Debt collectors chasing money I don't owe - Help!

DarkConvict

@Bigdavieboy

The poster has never been a AOL customer, as such he does not owe this money.

From the OFT - http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

False representation of authority and/or legal position
2.3 Those contacting debtors must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their authority
and/or the correct legal position.
2.4 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:
f. pursuing third parties for payment when they are not liable

When a DCA breaches anything in this document, people should complain to the OFT. OFT has had to run many investigations into the bad practices of DCAs, but it requires them to know what DCAs are doing, the only way is to lodge complaints. Criminal laws of obtaining money by deception (fraud) could be brought in if SRL knew they had no proof or that he did not owe this money.

I hope that clears thing up for you. Posts only get deleted if you breach forum rules such as flaming/trolling etc.

Bigdavieboy

Thank you for replying,

As far as I am aware, the way that AOL, verify identity of customers is by, the use of a debit or credit card (In the name of the account holder). Now Obviously you are acting upon to info that has been provided to you.

Now the poster mentioned that was chased by a previous recovery agent, which would suggest that the address has not been traced (very few agents implement tracing, merely write to the address that has been provided). Now AOL are an internet based company, so little or no correspondence would have been done in writing, but via their (poor) online communication/billing system. Is there anyone else in the houshold that may have signed up for the service, or maybe you used a free trial that was never cancelled? If you havent moved address within the last five or six years, then somebody has started an aol account in your name and provided your address details?

Now dark convict, I think what you are saying is a bit silly, now I know the poster has said that he/she has never been a customer, but do you think that the agent has just made up their details (explained was "persued" by a previous agent, so clearly aol does have the posters details, and therefore an account WAS started) If the poster is sure hasnt used service, then the reporting to police, id theft procedure is quite clear. In an honest oppinion, do you think that is a valid complaint? Do you honestly think that regulators, associations will think that is a valid complaint? When you said they had no proof? AOL accounts are a CONTRACTUAL agreement, when an account is started you agree to the contract terms or the account isnt started. Not to mention sending a "prove it" letter, is more than likeley to get the "account" sent back to aol, who are clearly just going to forward it onto another agent, which means slinky jo, will have to go through it again, (reports of AOL forwarding to over six agents and still going) Clearly they have the account number, so why doesnt the poster just ask AOL, when the account was started, and what is the charge for? You are probably going to say he or she doesnt have to do that, but if they are willing to complain about something, spend the time sending "prove it" letters and what not, would it not be an idea to actually know what they are complaining about?

Just an objective point of view, dont want to start any mass conversation, just think an easy solution could be found.

fatbelly

Bigdavieboy wrote: »

Is this productive advise?

Yes

Bigdavieboy wrote: »

Slinky-jo contact aol quote the account number on the letter, ask them what the charge is for, dispute it to them and take it from there, get the situation dealt with at the source and get on with your life. .

op has already sent a prove-it letter, sounds like twice. How many times should he/she do the same thing?

Bigdavieboy wrote: »

Why keep telling people to complain about everything? .

Because it is the only way that ultimately they can be dissuaded from this sort of behaviour.

Bigdavieboy wrote: »

Not only is a complaint in this instance not valid, but also a waste of time...clearly the recovery agent has done nothing wrong.

They have ignored two requests to prove the debt? It is valid and it is not a waste of time. I refer you to the OFT's dealings with Mackenzie Hall and 1st Credit.

Bigdavieboy wrote: »

Will be surprised if this post isn't deleted like my previous ones.

I see no reason why it should be deleted

DVardysShadow

Bigdavieboy wrote: »

Will be surprised if this post isn't deleted like my previous ones.

To tell the truth, I am disappointed that you were deleted. I disagree with your thrust on most of what I have seen, but I think that the rebuttals are useful.

LilacPixie

BDB - sorry but your post is a basically wrong. DCA's have a responsibility to prove the debt they are demanding be paid is actually due by the person they are attempting to contact. This DCA has failed to do this despite being asked to twice.

DCA's appear to use the unsavory practices of 'mail dropping' everyone in the local area with demands or if the name usual they seem to spread their net wider. I am actually being *chased* for a debt alledgedly owed to capital on in my some what rare and unusual maiden name. That DCA has ignored the prove it letters too. I actually contacted capital one with the account number and surprise surprise they cannot discuss the account with me as I cannot pass security due to fails on DOB and address (confused smiley).

If the OP has never had an account with AOL surely AOL will be unable to discuss any aspect of the account with them as they are not the account holder.

