Are you being harassed on the telephone by your bank or by debt collectors?

[stardust_john]

Got a call recently and caught on the hop.

 

Man didnt go through security procedure so I thought they were calling about a school issue with child, I was expecting call.

 

He filed away is this house owned and I clicked thank god.

I said yes

 

He said without naming company after repeatedly asked, well we are now going to put a charging order on your property.

 

I became hysterical with laughter as it has been a very very hard week, changing kiddies school!!

 

He said you are not helping youself and we will take your home, you have said it is owned.

 

I laughed and said yes it is, by the council !!!!

 

Phone slammed down funny enough and still dont know who the hell they were, but got one over for a change I thinks;) They obviously were phishing or something because it surely is not hard to find if a council house is owned or not via their own methods, not professional and desperate obviously.

[PriorityOne]

P1.

 

Just read what you posted up. It is good but what i did not find anywhere on it was how it would effect innocent ppl who have moved into rented accomidation after someone else that has a lot of debt, like my original pos about this issue highlights, How would l be protected against a baliff if this new legislation was to come into effect?

 

That's the trouble GM.... there appears to be no protection, other than to 'phone the police on the day. In some cases, this may be too late. The individual they are chasing may not even be there at the time... or as happened to you, not even live there anymore . Complaints, etc. can be submitted afterwards, yes.... but the damage will have already been done.

 

IMO, the "Lady" who's been pushing this through has no experience of life in the real world . Anyone entitled "Lady" usually doesn't... but having done a short stint in a City bank years ago as a youngster, I saw for my own eyes how the top nobs brushed shouders with MPs, who were often also non-exec. directors of other financial companies... One of the guys I met also worked for Prince Charles in some capacity. I have never forgotten these cosy set-ups....8-)

 

They protect each others interests. Simple as.

[willtheywontthey]

Capital One are persistent little bu&&ers are they not! I thought I had read somewhere that they cannot call on Sundays? Anybody wish to confirm / clarify what actual regs are - are there any?

 

Still waiting for FOS to appoint ajudicator.... they were fast with bank charges a few months back but this telephone harassment not heard anything from FOS.

 

What I don't get is why Capital One keep hanging up when I answer!

[ODC]

DCAs are allowed to phone on Sundays. Of course whether you chose to answer them on a Sunday is up to you. What with the footie on and the lovely sunny weather I cannot see too many DCA calls being answered today

[willtheywontthey]

cheeky monkeys phoned again during Sunday lunch. This time they would not hang up so I did

 

How many times a day are they allowed to call then?

 

What are the regs / laws?

[The GodMother]

they can call as many times as they like but as long as you log/record every call then they are screwed if it is classed as harrassement

[tiglet]

tell them you are a Christian and this is your day or worship and so they should never call you on a Sunday - I have them terribly confused as they believe I am Muslim/Jewish/Christian and Mormon.

 

This only leaves Tuesday to Thursday to call ...

[The GodMother]

any of the above then.

 

I would tell them to notify you in writing of whne they are going to call you sodue to having a family that needs feeding during the hours of waking and sleeping

[sosumi]

tell them you are a Christian and this is your day or worship and so they should never call you on a Sunday - I have them terribly confused as they believe I am Muslim/Jewish/Christian and Mormon.

 

This only leaves Tuesday to Thursday to call ...

:lol:

[Deshaine]

...............

 

(ref possible increase in Bailiff's powers)

Absolutely Godmother - they'd have to prove the debt was yours. I don't know how it's going to work out with disputed debt etc... To be honest, I think there'd have to be stringent criteria in place to ensure the tenant was in fact the debtor before any increase in Bailiff's powers should be increased. I think in fact it could cause more problems, and probably wouldn't result in a massive increase in recovery on the DCA end. We'll just have to see how it pans out.

 

On a personal note btw, before anyone harries this post, I'm not for this legislation. As many customers in debt do live in rented/housing group accomodation, I think it's a poor idea, there isn't any central way to check who is living where apart from the electoral role, which is less than perfect.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Deshaine

[Deshaine]

Hello All!

 

Prodding a Troll with sticks only encourages them to disgorge/spew more Credit Industry Propaganda, Debtor Slap Downs and annoying patronising clap-trap suggesting Debt is something clear and well defined!

 

Debt = you owe it, now, how are you going to Pay it.

