O2 + Debt Agency - Advice Please

cdon

powerful_Rogue wrote:

In February a bill was received from O2 stating that £47 was owed. Looked through the bill and this was for calls made in January.

Today my partner received a telephone call from the people that moved into her old house stating a man had come around asking about her and he had left a brown envelope. We picked it up and it turns out to be from a debt collection agency appointed by O2 to collect the £188!

My partner phoned O2 and said that she is willing to pay the £47 as this is what she owes, but will not be paying any of the other charges.

Why did you not pay the £47 that you owe for calls for 5 months since this could count against you. They could show that you did not make a clean break and clear your account straight away in February if as you say you did not agree to a contract extension.

stiffnuts69

Thenotsowyzewun wrote:

I've been reading this thread with interest, but really haven't had anything to add. That last post by Jonni2bad, excellent, much better than any of the "stop trying to wriggle out of it" nonsense from people who couldn't be bothered to read your whole post properly.
Keep us updated .

Actually I did read the whole post properly and the impression I get is that he is trying to wriggle out of paying for a contract that he got into. In fact its the op partner who is affected by this and I dont think we are seeing the whole story.

Feeling number 1 is that his partner is not telling the op the truth (I can see no reason why O2 would lie)

Feeling number 2 is that the partner entered into contract then had a change of mind and did nothing. Did not update O2 with new address sign of someone with nothing to hide) and thought they would get away with it and is now trying to wriggle out of paying the bill.

Me dont think were getting the whole story.

And if you think that Jonni2bad post was excellent it is littered with inaccuracies

1. If O2 believe differently, then it will take more than notes on a system showing the letter Y against a tick box.
The judge will decide the facts on the balance of probabilities a Y could indicate that the person entered into a verbal contract for another 12 months.

2.If they are unable to provide you with a copy of the telephone call recording and they have no written authorisation from you, then you now have 2 options.

They will not have a recorded telephone conversation because they are not allowed to keep these details for too long. Whats written authorisation got to do with it. A verbal contract is as good as any. Again it will be for the judge to decide the facts

3.You can take legal action against them, small claims court, to recover monies that they are claiming from you, and I would also add an element of distress into the deal too. You have been contacted by debt collectors on their behalf chasing a non-existent debt. This is harassment and can be added to the claim for the judge's discretion.
How can you take legal action against them to recover monies that they are claiming from the op. It would be the collection agency/O2 to bring the matter to county court at which point the op could argue that no contract existed or make a counterclaim for any money they believe they are owed.
Harrassment what harrassment the company are pursuing a lawful debt. Unless it contravenes the administration of justice act then they can pursue the debt

4.Alternatively, have no further correspondence with them in the hope you can provoke them to take legal action against you. This puts more onus on O2 to provide a balance of probabilities and I would suggest your evidence that a new contract was taken with an alternative airtime supplier would indicate you had no further need of O2. It would also save you from paying court costs up front.
Probably the most sensibile think thats been said yet I dont see what going with another airtime provider has to do with it.

powerful_Rogue

stiffnuts69 wrote:

Actually I did read the whole post properly and the impression I get is that he is trying to wriggle out of paying for a contract that he got into. In fact its the op partner who is affected by this and I dont think we are seeing the whole story.

Feeling number 1 is that his partner is not telling the op the truth (I can see no reason why O2 would lie)

Feeling number 2 is that the partner entered into contract then had a change of mind and did nothing. Did not update O2 with new address sign of someone with nothing to hide) and thought they would get away with it and is now trying to wriggle out of paying the bill.

Me dont think were getting the whole story.

And if you think that Jonni2bad post was excellent it is littered with inaccuracies

1. If O2 believe differently, then it will take more than notes on a system showing the letter Y against a tick box.
The judge will decide the facts on the balance of probabilities a Y could indicate that the person entered into a verbal contract for another 12 months.

2.If they are unable to provide you with a copy of the telephone call recording and they have no written authorisation from you, then you now have 2 options.

