Thames Credit

[Tezcatlipoca]

Ok, I've knocked up a complaint letter giving them 14 working days from their receipt of the letter (as proven by Royal Mail since it will be recorded) to produce this phantom 'evidence' that the debt isn't statute barred.

 

If (when) they fail, I've ordered them to make a full an immediate apology and write to state the matter is closed, and, if they fail to do that, I've informed them the matter will go before the FOS. I've finally imformed them that if I consider the FOS fidnings are such that TC can be shown to have behaved contrary to the Limitation Act and the Administration of Justice Act, then I intend to commence court procedings against them for criminal fraud and harassment.

 

Does this seem a fair demand, and is 14 days sufficient?

Finally, and the only part I'm not too sure on, is the last. I'm uncertain whether TC will actually take any notice at all (considering themselves, as they seem to, above the law), and I'm quite sure they must get hundreds of threats to take them to court over their behaviour. Anyone have any experience of this?

 

[ODC]

The thing about threatening these maggots is that you must be prepared to carry them out

[dannyboy660]

The thing about threatening these maggots is that you must be prepared to carry them out

 

I agree.

 

They receive lots of complaints, but too few people take the time and trouble to see it through. It's what gives DCA's the confidence to do the things they do - the knowledge that they can be 99.99% sure they'll get away with it.

 

Having said that, it can be a long and frustratingly slow process and it's no surprise people lose interest.

[ODC]

I agree.

 

They receive lots of complaints, but too few people take the time and trouble to see it through. It's what gives DCA's the confidence to do the things they do - the knowledge that they can be 99.99% sure they'll get away with it.

 

Having said that, it can be a long and frustratingly slow process and it's no surprise people lose interest.

However if someone was prepared to go the whole hog against these and other DCA parasites then Im sure they would get all the help and support of the whole of CAG:cool:

[Jason Toulmin]

Sorry to ask a daft question but does a standard CCA cover a bank account, I am presuming this is an overdraft debt!?!?

[make them aktiv runners]

14 days is more than fair considering the speed at which their threats arrive. Unfortunately they get a full 8 weeks before the FOS can become involved. Just make sure your letter is clearly marked to be dealt with as an official complaint.

[nevos]

Interesting thread!

[Tezcatlipoca]

Sorry to ask a daft question but does a standard CCA cover a bank account, I am presuming this is an overdraft debt!?!?

 

 

At this stage, it has nothing to do with the CCA. I am disputing that any monies were ever owed, and, in the unlikely event they were, they are long since statute barred. TC told me this related to an account closed in 1994 and has not been touched since. That's 13 years ago. Basically, there will be a certain lessening of temperature in the infernal regions before I give them a penny...

[ODC]

Basically quote Thames letter back to them and tell them to take a large Foxtrot Oscar Tablet

[Tezcatlipoca]

Result. On the 17th of this month I sent this letter:

 

Thames Credit Limited

PO Box 444

Bromley

Kent

BR1 1ZB

 

Re:

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT WITH YOUR COMPANY

 

Dear Sir,

 

I am writing to raise a serious complaint regarding the behaviour of your company.

 

 

Your Initial Contact

On or about the 21/08/2007, you sent a letter stating, in part, that I 'owed' you a sum of money.

 

My Initial Response (by telephone)

Having no knowledge of this supposed ‘debt’, I telephoned your number to ascertain the particulars. I easily extracted a statement from your operator that it related to a bank account from 1994, upon which it was put to your operator that this alleged debt well exceeded the age required to become statute barred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980.

 

Your operator replied that money was still owed. This statement was contrary to the said Act.

In addition, their assertion that money had to be paid after it was put to them it did not, is harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Since your operator was committing an offence by making the above assertion, I ended the call.

 

My Initial Response (by letter)

You received my first letter on 30/08/2007. In it, I clearly defined your legal position and responsibilities in accordance with the Limitation Act 1980, the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Communications Act 2003. I finally made a request that you behave in accordance with the law and close the matter.

 

Your Second Contact

I received your second letter on 31/08/2007 which stated, in part, that “We have consulted regarding the above referenced account. They have advised the last correspondence sent to you was in February 2003, and therefore the account is not statute barred.”

 

Perhaps you would be kind enough to direct me to the exact section of the Limitation Act 1980 which states that attempts to contact me invalidates the status of statute barred, as my copy (which I handily happen to have in front of me as I write), seems to omit this.

Since no such exemption exists in the said Act, your assertions* become contrary to the OFT’s statement that “it unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations, by falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally recoverable and continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred.”

 

* Your assertions may also be open to interpretation as an attempt at criminal fraud.

 

My Second Response

You received my second letter on 11/09/2007, which stated that your letter of the 31/08/2007 was in contravention of the Limitation Act, and constituted a serious offence under the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

You were also clearly warned that it was now your legal duty to provide evidence of your eligibility to enforce this alleged debt, and that a failure to do so would be responded to in the severest possible way within the confines of the law.

 

Your Third Contact

I received your third and most recent letter on 12/09/2007. It states, in part, that “We have requested a copy of the application form along with copy statements for the above referenced account and ask you to be patient whilst this is being collated.”