 

There is no space in the Borg/Troll closed loop banking mind that can even begin to cope with the concepts of Engineered Debt, Unfair Debt, Illegal Debt, Manipulated Debt, Penalty Debt, Vindictive Debt, Debt Created wholly because of Access to Privileged Information for Unjust Enrichment.

 

Need I go on?

 

There's no point trying to reason with this. It's a bloated self-serving and delusional industry that is so far up its own backside that it would be very funny if we were not paying for the Bonuses, the BMWs, the Golfing Weekends, the Yachts, the glossy Web Sites and Magazines, the hard sell TV marketing...

 

Urgh, talking of spew...I can't hold it in any longer...damn, all over my keyboard too...and the far wall!

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Well it's clear that you have the exact same 2D view if DCA's and the credit industry as you claim they have of debtors, so I'll not push this point. It's fair enough - people will have their own opinions based on their own personal experiences - after reading some of them on here I can understand it.

 

But if anyone would like a different perspective on things, feel free to contact me, I'll be happy to provide info - what I wont do however is answer endless questions having to defend myself about what first direct/HBOS etc etc have done, when I really dont know.

[stardust_john]

Deshaine, To let us know you are genuine, you would need to say who your employer is without obviously giving your true identity away. Your advice would be given credit if you gave advice relating to the working practices of this company and how a client could legally approach the company etc.

 

Are you willing to do that, if yes, great, your advice would be appreciated.

 

If not your advice relating to other companies is not worth much, because not all dca's as you say are the same. Some are real pains and are you willing to say if you are one of them. You wont be ridiculed you would be an asset, but so many dca's try to infiltrate site and are so readily noticeable as trying to give false info or trying to make cagers look as if trying to debt avoid rather than legally know their rights and then proceed appropriately.

 

People havn't the time for the latter, no offence.

[Deshaine]

Deshaine, To let us know you are genuine, you would need to say who your employer is without obviously giving your true identity away. Your advice would be given credit if you gave advice relating to the working practices of this company and how a client could legally approach the company etc.

 

Are you willing to do that, if yes, great, your advice would be appreciated.

 

If not your advice relating to other companies is not worth much, because not all dca's as you say are the same. Some are real pains and are you willing to say if you are one of them. You wont be ridiculed you would be an asset, but so many dca's try to infiltrate site and are so readily noticeable as trying to give false info or trying to make cagers look as if trying to debt avoid rather than legally know their rights and then proceed appropriately.

 

People havn't the time for the latter, no offence.

 

Thank you for the message Stardust, unfortunately I cannot state my employer, which would in some circumstances togtehher with other information I have disclosed be sufficient to trace my identity, and possibly risk my employment etc...

 

I have no ulterior agenda, I find some of the threads on here interesting and would like to ensure that no-one is given advice I know to be blatantly incorrect.

 

If people want to take some of my info onboard, thats fine, if not, that's ok too. Anything I say could be checked against relevant legislation etc.. I'm not going to comment on the conduct/practices of DCA's, nor will I get involved in any case where there is a conflict of interest for me or my employer. I'm just another voice on here, and I'm certainly not about doling out incorrect information with a view to clawing back the debt deficit one account at a time.

 

I'm sure if I said anything incorrect, or disputed, someone would point this out - there are plenty of knowledgable people posting on here who are capable of providing the correct information.

 

I'm also not going to advise people to talk to agents etc.., as though I believe it is the correct thing to do, there is sufficient counsel on here advising otherwise, and I wont get drawn into an argument over it.

[ODC]

Obviously the thousands of people who post on here about the behaviour of DCAs cannot all be wrong. Of course its not just one or two isolated DCAs who are rogues but from opinions given on here its a completely shoddy industry which seems to employ people with no consience and devoid of moral scruples. Of course if I worked for one of these DCAs I wouldnt want to admit it either. I would come on holier than thou and pretend I worked for a reasonable DCA who did everything by the book.

[Deshaine]

Obviously the thousands of people who post on here about the behaviour of DCAs cannot all be wrong. Of course its not just one or two isolated DCAs who are rogues but from opinions given on here its a completely shoddy industry which seems to employ people with no consience and devoid of moral scruples. Of course if I worked for one of these DCAs I wouldnt want to admit it either. I would come on holier than thou and pretend I worked for a reasonable DCA who did everything by the book.

