PPI Reclaiming Discussion part 4

beamerguy

citibird27 wrote: »

Hi there, Cappo,
apologies for unclear info...my claim is with the adjudicator, and with what has come up in these posts, I have an awful feeling, it won't be good news.

Every success for you, though...will keep my fingers crossed..let me know how it goes...:)

Just one thing...why does Capital One do so well at adjudication..they are clearly rogue traders...and having been fined, it would be reasonable to assume that they might be at a disadvantage with the ombudsman...?:mad:

I think the more people who tell there stories here about Capital One, all that might change

cappo

citibird27 wrote: »

Hi there, Cappo,
apologies for unclear info...my claim is with the adjudicator, and with what has come up in these posts, I have an awful feeling, it won't be good news.

Every success for you, though...will keep my fingers crossed..let me know how it goes...:)

Just one thing...why does Capital One do so well at adjudication..they are clearly rogue traders...and having been fined, it would be reasonable to assume that they might be at a disadvantage with the ombudsman...?:mad:

Thats a question i'd like an answer to citibird, i cited the fact on my case that cap 1 had been "caught" by the fsa 6 weeks after i purchased my card,the adjudicator even admitted that cap 1 had'nt given me all the information to make a decision based on the information i had,even down to the secret commission i was told no difference, i certainly felt that the adjudicator supposedly neutral came down firmly on the side of cap 1 hence the ombudsman,i had so many arguments for misold,they did'nt want to know,and i got the distinct impression that the adjudicator did'nt want me forwarding it to the ombudsman.

citibird27

cappo wrote: »

Thats a question i'd like an answer to citibird, i cited the fact on my case that cap 1 had been "caught" by the fsa 6 weeks after i purchased my card,the adjudicator even admitted that cap 1 had'nt given me all the information to make a decision based on the information i had,even down to the secret commission i was told no difference, i certainly felt that the adjudicator supposedly neutral came down firmly on the side of cap 1 hence the ombudsman,i had so many arguments for misold,they did'nt want to know,and i got the distinct impression that the adjudicator did'nt want me forwarding it to the ombudsman.

Hi Cappo,

It is a real concern if we cannot rely on those judgements from the financial people to be fair and neutral, if they show any kind of bias, how can we trust them?

Capital One have a lousy reputation, and I hope that things escalate to make them change their terrible , unethical behaviour!

I hope the fact that the adjudicator was reluctant for you to forward your claim to the ombudsman is a good sign!;) Good luck!

citibird27

beamerguy wrote: »

I think the more people who tell there stories here about Capital One, all that might change

I would really like to think so...otherwise the banking system, ( unfair as it is ) is still winning!:mad:

citibird27

beamerguy wrote: »

Hi, now look everyone should understand this especially when dealing with debt collectors.
The lenders sell the debt as a contract to a debt collector, probably at half the value. The Debt collector has purchased the intellectual rights .

Therefore, the debt becomes the debt collectors property and whatever attachments came with the debt

When the debt was sold, it is highly unlikely that the lender told the debt collector that you were claiming the PPI as false selling and the account was under query.
It therefore means that the lender has sold onwards on false pretences to the debt collector.
This is now a very bad time for debt collectors as they are now responsible to you. I advised one debt collector who purchased a so called debt from Capital One, that as they had purchased the intellectual rights, I would be looking at them to refund all false PPI payments. Never heard from them again but I am still hounding Capital One
WHY DID THEY SELL IT AS A DEBT
When I took out the Capital One credit card, it was done on the sole basis that the salesperson was telling me the truth about the PPI,
This then formed a contract. When I claimed, I was told I had no claim.
CONTRACT BROKEN
Despite a realm of letters to Capital One, all I got was fob off letters and then one day, a debt collector informed me that Capital One had sold the contract to them and they now owned it.
Fine, then I am coming after you (the debt collector) for selling me a fruadulent PPI ..... never heard back, I wonder why ??

I have now sent Capital One a severe claim for damages. This is the result of sheer arrogance and ignorance on behalf of Capital One PLUS ... selling me a fraudulent policy, ignoring all my requests and then passing it to debt collectors .... that is straight forward harassment.
My claim for compensation well exceeds any monies they claim are owed
and if any further debt collectors pop up, they will receive a copy of my claim as a counterclaim. It stinks of fraud all along the line with Capital One

This is really helpful, thanks for posting.:)

I am unclear around unenforcable credit agreements...the RBS has lost my paperwork, they admit it is unenforcable through section 78, or something...but they still want their money!

Also, what happends if collection agencies have no luck, does it go back to the original lender?

beamerguy

citibird27 wrote: »

Hi Cappo,

It is a real concern if we cannot rely on those judgements from the financial people to be fair and neutral, if they show any kind of bias, how can we trust them?

Capital One have a lousy reputation, and I hope that things escalate to make them change their terrible , unethical behaviour!