 

Even if the alleged debt were not statute barred, you are doubtless aware that an application form isn’t an executed agreement under the Credit Consumer Act 1974, and is thus irrelevant.

 

You also mention copy statements. As you are also aware, any such statements must be issued by the bank and carry the original stamp of that bank to be considered relevant.

I am quite sure you are aware of the serious repercussions that would result from the criminal offence of creating your own statements and then asserting, or presenting them in such a way as to suggest, that they originated from .

 

 

I am now giving you 14 days from receipt of this letter to provide clear and original proof that this alleged debt is not statute barred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980.

As you are well aware, the law states that application forms and statements are not legal proof; you must provide a clear indication of why you believe the above Act is not in effect, and support the same with original, signed documentation or original proof of payment.

If you are unable to respond with such, you will be obliged to provide the following:

 

1) A full, written apology for your behaviour.

2) Written confirmation that this matter will be closed.

 

If these demands are not met within those 14 days, then this matter will be put before the Financial Ombudsman Service, who will charge you for investigating my complaint.

If I consider that the findings of the FOS are such that behaviour contrary to either

 

a)the Limitation Act 1980, the Administration of Justice Act 1970 or the Credit

Consumer Act 1974

b)any other Act under which you might be shown to have behaved in an improper or

illegal manner

 

can be clearly shown to have taken place, then it is my intention to consult a solicitor with a view to commencing legal proceedings against you. If the solicitor considers a case can be brought, then you may be liable for financial penalties and the payment of damages to myself.

 

Yours faithfully,

Two days later; two days, I receive this:

 

Dear Sir,

 

I write in reply to your letter dated 17th September 2007.

 

There is no legislation that precludes a creditor from legitimately pursuing a debt that remains outstanding and due for payment. Indeed, we should argue that any debtor who recognises such a debt has a moral obligation to address his liability.

 

However, in order to provide your application and statements we will have to retrieve the documents from an offsite facility which will be costly and time consuming. Therefore, as a gesture of goodwill we have agreed to write off the balance on your account and apologise if you felt our actions have caused you distress.

 

You will not receive any further correspondence regarding this account.

 

Yours Sincerely,

I think my favourite bits are "any debtor who recognises such a debt has a moral obligation to address his liability", and "we will have to retrieve the documents from an offsite facility which will be costly and time consuming"...

[ODC]

Thats an excellent result. I am about three letters behind you with Thames. It will be in tersting to see if they use the same threatomatics with me. They neednt try to hogwash me with something which you have proven to be wrong. Indeed your correspondence and mine would show a good case against these maggots holding a licence

[Curlyben]

What complete BS.

They know they don't have a leg to stand on yet refuse to admit it.

 

Hey who cares they're gone

[Tezcatlipoca]

I'm giving serious consideration to continuing with an FOS complaint anyway; just on principle...

[Allwood]

Thames is due to have their licenses renew next year, everyone that complains against them will hinder them getting it renewed.

[djdave]

I'd also write to the licencing people at the OFT, complaining that by continuing to pursue a Statute Barred debt Thames are in clear breach of OFT guidelines and, in your view, unfit to hold a consumer credit licence.

[Curlyben]

Well as OFT control who gets a CCL I'd take this matter to them.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Just a quick update, for those interested or thinking about launching similar complaints against TC...

 

Upon the receipt of their 'apology' (which closed the 'debt' but failed to conform to my other demands), I sent another strongly worded letter, demanding they confirm they will not attempt to pass or sell this 'debt' to any other person, company or authority, and that they remove any marks against my name.

 

At the same time, I sent strong letters of complaint to the FOS and OFT (which, according to Royal Mails marvellous tracking service, they received on the 12th and 14th of this month, respectively). I didn't really expect to hear anything more out of TC, but this morning I get this from TC:

 

Dear ,

 

Outstanding Balance: £0

 

I write in reply to your letter regarding the above referenced account.

 

I confirm that this account has been completely closed on our database and will not be reinstated or passed to any third party. you will receive no correspondance with regards to this matter.

I also confirm the account is not being recorded at the Credit Bureaux as the matter is now statute barred.

 

 

We have at all times acted in accordance with the guidelines set by the FOS and the CSA. It is the decision of Thames Credit to seek to adhere to the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act as much as possible, but we have not inherited the liabilities of the original creditor.

 

Yours sincerely,

My favourite parts in this one are the fact they will not register anything against my name as the 'debt' is suddenly and magically "now statute barred", and the fact that TC "seek to adhere to the provisions of the CCA as much as possible".

 

Will keep the forums posted on how my FOS and OFT complaints go...

[Curlyben]

Well that's a result.

Make sure you this in a SAFE place.

 

[ODC]

Interesting change of policy from a buch of Muppets who said that The Limitations Act didnt apply because a default was registered by them a long time after the last payment was made.

 

OUR SOLES

[Brassed off]

 

Well done Tezcat:D

[babybear39]

Yay Congratulations

 

:O my smilies have gone AWOL