 

ODC, your are entitled to your opinion. I certainly wont be baited into an argument, and this is the last I will post on this thread unless someone has a genuine question that I can actually help with.

 

Many Thanks.

[texel]

Deshaine; I congratulate you on what you have written. I am getting fed up those others who won't give you a chance. Those who run up big debta with no intention of paying should get clobbered. However it is a different thing for those who by accident got cheques bounced dds returned and were hit with aweful charges!!! I am all for those people to get their funds back. I am also against harassment wether it be by telephone or letter. I have no sympathy for the banks etc. Threy brought all the problems on themselves. Keep on the good work:D

[ODC]

Deshaine; I congratulate you on what you have written. I am getting fed up those others who won't give you a chance. Those who run up big debta with no intention of paying should get clobbered. However it is a different thing for those who by accident got cheques bounced dds returned and were hit with aweful charges!!! I am all for those people to get their funds back. I am also against harassment wether it be by telephone or letter. I have no sympathy for the banks etc. Threy brought all the problems on themselves. Keep on the good work:D

Texel while there are undoubtely a few rogue debtors on here who never had any notion of paying back their debts I feel that the VAST majority of people on here are in debt because of problems beyond their control such as ill health, unemployment, marriage problems etc. Whent they try to make a sensible arrangement with their creditors they are often treated like **** and subjected to abuse and vile threats. As a consequence most people hit google and more often than not end up here where they find people in a similar predicament and get the help they need. If the Banks/DCAs adopted a sensible approach they may find people willing to deal with them. Instead they send off a rainforest of threatomatics threatening everything from baliffs to repossesion and bankruptcy. More often than not these threats are as empty as the heads of the people who post them out and bully folk on the phone. They cause undue stress and worry to ordinary folk who have fallen on hard times.

 

Call me cynical but IMHO any DCA employee who comes on here trying to justify the actions of DCAs is either here to gloat or glean information.

[PriorityOne]

ODC, your are entitled to your opinion. I certainly wont be baited into an argument, and this is the last I will post on this thread unless someone has a genuine question that I can actually help with.

 

Many Thanks.

 

I have a question...

 

Why are you here ? That's not a trick question btw.... just curious.

[Deshaine]

I have a question...

 

Why are you here ? That's not a trick question btw.... just curious.

 

Couple of reasons - I think I stated them on another thread.

 

1) Debt collection is my chosen profession, therefor it makes sense for me to research it as best I can, including common consumer attitudes + concerns, and try and see things from the debtors perception. I am involved in systems and policy development within my team, therefor I need to be able to flag any potential problems/areas where we may be lacking.

 

2) I am a complaint handler. Reading these forums helps me understand the common complaints submitted by customers, and see how other companies are handling them, and aim to do better (not difficult judging from some threads). I also want to learn from things that have happened elsewhere, and prevent the same happening here.

 

3) I genuinely like helping people where I can - and firmly believe the needs of the consumer and of the financial industry needn't constantly be ad odds with one another. I was a telephone agent myself, though I worked with secured loans, and have significant experience dealing with reposessions and instructing solicitors (therefore, nothing anyone could say to me or call me on this forum could possibly compare to my experiences of talking to people who are losing there homes). Despite what anyone may think, I enjoyed my job - and honestly believe I got to help people more often than not, while maintaining the quality of the arrears book. I would like to go on providing information that could help, even though I am no longer in a customer facing position.

 

However, it galls me to see people avoiding debt or using legal loopholes to wriggle out of paying it where it is valid, genuine and without dispute (please reread that sentence before anyone decides to quote and berate it). I also dont agree with companies who fragrantly ignore legislation in order to corner a larger share of the industry, therefor making it more difficult for those companies who do work within the confines of the law to operate effectively and competitively.

 

I hope that answers your question, I've done so as honestly as I can

[stardust_john]

What are your opinions Deshaine on a dca approaching a client knowing they do not have a valid cca agreement and threatening court action when they have no method of enforcement?

 

If you are approaced by client on benefits and told all they can afford is £1.oo what will you do?

[Deshaine]

What are your opinions Deshaine on a dca approaching a client knowing they do not have a valid cca agreement and threatening court action when they have no method of enforcement?

