Aggressive Debt-Chasing – npower

Cardew

I think you will find 'she' is a 'he'!

Whilst he is is(deliberately?) provocative, the thrust of his posts usually makes sense.

As Mynewt states above, these letters, to which the OP objects, are compuer generated.

The days are gone when any gas/electricity/water/telephone/bank/credit card/insurance company has huge numbers of accounts staff dealing with every account on a bespoke basis. So of course mistakes are made - as appears to be the case with the OP.

These companies operate in a culture where any attempt by a customer to avoid payment of valid bills is applauded on various forums - including MSE- for which eventually the rest of us customers end up in footing the bill ; so it is perhaps understandable that they take a hard line and ruffled feathers of the innocent is the result.

DVardysShadow

Cardew wrote: »

I think you will find 'she' is a 'he'!

Whilst he is is(deliberately?) provocative, the thrust of his posts usually makes sense.

As Mynewt states above, these letters, to which the OP objects, are compuer generated.

The days are gone when any gas/electricity/water/telephone/bank/credit card/insurance company has huge numbers of accounts staff dealing with every account on a bespoke basis. So of course mistakes are made - as appears to be the case with the OP.

These companies operate in a culture where any attempt by a customer to avoid payment of valid bills is applauded on various forums - including MSE- for which eventually the rest of us customers end up in footing the bill ; so it is perhaps understandable that they take a hard line and ruffled feathers of the innocent is the result.

Threatening confiscation of property is totally out of order.

kippen_noedel

Cardew wrote: »

I think you will find 'she' is a 'he'!

Whilst he is (deliberately?) provocative, the thrust of his posts usually makes sense.

Him/she who cares,

I do however object to the constant vitriol aimed at people who don't have the same opinions. KY knows full well why the OP was upset by the process employed by the company involved but still launched into their usual manner of posting.

For example I wouldn't object too strenuously to the death penalty for some extreme crimes however I wouldn't say at the same time. "It doesn't matter that some innocents get found guilty, enough of the guilty are being convicted" Yes, yes, I know that is an extreme example but it gets the point across.

It is unacceptable for collection companies to threaten confiscation when no court order has been granted. Collection companies have no such powers and it is against the terms of their operating licence to suggest that they do.

Cardew

kippen_noedel wrote: »

It is unacceptable for collection companies to threaten confiscation when no court order has been granted. Collection companies have no such powers and it is against the terms of their operating licence to suggest that they do.

That is not in dispute.

The OP's post had 2 complaints, the actions of npower and those of the DCA.

In my earlier post I dealt with how I saw npowers actions.

I loath the modus operandi of DCAs. However I suspect the OP's precis of the DCA letter is not accurate.

Whilst they undoubtedly will have given the impression that they have powers to enter property etc(that is their aim!), IMO the probability is that their wording is within the law.

Perhaps the OP can post the full wording of the DCA's letter.

DVardysShadow

Cardew wrote: »

... I loath the modus operandi of DCAs. However I suspect the OP's precis of the DCA letter is not accurate.

Whilst they undoubtedly will have given the impression that they have powers to enter property etc(that is their aim!), IMO the probability is that their wording is within the law.

Perhaps the OP can post the full wording of the DCA's letter.

I incline to think what you are saying here is fair. But I don't feel the need to ask the OP for the exact wording and I don't feel you have any need to ask for it either.

But ....

KimYeovil wrote: »

Nothing remotely aggressive or heavy-handed. If it works it works .... I really do not understand your complaint.

.... I really think KY needs to challenge the OP to produce the wording - or at least declare suspicions before launching into the above. As it stands, KY is endorsing confiscation of property by Utility companies.

Cardew

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I incline to think what you are saying here is fair. But I don't feel the need to ask the OP for the exact wording and I don't feel you have any need to ask for it either.

Frankly I am not concerned what you think or feel!

Those 2 sentences come close to being the most patronising in this section; and those to KY equally.

robredz

" I paid the bill that evening."

The OP had paid the bill, and npower let the dogs loose anyway. That seems to me to be the issue. It's possible due to delays the account had already been sent to or the debt sold a DCA for collection. One thing that needs clarification is WHO was paid, npower, or the DCA? as if npower were paid they may have neglected to call the dogs off by informing the DCA in a timely manner. What happened to the OP is a consideration when choosing a new supplier, so we should thank them for sharing their experience.

In answer to the comment at the end of the OP's post
"
Has anyone else experienced such heavy-handed treatment from one of the ‘big-six’ utilities?"

It happens all the time.

DVardysShadow

Cardew wrote: »

Frankly I am not concerned what you think or feel!

Those 2 sentences come close to being the most patronising in this section;

Sorry if I got you to get your panties wadded

and those to KY equally

No, I think it was a fair challenge to KY. nb Challenge. I'm calling on KY here.

KY accepted the OP's description of confiscation and went on to say it was OK. Saying "As it stands, KY is endorsing confiscation of property by Utility companies." is hardly patronising. Perhaps you have got the wrong word?

KimYeovil

<yawn> You're not still wittering on about this? How sad. I'd be quite happy if a debt company threatened to kneecap reticent payers.

DVardysShadow

KimYeovil wrote: »

<yawn> You're not still wittering on about this? How sad. I'd be quite happy if a debt company threatened to kneecap reticent payers.

Even more sad.