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

[ScarletPimpernel]

I recently complained to HSBC about telephone calls. Their reply is risible: apparently they are only attempting to contact me to prevent further charges being added to my account, but have now deleted my number from their records.

 

I replied suggesting that if they want to prevent charges being added, all they have to do is to not add them, not least because they are unlawful and I'll be claiming them all back. Not heard from them since.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I have also been harassed recently by HSBC phoning endlessly. I explained to them several times that I do not discuss financial matters on the phone, and also wrote. They replied, waffling about how OFCOM allows them to do this and that, but finally stating that my number 'has been removed form our records'; since when I've received another 15 calls.

 

I have now raised a formal complaint, stating that I consider the bank lying to be a very serious matter.

 

This all relates to an overdraft that they allowed to go over its limit; I argue that they should not have paid anything that would make the account go over limit, because I did not ask them to. They say that they treated any d/d request as an 'informal request for overdraft', which is how they try to justify their £25 admin/penalty charge.

 

Getting into the spirit of things, I told them that I would treat any further attempts to contact me by phone as an informal request for consultation, for which I would charge £100 a time. The calls have stopped...

[ScarletPimpernel]

its pathetic to be honest.

 

I was going to thank you for your insightful, intellectual contribution, even though it appears to have been made in complete ignorance of the way in which financial institutions and their parasites work. Then I realised that it is better not to feed trolls.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Well why take out the money if you have no intention of paying it back? that amounts to theft in my opinion.

 

At the risk of being royally Wahed I will bite, and try to answer your points sensibly.

 

Whilst your opinion of what constitutes theft differs from the legal reality (and is in any case of no consequence), you should note that no-one on CAG condones borrowing money with no intention of paying it back. What we do encourage, however, is individuals asserting their legal rights when they are in debt. People get into debt for all sorts of reasons, such as bereavement, relationship breakdown, redundnacy and so on. However, you seem to have fallen for the DCA assumption that all are 'won't pays' rather than 'can't pays'.

 

No bank want an account to go to a DCA and it only goes there when the bank have exhausted all avenues open to them to collect on. Therefore if your account is with a DCA then you have already ignored or led the bank on for a while.

 

We may need to agree to disagree on this one. Banks are in business to make as much profit as possible; they are do not provide a social or community service. Passing a debt to a DCA is simply part of their business practice, and is designed to maximise the profit on delinquent accounts. When they sell debts, they do so in order to profit from both the sale and tax allowances.

 

I have worked for both a DCA and a bank and i have also taken out finance. From a DCA/Bank point of view we want to get customers back on track but there is a small percentage of people who just have no intention of paying their debt back and we know this, we just accept it and act accordingly i.e legal action etc.

 

Again, DCAs do what they do in order to make profit; they aren't interested in getting people 'back on track' - if you believe this then I suspect you are rather gullible.

 

From a consumer point of view i have had difficult months where i've missed a few payments but have called my credit companys and sorted it out, i've never came on here and left comments having a go at DCA's for my own shortcomings.

 

Well done you. I do not know what the reasons for your difficult months were. As I said above, people are in debt for all sorts of reasons, many of which are outside their cintrol and this not shortcomings of their own making. Some need help to manage the situation, and CAG provides both practical and emotional support.

 

I think a lot of the people on here should have a good look in the mirror before they post their threads.

 

Mirror check - done. Still me.

 

We're all different. I am occasionally guilty of judging those who work for DCAs by my own standards, but I realise that not everyone has had the same opportunities as me. I'd still rather have my campaign medals (not quite finished the collection yet), my souvenirs of being an aid worker in a conflict zone, my friends, family and memories, than a shiny credit record and a smug, self-satisfied attitude.

 

And the next time you put the news on and see a headline about the "credit crunch" give yourself a pat on the back and say "great, i helped bring about that".

 

On the contrary, whenever I hear about the credit crunch I am reminded of Cyclops Broon and his Cabinet of Clowns, and the banks with their irresponsible lending, investment in sub-prime markets and corporate arrogance. I'm reminded of DCAs and their foreign owners, leaching money from this country, and of people desperate to earn commission by bullying others, whilst my friends and colleagues in sandy places put themselves in harm's way.

 

Look in the mirror yourself, and ask what you've contributed to the world.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I am sure you did BRW, maybe on you're computer you have fought for queen and country. This forum is great for people like you, complete fantasist.

 

Target will revert to playground insults when hit; dress forward onto the firing point and carry on.

 

Those of us who have served do tend to look down at some of those who have not. I'm afraid that people who make no positive contribution to society, and especially those who mock people who do, do not deserve any consideration in my view. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this includes the type of oxygen thieves who work for DCAs.

 

When you've come face-to-face with people who seek to kill you, when you've been under fire, and when you've seen what some humans will do to other humans, you might understand where we come from. We play by big boys' rules, and it takes more than some badly-educated urchin in a call-centre to scare us.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Lets be clear... the consumer requests the credit, the bank does not force the consumer. Therefore if you are provided with a service (credit) why should you not pay it back?

 

Gasbags:

 

I refer you to the answers I gave above.

 

You may also like to read the judgment of Morritt LJ in the case of Wilson v First County Trust, which in summary makes clear that if a creditor fails to ensure that all the paperwork meets the legal criteria, he should consider any money provided as a gift, since he clearly did not expect it to be returned.

 

We could also discuss the commission-led high pressure sales policies of banks which arguably give the lie to your statement that consumers are not forced to take credit, and certainly contributed to irresponsible lending; so blatantly irresponsible that it was noticed even by the dysnystaxic FSA.

 

You would not go into asda fill up your shopping trolly and walk out without paying, so where is the difference?

 

 

That would be theft, which is a criminal offence, whilst debt is not a criminal offence. That is one difference; there are others, but they are so obvious I will not insult your intelligence by mentioning them.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Quite correct, Enron. The type of comment posted by our two interlopers demonstrate an immaturity of reasoning which in other circumstances would be considered wholly inappropriate.

 

To stereotype all those in debt as essentially dishonest is reminiscent of the type of drivel spouted by those who suggest that all people of one ethnic group are thieves, or terrorists, simply because a minority misbehave, or that all Roman Catholic priests are paedophiles because some of them have committed offences against children.

 

To say that those in debt deserve to be treated badly by DCAs simply because they seek to assert their rights is remarkably judgmental, and is rather like suggesting that rape is okay if the victim wore a short skirt or behaved flirtatiously, or that soldiers who die or are wounded in battle deserve no less because of their career choice.

 

The apparently deliberate ignorance of the lack of intent, and of external factors, are also telling.

[ScarletPimpernel]

DCAs rely upon not training their staff to be fully aware of the law and regulatory rules, and upon inculcating in them a view that all debtors are bad people. If you look at Cretin Today, or the CSA website, you will see that the executives of these companies like to distance themselves from the reality of what they do, and create an image of high-powered financiers contributing to the economy. In fact, many DCAs are foreign-owned and they are just draining money from this country. They keep a few prospective burger-flippers and tele-ads people off the streets, but that's about the extent of their usefulness to society. They will never admit that they exist as parasites, living off the finance industry and the misery of consumers; they don't even like to refer to themselves as debt-collectors.

 

Like all bullies, they believe they are invincible, and so will never engage realistically on forums like this.