I hope the fact that the adjudicator was reluctant for you to forward your claim to the ombudsman is a good sign!;) Good luck!

If as you say, the adjudicator seems to be favouring Capital One, we must find out why, due to the poor history and current behaviour of Capital One

beamerguy

citibird27 wrote: »

This is really helpful, thanks for posting.:)

I am unclear around unenforcable credit agreements...the RBS has lost my paperwork, they admit it is unenforcable through section 78, or something...but they still want their money!

Also, what happends if collection agencies have no luck, does it go back to the original lender?

If the RBS have lost your paperwork, not sure how they can demand anything.

See this article and forum on this site about section 78
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3165274

beamerguy

"Also, what happends if collection agencies have no luck, does it go back to the original lender?"

Collection agencies pass it around each other and then do pass it back. The lender then goes to a more aggressive collector and so the magic circle continues.

INTERESTING READING ABOUT: Be fully aware of your rights

Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act

“S40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

1. 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 a contract he-
* harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency, or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
* falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
* falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or
* utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character, or purporting to have some official character which he know it has not.
2. A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of sub-section (1) (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such actions as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.”


Office of Fair Trading Code of Guidance

Many activities could count as harassment. It is important to note that “anything done by a person which is reasonable” when trying to recover a debt, is not considered to be harassment. Both the Office of Fair Trading and Trade Associations (run by the credit industry) have produced guidance on what activities may be considered harassment and should therefore be avoided by creditors. The following list is taken from the new Debt Collection Guidance for holders of consumer credit licences.

Creditors are warned by the Office of Fair Trading under the Debt Collection Guidance that the following practices are "considered unfair":

“IT IS UNFAIR TO COMMUNICATE, IN WHATEVER FORM, WITH CONSUMERS IN AN UNCLEAR, INACCURATE OR MISLEADING MANNER.”

This includes:

* Letters that look like court claims
* Not making it clear who the company is or what their role is
* Unhelpful legal language
* Not giving balance statements about the debt when asked
* Contacting you at unreasonable times even when asked not to
* Asking you to contact them on premium rate phone numbers.

“ THOSE CONTACTING DEBTORS MUST NOT BE DECEITFUL BY MISREPRESENTING THEIR AUTHORITY AND/OR THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITION.”

This includes:

* Claiming to work for the court or be a bailiff
* Implying action can be taken that is not legally possible such as implying they could take your property
* Using a business name or logo that implies they are a government body
* Implying that court action has been taken against you when it hasn’t
* Implying not paying your debt is a criminal offence
* Threatening to take court action in England if you live in Scotland or the other way round.

“ PUTTING PRESSURE ON DEBTORS OR THIRD PARTIES IS CONSIDERED TO BE OPPRESSIVE.”

This includes:

* Contacting you too frequently
* Pressurising you to sell property or take out more debt
* Using more than one collection company at the same time or not telling you when your debt has been passed to another company
* Pressurising you to pay in full or in large instalments you cannot afford
* Making threatening gestures or statements
* Ignoring disputes about whether you owe the money
* Trying to embarrass you in public or threatening to tell a third party about your debts such as a neighbour or your family.

“ DEALINGS WITH DEBTORS ARE NOT TO BE DECEITFUL AND/OR UNFAIR.”

Examples include:

* Sending letters addressed to “the occupier” or discussing the debt with someone without knowing if they are you
* Refusing to deal with an adviser acting on your behalf
* Not accepting reasonable offers or passing on payments you make
* Refusing to freeze action if you dispute the debt.

“ CHARGES SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED UNFAIRLY”.

Examples include:

* Claiming collection costs when the original credit agreement didn’t allow this to happen and making you think you are legally liable for the costs
* Not putting the specific amounts that can be added for collection costs in the original credit agreement
* Adding unreasonable charges.

“ THOSE VISITING DEBTORS MUST NOT ACT IN AN UNCLEAR OR THREATENING MANNER.”

* Collectors should explain the reason for any visit and give you notice of the time and date they will call
* They shouldn’t visit if they know you are ill or vulnerable and if they find you are unwell or distressed they should leave
* They should not come in if you do not want them to and should leave when you ask them to
* They shouldn’t visit you at work or somewhere like a hospital.

Complaints against DCA's can be issued through the Office of Fair Trading

http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/cca/debt-collection

you can find the Code of Guidance notes and the on-line complaints form on their website above
The Office Of Fair Trading has no authority to become involved in disputes between consumers and traders, but what they do is look at complaints made against a company before issuing it with a consumer credit licence (it needs this to operate)
you might think to yourself, one complaint won't make any difference but if there are 10-20 complaints against the same company they may loose their licence so make that complaint today!!!

di3004

beamerguy wrote: »

"Also, what happends if collection agencies have no luck, does it go back to the original lender?"