 

A DCA cannot threaten court action if it is not legally possible, or if it is not going to be done should default continue. Therefor, once it is known no valid/enforceable CCA exists, the account should be registered as a dispute and investigated. However, even a CCA that has not being correctly executed (but does exist) can be presented to the court for consideration.

Therefor, if the DCA intends to go to court with the disputed CCA, fair play. If there is no CCA, then then the account should really be handed back to the client.

As far as I'm concerned, if you are going to threaten something, you should be willing to see it through to the end. Otherwise, you are in breach of OFT guidelines.

 

If you are approaced by client on benefits and told all they can afford is £1.oo what will you do?

 

This depends - each case is different, and this is a completely open-ended question, depending on why they are gettin benefits, do they own a home, was is previous account history like, I+E details.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Deshaine

[dannyboy660]

Strangely, I actually find that I agree.

 

If it isn't possible to reach a sensible agreement with the OC then it's far better to take the court option. Most DCA's can't/won't take you to court, and once the OC has exercised that option, they or anyone who is stupid enough to 'buy' the debt have to abide by the repayment terms ordered by the court.

 

In many cases once you have a CCJ it may be possible to apply for Administration Order by the court, and it's problem solved all round. Why give I&E to a privately owned DCA who will only disregard it and pressure you anyway??

 

As Deshaines says, DCA's cannot threaten court action if it is not possible and yet you can bet your rosy red backside they will. Far better to call their bluff. Here it is again in case anyone missed it before.....

 

"About 5% of accounts in the UK are

suitable for litigation. The point is to go

after can-pay or can-pay-more accounts,

says Locke, referring to debtors who

refuse to pay or who won’t pay an

appropriate amount relative to their

financial wherewithal.

“You have to balance where you stop

spending” – when the effort has become

unproductive – “and analyze where you

should spend more, based on the expectation

of liquidity,”

 

http://www.credit-manager.co.uk/other/CCR%20May07%20UKDebtCrisis.pdf

 

If only 5% are suitable for litigation by DCA's - what about the other 95%??

 

The collection sector are surprisingly open in their admission that they will pressure and harass anyone they believe can be bullied into paying more than they can sensibly afford, which is why more advisory groups are increasingly insisting on negotiating with the original creditor and cutting out third party collection agency involvement altogether, after all are they really necessary?? Why not save some money, increase your own recovery rates and DIY??

 

The more you think about it, the more it makes sense.

 

Whoops...little bits disappearing there already I see

[ODC]

Also from the same publication

 

He lists the leading buyers, in no particular

order, as Cabot Financial Group, 1st Credit, Capquest, Lowell Group,

Aktiv Kapital/Thames Credit and Link Financial.

Mere coincidence that there are so many threads on CAG about the antics of these particular companies.

[Fuzzgin]

"However, it galls me to see people avoiding debt or using legal loopholes to wriggle out of paying it where it is valid, genuine and without dispute (please reread that sentence before anyone decides to quote and berate it)."

 

Deshaines, I would be interested to know where you have seen this, as I've been on the forum for at least a year and I don't think I've seen any examples of this. I've seen a lot of disputes that DCAs won't acknowledge and desperate people who would like to reach an agreement but can't because the DCAs just will not listen.

[dannyboy660]

Thank you for the message Stardust, unfortunately I cannot state my employer, which would in some circumstances togtehher with other information I have disclosed be sufficient to trace my identity, and possibly risk my employment etc...

 

 

Yes you will have to be very careful indeed!!

 

Entry by Banks and their staff is prohibited. Banks will be allowed to enter the forum so long as they have permission from the Administrators.

 

Ignoring this rule is, in our opinion, a breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 - Section 1b.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

 

You would certainly be risking your job if your employer knew you were posting here, I know for a fact it is actively discouraged in genuine DCA's, often on threat of dismissal. It is not in the interests of the collections business to have their current employees giving away tactics or denying things that are known by the general public to be true, - or highlighting the fact that when push comes to shove they actually have no real teeth at all!!!

 

Having now declared on the open forum you are a DCA employee, it might be a good idea to make yourself known to at least one of the Moderators if you haven't already done so, in view of Forum rules and the Misuse of Computers Act 1990. It applies to Bank staff - I'm not 100% sure about DCA employees but I imagine the same would apply. At least then you have a degree of protection should you post misleading information, accidentally or otherwise, and it might do something to increase your credibility and reduce the chances of confrontation.

 

Just an opinion.