Do Original Creditors actively condone the tactics of Debt Collection Agencies?

rog2

Most of us watched the Channel 4 Dispatches 'exposee' of the underhand, often illegal, tactics that are employed by one particularily obnoxious 'Debt Collection Agency' - MARLIN.

For anyone who did not watch it, it can be seen on the following link:

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

My question is not concerned with how Channel 4 'covered' the subject - I agree that there were, obviously, factual discrepancies, and a 'dramatisation' of certain practices - but, all in all, and considering that the programme lasted for less than one hour, I think they did a fairly good job of giving the general public a 'snapshot' of how low the 'industry' will sink in order to satisfy their greed.

Whilst 'MARLIN' were singled out, and yes their total disregard of the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines merits their exposure, we all know that their 'practices' are not unique to MARLIN, but are widespread throughout the Debt Collection 'fraternity'.

So widespread, in fact, that I, for one, find it difficult to believe that any original creditor who passes, or sells, a debt to a Debt Collection Agency can be unaware that he is actually passing that 'debt' to what is, in effect 'organised thuggery' and, by doing so, is condoning the very behaviour that we witnessed, from MARLIN, and its inevitable effect on the 'alleged debtor'.

The OFT are, I fully appreciate, making a visible effort to 'police and enforce' the Guidelines to which Debt Collection Agencies should adhere, but the comments of one ex-debt collector in that "THE OFT have 'shown their teeth', but haven't actually 'bitten', seem to sum it up for me: Debt Collection Agencies pay nothing more than lip service to the OFT guidelines - they are adept at finding ways to work in contravention of these guidelines, whilst, admittedly quite cleverly, making it look as though they are, in fact, working within them.

As the effects of 'Pre Credit Crunch Consumer Spending' are coming home to roost, more and more companies are passing 'debts', often without the full history, and seldom with consideration to the circumstances of the debtor, to 'Debt Collection' as a first rather than last resort.

Is it, therefore, time not only to call for stricter enforcement of the Debt Collection Industry, but to regulate the conditions whereby any debt can, actually, be passed from the Original Creditor to an 'independent' Debt Collector?

fermi

The original creditors are well aware of what happens in the collection industry.

They even employ the same tactics themselves. Just think about the foul tactics use by some of the "in house" collectors like Mercers or Metropolitan for HSBC.

Plus the same firms pretending to be firms of solicitors such as Blair Oliver and Scott, Sechari, Clark & Mitchell and others........

It is all a way of trying to keep their own name out of the mud while still collecting what they can.

In some ways I can't blame them. The authorities let them get away with the abuses.

Fair enough. Pay what you genuinely owe and are legally liable for when you can, but the underhand tactics and bullying go too far.

rog2

fermi wrote: »

They even employ the same tactics themselves. Just think about the foul tactics use by some of the "in house" collectors like Mercers or Metropolitan for HSBC.

Plus the same firms pretending to be firms of solicitors such as Blair Oliver and Scott, Sechari, Clark & Mitchell and others........

I agree, fermi, yet even 'this' is in contravention of the OFT guidelines in that debtors are being misled as to whom they are dealing with', and should not be tolerated.

AGB863

fermi wrote: »

Plus the same firms pretending to be firms of solicitors such as Blair Oliver and Scott, Sechari, Clark & Mitchell and others........


In

Ferni just to let you know- recent letters that i am now dealing with for clients now show them as being "debt collectors" and so does their website.

fermi

AGB863 wrote: »

Ferni just to let you know- recent letters that i am now dealing with for clients now show them as being "debt collectors" and so does their website.

They are still wholly owned by Bank of Scotland Group, and only collect on their behalf, so any claims to be unconnected are spurious.

I know for a fact that staff claim on the phone that they are not related, which is an outright lie.

Nargleblast

Do you think original creditors really give a toss what happens once they have offloaded a debt onto another company? No way. One thing did surprise me about the Dispatches programme though - I knew that debts were sold on for a fraction of their value, but I did not realise how low the figures were. When I heard the figures "6p in the pound" and "maybe 16p - 17p in the pound for more recent debts" I thought " the greedy ~*!@***!!!'s. " This means that if you owe say £1000, and the debt is sold on for 16p in the pound, then the company purchasing it pays only £160 for it but still comes after you for the full £1000!!! This explains some of the heavy handed tactics then!

AGB863

fermi wrote: »

They are still wholly owned by Bank of Scotland Group, and only collect on their behalf, so any claims to be unconnected are spurious.

I know for a fact that staff claim on the phone that they are not related, which is an outright lie.

I have always though that it is funny that initials for Blair Oliver & Scott are the same as Bank of Scotland!

They are connected the same way that BLS collections and MHA collectionsare part of Lloyds TSB and Triton are part of Natwest

rog2

Nargleblast wrote: »

Do you think original creditors really give a toss what happens once they have offloaded a debt onto another company? No way.

That, NB, is precisely my point - the OC should not be allowed to offload a debt in the knowledge, even hope, that the 'debtor' is going to go through hell at the hands of the 'dca'.

The 'sale' of debts, especially those which are legally unenforceable, has always been one of my pet hates. These 'Companies' make millions by actively, and often illegally, pursuing the 'debtor' for the full amount. Safe in the knowledge that the vast majority of 'debtors' will be unaware of the rights that they have, in Law, these vultures are making the type of 'profit' that legitimate companies can not even dream about. It is doubly worse when that 'profit' creates, or is created from, the misfortune of others.

That is why I believe that 'debts' which are 'unenforceable through the courts', either by virtue of the fact that they are 'Statute Barred' or are the subject of non compliant, or non existent, consumer credit agreements, should not be allowed, legally, to fall into the hands of these greed driven sadists in the first place.

fermi

AGB863 wrote: »

I have always though that it is funny that initials for Blair Oliver & Scott are the same as Bank of Scotland!

Probably not a coincidence.:rolleyes:

Like Smith, Lawson & Co, for the Student Loans Company.

SLC

Same people trying to con you into believing they are somewhere else.

I even had a letter of apology from SLC for trying that with me. Shame I didn't keep it.

rog2

fermi wrote: »

or Metropolitan for HSBC.

Our local (and my ex) branch of HSBC has just had new 'signage' - they have removed the signs that ran along the top of the windows and replaced them with a much smaller 'logo' sign.
It is a very old stone building and the 'removal' of the signs has revealed the original outline of 'London Metropolitan' Bank. :rotfl:

Nargleblast

rog2 wrote: »

Our local (and my ex) branch of HSBC has just had new 'signage' - they have removed the signs that ran along the top of the windows and replaced them with a much smaller 'logo' sign.
It is a very old stone building and the 'removal' of the signs has revealed the original outline of 'London Metropolitan' Bank. :rotfl:

Ooooh the plot thickens!!! Amazing the number of crawling things that appear when you turn over a stone.....