.

[clutchingatstraws]

Now i'm getting bored and will waste no more time on this

[ScarletPimpernel]

Well, we can go round and round in circles, but it is an interesting discussion and Spurious is providing a useful insight into some of what goes on at one DCA's offices.

 

I was struck by this:

 

The simple fact is that I'd estimate at least 25% of accounts in the debt collection circuit are from people who have no intention of paying or are using excuses to avoid and delay paying.

 

Yet DCA's assume that 100% of people they contact have no intention of paying, or are trying to delay, even when presented with evidence to the contrary. I said earlier that most people end up in debt not through choice but because of circumstances over which they have no control. DCAs behaviour in these circumstances is almost always both unreasonable and disproportionate. I don't doubt that there are some well-intentioned people in the debt industry, but I doubt they'll be able to change anything because the whole industry just accepts that bullying and harassment is how it's always been. No-one will want to be the first to change, for fear that they'll lose business to the sharks.

 

The OFT guidelines recognise that DCAs indulge in unfair practices, and have done so for years. If the OFT was not a toothless tiger, and had taken action against just a few DCAs, things would be very different.

 

I'd like to see two things - firstly, the OFT guidelines being made statutory, with meaningful penalties (large fines, and directors banned from working in the same sector for 5 years, say), and secondly legislation to limit the percentage of an individual's income that can be taken to repay debt. Not only would this protect people from DCAs, it might also make lenders think more responsibly too.

[ODC]

Look people - I'm not here to defend DCA's. I abhor the system of debt collection in this country - I think it's an unruly, aggressive and often immoral practice. Thats something at least we agree on But some of what's being perpetrated here is coming out of little more then a mutual affirmation society where the facts of the matter are being distorted and extreme cases are being held up as a fair reflection of the industry. These 'so called extreme' cases would seem to reflect the majority opinion of the treatment meted out by DCAs The simple fact is that I'd estimate at least 25% of accounts in the debt collection circuit are from people who have no intention of paying or are using excuses to avoid and delay paying. Whats wrong with delaying payment if you simply havent got the resources to pay. These people are actually fuelled by places like this, where perhaps they've got an unpleasant phone call and feel justified in reneging on the legal agreement they made. Like you I am not uneducated and am quite capable of understanding a threat from a DCA when I hear one. I can give personal example of dozens of such calls quoting non existant laws and action they are going to take which is TOTALLY Illegal. I do not feel I misunderstood someone from a DCA who actually told me that they had 300 employees who would ring me constantly to work if I did not give him a mobile number.They'll come here and you'll all sympathise with them and whinge on and on about how bad DCAs are, apparently oblivious to the fact that the onus is on the debtor to pay, I believe the onus ison the DCA to prove a debt actually exists and they have a legal right to enforce it. not the DCA to say please and thank you. I know that operatives can be ignorant, but so can debtors. But the debt nearly always does exist. That should be proven before demands and threats of legal action are made The fact you may have sent the DCA a CCA request and they're unable (or more likely too disorganised) to respond appropriately is a legal victory for you, but it's not a moral one. Accounts hardly ever get created out of thin air. Strange that I have had two recently for companies whom i have never dealt with who when asked to prove it didnt even have the manners or common decency to respond. Yes, on one level all we're discussing is ways to hold DCAs to account and utilise the law to be as awkward and difficult as they appear to be behaving towards you, but the overtones and subtexts of much of what is discussed in forums like this centres around how to get away with avoiding debt by using whatever law is available to claim legal justification in non-compliance over a debt you know damn well is owed. I'm astonished that you can't see that.

 

This is sheer nonsense, and remember - I've worked at these places, so of the two of us, I'm more likely to know, aren't I. The only time I've ever seen an 'alias' used is back in the day when RW&C had a policy of leaving messages for customers saying they needed to call back and speak to 'Chris Clarke'. Chris Clarke doesn't exist, and it was a way of determining that a message had been left, but only on very rare occasions was anyone brazen enough to say they actually were Chris Clarke. The idea that operatives go to work and assume a different name all day is fantasy.

 

Again, a wild generalisation. I've known some good, honest people work for DCA's. You may well have. I certainly have yet to speak with one. Its a pity that some of the 'good honest ones are not used to contact people who are in genuine trouble who wish to pay and want to come to some sensible arrangements to fulfill teir obligations. Of course, it's unlikely you'll see that reflected here, because the internet always tend to attract stories of things that went wrong rather then things that went right. I worked for RW&C and I was neither poor nor uneducated. I knew the law better then 95% of the people who I spoke to and made damn sure I stayed within it. Its a pity you were not used by your employers to educate your colleagues I was not alone. I'm not denying that there are people who break the law there, but hell - there are people who break the law all over the place - call centre jobs with their low wages aren't going to attract lawyers and attorneys. When a DCA operative breaks the law, which I conceded does happen and due to the nature of their work, probably more then it should, that is wrong. But you're mistaken to believe that every employee is on the phone all day threatening bailiffs and repossession orders or whatever else they're saying, because that's simply not happening. More often then not, it's the debtor who has either accidently or (often) deliberatrely misheard and is falsely claiming that a 'threat' that was given as a 'possible consequence of further non payment' was given as an imminent danger.