They will not have a recorded telephone conversation because they are not allowed to keep these details for too long. Whats written authorisation got to do with it. A verbal contract is as good as any. Again it will be for the judge to decide the facts

3.You can take legal action against them, small claims court, to recover monies that they are claiming from you, and I would also add an element of distress into the deal too. You have been contacted by debt collectors on their behalf chasing a non-existent debt. This is harassment and can be added to the claim for the judge's discretion.
How can you take legal action against them to recover monies that they are claiming from the op. It would be the collection agency/O2 to bring the matter to county court at which point the op could argue that no contract existed or make a counterclaim for any money they believe they are owed.
Harrassment what harrassment the company are pursuing a lawful debt. Unless it contravenes the administration of justice act then they can pursue the debt

4.Alternatively, have no further correspondence with them in the hope you can provoke them to take legal action against you. This puts more onus on O2 to provide a balance of probabilities and I would suggest your evidence that a new contract was taken with an alternative airtime supplier would indicate you had no further need of O2. It would also save you from paying court costs up front.
Probably the most sensibile think thats been said yet I dont see what going with another airtime provider has to do with it.

Just to clear up a few points.

1) I live with my partner and have done since September.

2)My partner contacted O2 in september when we moved and changed the address over. This was because she was still in contract until January. All bills from O2 had been sent to the new address, but they instructed the debt collection agency to attend the old address.

3)Everything that has been stated is the truth - I would not come on here to gain help and lie about any of the facts.

4) I was with my partner when she contacted O2 to cancel the contract. The phone was on speakerphone at the time. After O2 was cancelled she phoned up three and took a contract out with them.

5)Since the O2 contract was cancelled, no texts or telephone calls have been made. Also no telephone calls, texts have been received because the sim card was cut up and thrown in the bin.

6) Had my partner wished to have stayed on O2, then she would have done what she did last year and gone into an O2 store and got an upgraded handset and a good deal on the tariff.

I find it quite offensive that you imply she got into a contract that she is trying to "wriggle" out off. This is not the case. In your eyes it appears O2 can do no wrong, so I will thank you for your help and leave it here.

Many thanks for everyone elses help, espically Jonni2bad. We did get a copy of her credit report last week and it shows late payments since Feb from O2.

stiffnuts69

ok you seem quite sincere. I am going to apologise to you. If you are been truthful you have nothing to worry about it will be eventually dropped. Believe me I know the stunts that companies like O2 can pull but am surprised that they would go to those lengths.

If you want help go to your local trading standards and make a complaint that you are been harrassed for debt. I personally would say it wasnt harrassment but trading standards my intervene and get the company to drop it.

Dont be dissapointed if they cant help though but honestly give them a try

Jonni2bad

stiffnuts69 wrote:

..In fact its the op partner who is affected by this and I dont think we are seeing the whole story....

We won't know, and in the absence of our own knowledge, we are being asked to believe what the OP has stated.

I'm not quite sure why you are unable to do this, but if you step back for just one moment and review the post as if it is true, then perhaps you could offer helpful arguments as to where the OP might go next.

If you base all your statements on him lying, then clearly you are not offering help.

stiffnuts69 wrote:

...(I can see no reason why O2 would lie)...

I suspect an error, more than an outright lie. Anyone can make an error.

Approximately 9 months ago, I had a new contract mobile phone stolen in transit. The account was cancelled, both with the phone provider and with the Airtime provider. Several months later I was still being billed, despite promises that everything was 'in-hand'. It took court action against Three to resolve the matter. Never assume that they get everything right.

stiffnuts69 wrote:

And if you think that Jonni2bad post was excellent it is littered with inaccuracies

The judge will decide the facts on the balance of probabilities a Y could indicate that the person entered into a verbal contract for another 12 months....