Collection agencies pass it around each other and then do pass it back. The lender then goes to a more aggressive collector and so the magic circle continues.

INTERESTING READING ABOUT: Be fully aware of your rights

Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act

“S40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

1. 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 a contract he-
* harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency, or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
* falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
* falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or
* utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character, or purporting to have some official character which he know it has not.
2. A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of sub-section (1) (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such actions as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.”


Office of Fair Trading Code of Guidance

Many activities could count as harassment. It is important to note that “anything done by a person which is reasonable” when trying to recover a debt, is not considered to be harassment. Both the Office of Fair Trading and Trade Associations (run by the credit industry) have produced guidance on what activities may be considered harassment and should therefore be avoided by creditors. The following list is taken from the new Debt Collection Guidance for holders of consumer credit licences.

Creditors are warned by the Office of Fair Trading under the Debt Collection Guidance that the following practices are "considered unfair":

“IT IS UNFAIR TO COMMUNICATE, IN WHATEVER FORM, WITH CONSUMERS IN AN UNCLEAR, INACCURATE OR MISLEADING MANNER.”

This includes:

* Letters that look like court claims
* Not making it clear who the company is or what their role is
* Unhelpful legal language
* Not giving balance statements about the debt when asked
* Contacting you at unreasonable times even when asked not to
* Asking you to contact them on premium rate phone numbers.

“ THOSE CONTACTING DEBTORS MUST NOT BE DECEITFUL BY MISREPRESENTING THEIR AUTHORITY AND/OR THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITION.”

This includes:

* Claiming to work for the court or be a bailiff
* Implying action can be taken that is not legally possible such as implying they could take your property
* Using a business name or logo that implies they are a government body
* Implying that court action has been taken against you when it hasn’t
* Implying not paying your debt is a criminal offence
* Threatening to take court action in England if you live in Scotland or the other way round.

“ PUTTING PRESSURE ON DEBTORS OR THIRD PARTIES IS CONSIDERED TO BE OPPRESSIVE.”

This includes:

* Contacting you too frequently
* Pressurising you to sell property or take out more debt
* Using more than one collection company at the same time or not telling you when your debt has been passed to another company
* Pressurising you to pay in full or in large instalments you cannot afford
* Making threatening gestures or statements
* Ignoring disputes about whether you owe the money
* Trying to embarrass you in public or threatening to tell a third party about your debts such as a neighbour or your family.

“ DEALINGS WITH DEBTORS ARE NOT TO BE DECEITFUL AND/OR UNFAIR.”

Examples include:

* Sending letters addressed to “the occupier” or discussing the debt with someone without knowing if they are you
* Refusing to deal with an adviser acting on your behalf
* Not accepting reasonable offers or passing on payments you make
* Refusing to freeze action if you dispute the debt.

“ CHARGES SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED UNFAIRLY”.

Examples include:

* Claiming collection costs when the original credit agreement didn’t allow this to happen and making you think you are legally liable for the costs
* Not putting the specific amounts that can be added for collection costs in the original credit agreement
* Adding unreasonable charges.

“ THOSE VISITING DEBTORS MUST NOT ACT IN AN UNCLEAR OR THREATENING MANNER.”

* Collectors should explain the reason for any visit and give you notice of the time and date they will call
* They shouldn’t visit if they know you are ill or vulnerable and if they find you are unwell or distressed they should leave
* They should not come in if you do not want them to and should leave when you ask them to
* They shouldn’t visit you at work or somewhere like a hospital.

Complaints against DCA's can be issued through the Office of Fair Trading

http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/cca/debt-collection

you can find the Code of Guidance notes and the on-line complaints form on their website above
The Office Of Fair Trading has no authority to become involved in disputes between consumers and traders, but what they do is look at complaints made against a company before issuing it with a consumer credit licence (it needs this to operate)
you might think to yourself, one complaint won't make any difference but if there are 10-20 complaints against the same company they may loose their licence so make that complaint today!!!

Very interesting Beamerguy.:T

You certainly are up on these things.

I have a complex case going on with the FOS right now and its been going on for a few years, only recently to be told they are unable to resolve it at the adjudicating stage, where now I am moving it on for a review with the ombudsman, another 3 years on top now i expect, but take a look at my thread if you want to.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3305046

beamerguy

AGGRESSIVE DEBT COLLECTORS

NUMBER: 01563546300 Mackenzie Hall in Killmarnock

NUMBER: 01412283045 Allied International

Both are ignorant and very agressive, make threats etc etc

Easy enough to get rid of them by saying

BE WARNED:
This amount is in full dispute and as such you are now in breach of the Law. The Administration of Justices Act 1970. Ignoring this is a criminal offence.
If I hear from you again, I will issue my complaint to the FSA and OFT

As I said earlier, Debt collectors now find themselves in a bad situation and no debt collector wants to lose their licence.