I have never deliberately misheard anything a DCA has said.

[ScarletPimpernel]

People will sometimes, and especially when stressed, either hear what they want to hear, or simply deny what has been said - I have seen people, confronted with the obviously dead body of a relative, suggest that it's all a mistake and that the cadaver will wake up at any moment.

 

Perhaps Spurious has a point - people may mishear (or misinterpret) what DCAs say, though probably not deliberately. On the other hand, DCAs often deliberately say things that are misleading or simply untrue, and I would think that this is likely to be company policy in most cases. They are generally reluctant to repeat their statements in writing, however.

 

All of which only goes to show that all dealings with DCAs should be in writing.

[ODC]

People will sometimes, and especially when stressed, either hear what they want to hear, or simply deny what has been said - I have seen people, confronted with the obviously dead body of a relative, suggest that it's all a mistake and that the cadaver will wake up at any moment.

 

Perhaps Spurious has a point - people may mishear (or misinterpret) what DCAs say, though probably not deliberately. On the other hand, DCAs often deliberately say things that are misleading or simply untrue, and I would think that this is likely to be company policy in most cases. They are generally reluctant to repeat their statements in writing, however.

 

All of which only goes to show that all dealings with DCAs should be in writing.

And why all telephone calls s should be logged and where possible recorded to eliminate any possibility of a Rogue Debtor deliberately or otherwise misundestanding the highly trained DCA operative

[Mr Blue Sky]

Spurious, I am new here and am reading this thread with interest.

 

Did you leave RW & Co for a specific reason?

 

MBS

[spurious]

Did you leave RW & Co for a specific reason?

 

Yes, but related to the fact they're a ****ty company to work for, not anything debt related. They refused to concede that given I had built up entitlement to 7.98 days holiday, it was reasonable to round that up to 8. They wanted to round it down to 7. That was the last straw, after many run-ins with middle management there, who are the type to wield what little authority they have to make themselves feel better about their lives.

 

By the way, I'd go along with ScarletPimpernel's post above - very reasoned, considered and progressive opinion, there.

[Hopeful1]

Yes, but related to the fact they're a ****ty company to work for, not anything debt related. They refused to concede that given I had built up entitlement to 7.98 days holiday, it was reasonable to round that up to 8. They wanted to round it down to 7. That was the last straw, after many run-ins with middle management there, who are the type to wield what little authority they have to make themselves feel better about their lives.

 

By the way, I'd go along with ScarletPimpernel's post above - very reasoned, considered and progressive opinion, there.

 

 

So if they don't care about their own employees, why do you think they would treat debtors any better?

 

As you've said, debt collection is a business whether it be the OC or DCA pursuing the money. What gets forgotten is that debtors are human and every debtor has a story that is real to THEM. Most debtors have valid reasons for being in a mess. Most debtors hide the problems they have. Most debtors have the best of intentions when they make arrangements. It is circumstances that make these intentions impossible to achieve.

 

Many people come to this site with the intention of reclaiming unlawful charges to offset debt or to try to remove DCAs from the equation, in a bid to make reasonable arrangements with OCs. Unfortuantely most are treated with contempt. Like you, many debtors in turn refuse to respond to the poor treatment they recieve from people with "little authority". This site reminds debtors they are actually people, who deserve to be treated with respect and as individuals.

 

I also notice you have previously posted threads regarding debt and the sending of CCAs, S.A.R requests etc, so you obviously have had your own financial issues to deal with. However, despite the feelings/opinions you have aired here that i do not agree with, I do not judge you.

[pennypenny]

Goodness me, there has been a lot of activity on this thread since I last visited it!!!

Anyway the latest update is... I have received another letter this morning from RW&C, they seem to have dropped the nasty "we will take you to court" approach and come up with this.

 

******SUMMER SPECIAL******

 

WE ARE TODAY INVITING YOU TO MAKE A SETTLEMENT OFFER ON THE DEBT YOU OWE.

 

We understand that you would like to be rid of this debt and are therefore inviting you to call us or fill in the below slip and make an offer to settle the debt you owe. ALL REASONABLE OFFERS WILL BE CONSIDERED.

 

Once a settlement has been agreed and paid, we will mark your credit file accordingly and you can look forward to a relaxing summer!

 

THIS OFFER IS ONLY VALID UNTIL 20TH JULY 2007

 

and then there's a bit to fill in at the bottom to put an offer and a date when I can pay it by.

So what do you think? I didnt know DCA's had summer sales, it really made me laugh when I read that especially the bit about the relaxing summer. I am having a relaxing summer thank you:) .

What do you think would be a reasonable offer?

 

Penny.