The judge could indeed do that, but I suspect that when they are shown the OP entered into another contract, it would at least show a balance of probability that the OP has severed his ties with O2 and moved on.

stiffnuts69 wrote:

They will not have a recorded telephone conversation because they are not allowed to keep these details for too long. Whats written authorisation got to do with it. A verbal contract is as good as any. Again it will be for the judge to decide the facts...

That's a new one on me - under what legislation are they required to erase telephone transcripts after a short period of time? Can you point to the specifics?
Written authorisation was mentioned as one of 2 items that could prove the case immediately.

Again, you mention a judge would decide, although he would not base it on facts alone, it is the balance of probability. Once more, without any other form of evidence, there is a conflict between what 2 parties say, and one (the OP) can show that very soon after canceling the contract with O2, he set up a new one with A.N.Other

The balance, in my opinion of course, is weighted towards the OP.

stiffnuts69 wrote:

How can you take legal action against them to recover monies that they are claiming from the op. It would be the collection agency/O2 to bring the matter to county court at which point the op could argue that no contract existed or make a counterclaim for any money they believe they are owed....

Since you ask, you do not need to have actually paid monies in order to reclaim them through court. Whilst this scenario might seem a little odd, you are in the position of having money demanded from you, and so you seek judgment that the money claim be cancelled or refunded to the account in question, bringing its balance to zero.

This is happening across the country, at this very moment, with bank charges. In that scenario, you claim for monies requested by the bank that is actually an overdraft, so you have not actually paid it, but it has created a debt with the bank. When they pay up, the money settles the overdraft before anything is paid directly to the claimant.

This case, although clearly not a banking issue, has resulted in a negative balance on the airtime contract. Monies recovered would settle the negative balance first. Do you understand the legal point of view?

stiffnuts69 wrote:

Harrassment what harrassment the company are pursuing a lawful debt. Unless it contravenes the administration of justice act then they can pursue the debt...

It does not need to contravene only that act. Harassment can be many things to many people.

Under the "Protection from Harassment Act 1997" Section 7 (2) references to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress. Being chased by debt collectors for a disputed debt is one and the same.

I think you have made it clear that you do not believe the amount is disputed, since the OP or his partner are lying, and the debt is therefore valid. It seems we will have to disagree on that.

To quote the OP from his very first post

So we called the male and stated that the £188 was in dispute at present

That is all that would be required to stop the debt collector, anything after this constitutes harassment since they were fully aware.

stiffnuts69 wrote:

....yet I dont see what going with another airtime provider has to do with it....

Again this is to show that, on the balance of probability, the OP believed the contract with O2 was cancelled. If there were no further contracts entered into at that stage, it might be seen as likely (but still not fact) that the OP believed they were still under contract.

As an addition, I now see you have replied (I was writing this bit by bit when I found time, so I missed you initial response above).

matrix999

If its any help i dealt with James Masters at Peter Erskines office. You could maybe ask for him if you decide to call O2 back for one last try before heading to Trading Standards etc..

After reading the new entries on the thread i think this has been a simple mistake on O2's part.

I would certainly want Peter Erskines office to contact the advisor who took your disconnection request and get the advisor to re read there notes. If they've made a mistake then so be it, we're all human and mistakes happen.

Keep the thread up to date with how things are going.

Jonni2bad

P-W, since they have entered date on your partner's credit files, we also need to get that addressed. Clearly, not as bad as a default or CCJ etc, but incorrect data should be cleared.

I am presuming again that you are one and the same as the username on CAG - if so, contact me through there. I will get you a letter prepared for this.

stiffnuts69

Jonni2bad

This could go on forever.

I am in the position to not only enforce the law but also have a legal qualification so im not going to go through a long post again however I can tell you fom personal experience of prosecuting people that it would not be considered as harrassment either under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or the administration of justice act 1971 (going on what the original op has said). You have totally ignored the contents of section 1 of Protection from Harassment Act 1997 especially subsection 3. It sounds to me that you may know the law but you have not practical experience of enforcing it or its application.