Police will consider this to be a civil matter as at the moment the DCA has not provided proof that someone has used the OP's details therefore not identity theft and even if someone has used the OP's details fraudulently then the crime has actually been commited against the company who has provided a service and not been paid so the DCA would be duty bound to return the account to their client stating an allegation of criminal activity and AOL would then have to investigate and report that to the authoroties if they then wished to.

Not sure when AOL changed their system but we used to be with them, account in my name but it was OH's card used for sign up and that was never queried.


OP the DCA concerened is breaking debt collection guidelines. Complain complain complain. I would also write to SRJ again and tell them they are breaking these guidelines and as a result you have made an official complaint.

DVardysShadow

Bigdavieboy wrote: »

Now dark convict, I think what you are saying is a bit silly, now I know the poster has said that he/she has never been a customer, but do you think that the agent has just made up their details (explained was "persued" by a previous agent, so clearly aol does have the posters details, and therefore an account WAS started)

Your logic is flawed. AOL having the poster's details does not mean that an account was started. It does not even necessarily mean that the poster ever contacted them

Bigdavieboy wrote: »

If the poster is sure hasnt used service, then the reporting to police, id theft procedure is quite clear.

Why is the onus on the poster? If it is fraud, the contact is all between the fraudster and AOL. If it is viewed as ID theft, will AOL cooperate with an ID theft invetigation. I doubt it, because they have a name they are intent on pursuing. They will prefer to chase an innocent person whose detals they have hold of than let that go and go after the person who committed the fraud - who will probably be 20 times harder to trace.

But face it, the rquantifiable loss is with AOL, they should deal with the fraud against themselves rather than harass someone who has had their ID stolen

Bigdavieboy wrote: »

In an honest oppinion, do you think that is a valid complaint? Do you honestly think that regulators, associations will think that is a valid complaint? When you said they had no proof? AOL accounts are a CONTRACTUAL agreement, when an account is started you agree to the contract terms or the account isnt started.

But if the poster has no knowledge and didn't sign up, then there is NO CONTRACT, only some data on AOL's system which looks as though it might be a contract.

Bigdavieboy wrote: »

Not to mention sending a "prove it" letter, is more than likeley to get the "account" sent back to aol, who are clearly just going to forward it onto another agent, which means slinky jo, will have to go through it again, (reports of AOL forwarding to over six agents and still going) Clearly they have the account number, so why doesnt the poster just ask AOL, when the account was started, and what is the charge for?

That is essentially what the prove it letter is about. It gives AOL the opportunity to provide the provenance of the contract.

Bigdavieboy wrote: »

You are probably going to say he or she doesnt have to do that, but if they are willing to complain about something, spend the time sending "prove it" letters and what not, would it not be an idea to actually know what they are complaining about?

Just an objective point of view, dont want to start any mass conversation, just think an easy solution could be found.

Objective it may be, but others are objective too, and disagree with you.

Bigdavieboy

The original poster asked how to stop this!

He or she did not ask how, to stop it for a couple of months or so until it is passed on the another recovery agent.

Anyway I do apologise, my views are based on lookin at the wider picture and not just info in here, as I used to work in debt collection years ago.

I ironically only looked at this site, after receiving a "Trace confirmation" letter from this company, and I was bemused as to what it could be, so thought I would do a little bit of research. Curiosity got the better of me, and I called. (interesting) Was AOL £38.38, hardly worth bothering when you think about it.

Obviously my views, are based on prior experiences

clarkk10

ADYHOWES - thank you for posting your experience. I have just had a huge weight lifted reading it. My husband received a trace confirmation from SRJ a couple of weeks ago. When we telephoned the company, all they could tell us was that it was for 317pound debt and related to the company Tiscali. We had been a customer over 3 years ago and at a different address but when we moved had cancelled the service over the telephone. I have not kept anything relating to this though?!? We have since received a more ominous letter detailing what SRJ can do if they win court proceedings against us - which of course really scared me. Part of me thought about paying up and then thankfully I saw your post. I have just replied asking the company for a detailed letter explaning what the debt refers to. I hope this doesn't drag on....

BringtheStoneshome

If you don't owe the money then don't pay them.

If ever I receive such nonsense they get one phonecall to explain that I don't owe them anything and one written confirmation of that along with a reminder that if they continue to harrass me I will take further legal action against them. After that it is their choice. I would report them to the police for harrassment. As for their threat of legal action just tell them that you will welcome it and they will be counter sued for anything that results from it.

Bottom line is...if you didn't consume said goods or services then you certianly don't have to pay for it.