Dispatches tonight 8pm C4

lauralicious

Great programme, typical of any DCAs I've encountered, from debts that weren't even mine. They must all use the same bully boy tactics. And the OFT are useless, they publish the guidance but don't enforce it, it seems. :mad:

cyril82

as someone who has worked for one of these companies as a door step collector in the distant past i can tell you that there is little a debt purchaser can do to legally enforce any debt they purchase because of the lack of a signed agreement between the debtor and the dca, they rely on ignorance of consumers which is why programs like tonight’s dispatches will harm them considerably.

they purchase debt, if the debtor requests a cca they write it off against tax and move on to the next, unfortunately there is still enough consumers who are ignorant of their rights to make this a very profitable business.

So_Sad_Angel

fermi wrote: »

A creditor can legally sell ("assign") a debt and right to collect under Section 136 of The Law of Property Act 1925.

Regardless of small print.

....and where legally would a DCA stand if the debtor formally stated that they do not recognise that creditor as the official beneficiary of said debt.

That would imply that the original lender would have to produce an actual document to offiically link the debt to the new creditor.....and can such changes occur without express permission of the debtor? whether signed or not surely any `material change` will require a new agreement being drawn up whether enforced or not.

What I am trying to say...in laymans terms is....why is there not an amendment to T&C of an agreement when the loan is `sold on` . surely this is a right of information for the debtor to be advised.

Sorry....soapbox getting some action tonight!!

Edit sorry amended last line as put in `creditor` when it should have read `debtor to be advised`..

fermi

Now available to watch online if you missed it.

---

> http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#2929731

curlybabe_2

watching that last night Link are very naughty they refused for 18 months of me phoning them to take payment because they wanted it all paying at once. then they put us in touch with someone re a secured loan so we could pay them off. They only agreed to take installments off us once this company had told them we had no equity in our house. daft thing was we had been telling them that for 18 months

k2nga

I hope this program makes people realise these guys are bullies and only let them have what theyreally can afford to pay back at the time and not be bullied into paying more than they can really afford at the time but i fear that there practices work 9 times out of 10.

devon27_2

Watching that programme last night brought back memories of a few years ago when they DCA were chasing me and I feel a bit stupid that i fell for all the lines that they give down the phone. They prey on the young, misinformed and people who are at there wits end with worry in the hope that they will pay up. Something needs to be done about these DCA companies. Let me think who should be first in the q for having undercover operations on try Moorcroft,Blackhorse and Mackenzie hall to name but a few!.

fatou256

So_Sad_Angel wrote: »

....and where legally would a DCA stand if the debtor formally stated that they do not recognise that creditor as the official beneficiary of said debt.

That would imply that the original lender would have to produce an actual document to offiically link the debt to the new creditor.....and can such changes occur without express permission of the debtor? whether signed or not surely any `material change` will require a new agreement being drawn up whether enforced or not.

What I am trying to say...in laymans terms is....why is there not an amendment to T&C of an agreement when the loan is `sold on` . surely this is a right of information for the creditor to be advised.

Sorry....soapbox getting some action tonight!!

soen of w it where misleadung such as bremmer .... i wonder too if a creditor can change unilaterally the t&c's as we have seen by this programme some of the title of new creditor were misleading .

DON79

I have just managed to watch it whilst kids asleep!

It just makes me sick! especially Halifax hounding that poor man at the start to his death! I wish cases like that would be covered more in the media and news so that the bad publicity did some damage (payback for the customer who has suffered).

Halifax are just as bad as Marlin at pretending to be other collection agents, they operate as Blair, Oliver and Scott, Albion Collections etc etc, but it all comes under the big umbrella of HBOS and now Lloyds I guess and thus Marlin!

I do not think that there is enough publicity given to bad behaviour like this by debt collection agencies and sadly they prey on this and rely on people's ignorance.

The_Watchman_2

Just watching it now, The dispatches presenter states -If the debtor owns the property, and it sells, the DCA gets priority over the proceeds of equity in the property, not exactly accurate unless the debtor owns it outright, the creditor that gets firs priority is the mortgage lender, followed by any secured loans, then any partner with a beneficial intrest, then a DCA charging order.

Of course if there is a partner involved, they come after the mortgage lender, or maybe secured loans if they are jointly liable, but the DCA comes way down on the list in some situations, so that comment is at best misleading, at worst completely wrong


I wish they would be more accurate

Lets see if dispatches redeem themselves.