Data must not be kept longer than neccessary hence the telephone conversation. You seem to know about the data protection act and the information commissioner so I would have thought that you would know this.

The rest of what you say is subjective (I admit I have been subjective).

You say "That is all that would be required to stop the debt collector, anything after this constitutes harassment since they were fully aware".

I dont necessarily agree with that however the amount is now not in dispute so that negates that argument

You say "Since you ask, you do not need to have actually paid monies in order to reclaim them through court. Whilst this scenario might seem a little odd, you are in the position of having money demanded from you, and so you seek judgment that the money claim be cancelled or refunded to the account in question, bringing its balance to zero.

This is happening across the country, at this very moment, with bank charges. In that scenario, you claim for monies requested by the bank that is actually an overdraft, so you have not actually paid it, but it has created a debt with the bank. When they pay up, the money settles the overdraft before anything is paid directly to the claimant.

This case, although clearly not a banking issue, has resulted in a negative balance on the airtime contract. Monies recovered would settle the negative balance first. Do you understand the legal point of view?"

ehh no I dont

Absolutley 2 different things and IMO, in the op circumstances you are wrong.

I think the county court district judge would have a good laugh.

Please dont compare the bank charges thing you just cant do that. I would bet that for the bank charges issue less then 1% of banks would try and contest it in the county court because they havent got a leg to stand on.

I have told you what I do and what I base my opnions on please let me know what you do and what you base your opinions on maybe we are both missing something

powerful_Rogue

Many thanks for everyones help.

We will be contacting consumer direct tomorrow morning and asking for their advice on the situation. I will also ask about the markers shown on the credit report and how they should be tackled.

Once again, thanks for everyones help and I will keep you all updated.

Jonni2bad

stiffnuts

I am sincerely glad that you appear to have softened, at least, your approach to this situation. I'm sure that you really could have been of much greater assistance than you were initially.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 1 (3) subsection 1 states;
.....does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows-
(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

(a) does not apply
(b) does not apply
(c) is the only part that could normally apply here, but....

Whilst I certainly agree that these can be subjective arguments, I believe I am correct in stating that whenever a debt collector is explicitly told that a debt is in dispute, (he) should refer the case back to the original pursuer of the debt (his client).

Moorcroft, according to the posts above at least, have now continued their actions to recover funds, despite this. Thus, their actions are not reasonable - in my opinion, again.

You have stated that information should not be held longer than necessary, but this does not imply that information must be destroyed after any given period and the recording of telephone calls, held as data, has often been supplied as part of a DPA SAR request going back several years.

Again, if you have information that states a time period after which this data must be destroyed, I sincerely would like to know of it (there is a danger of this statement appearing condescending, but I assure you it is a genuine request).

Where you state that a county court judge would have a laugh, clearly you are being flippant, but after previous exchanges this is perhaps warranted.
However, I believe you are very wrong in that assumption.

I feel happy to align this case with that of bank charges, not because of the way they were instigated (which is clearly a mile apart), but because the nett affect is to have created a negative outstanding balance that the other party insists is paid. If the OP were to instigate action, rather then the other way around, then claiming back this 'debt' would have the very same effect, namely to bring the balance to zero. Once again, I assure you that this is happening across the country and has never been challenged.

Not one single bank, never mind 1%, has contested it. Surely you do not believe that if it were wrong, they would all let it pass them by? They could, quite easily, contest the sum.
I beg to differ that the issues cannot be compared. Contested debt, creating a negative balance - they are not very far apart at all.

Finally, you ask what I do and how I base my opinions. I'm not sure that it really makes much difference if I tell you that I am either directly involved with law, or not. For all it matters, I could be a toilet cleaner (no offence intended to any toilet cleaners). I can certainly confirm I have no legal qualifications, and for the most part I am relieved that I don't.

If having one delivers quotes like "Just pay the bloody money you owe and stop trying to wriggle out of it" - even having read the original 13 posts, then I've probably done the right thing.