Is this harrassment??

never-in-doubt

Confused90 - you are not a debt collector at all! Need I remind you of this:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2289037

Also, you quote s.40 - this has been amended and there is no criminal offence element. Maybe you need to remember your previous posts before posting things.......

Hi, i'm a debt collector (i know, i know) but beleive it or not we are not all bad and manage to do our jobs effectively without breaking the law and regulations of the industry (i'm sensing you won't be convinced by that but hey:D)

in my view these guys would appear to be in breach of section 40 of the administration of justice act which states:

Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act



“S40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

1. A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract he-
   • harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency, or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

pay speacial attention to the red bits as they match your circumstances, it seems clear to me that the intention of TSB's collection agents is, by the frequency and manner of their calls, to subject you and/or your family to alarm and distress in order to coerce you into making payment.

This is naughty as a breach of section 40 of the administration of justice act is a criminal offence.

Send the letter asking for removal of your telephone number and include a warning about the frequency and manner of their calls being in contravention of section 40 of the A.J.A politely reminding them that any such breach would amount to a criminal offence.

that should shut em up, good luck.

never-in-doubt

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Confused90 - you are not a debt collector at all! Need I remind you of this:

Sorry, thought i'd also remind you of this as well - not the words of someone apparently in the 'business'.... however I can quite easily pit wits with you if we want to test your statement of being a DCA (dya reckon you'll know more lol)

confused90 wrote: »

thanks 10 past 6 i'm going to give that a go and i'll post back.....

one more point, and this is getting more to the crux of why i'm pursuing this, barclaycard defaulted me several months after failing to supply a true copy of my agreement and i thought that if they failed to supply a true copy of my original document then they could not default me as they entered into default of our agreement before they alledge that i entered into default.

they have defaulted me for refusing to make any further payments to the account after they failed to supply a copy my original agreement, i did this in the beleif that barclaycard could not default me if they are in default themselves first and in the beleif that i could not be defaulted for refusing to make further payments to a missold ppi policy which is what my balance is made up of, ppi charges plus default charges for not paying the misold ppi.

am i right on the above or did i make a !!!! up stopping payments?

confused90

Never in doubt you are one of the most helpful people i have encountered on mse and at the same time one of the most volatile and sometimes unnecessarily abrupt and agressive people i have met on here.

strike this up as number two time you have bitten my head off and number two time you were wrong.

in answer to your question no i do not need reminding of the thread in question or the other thread you assisted me on regarding the removal of a default.

the reason i posted the question in the thread you linked to is because barclaycards response went against my understanding of the rules surrounding cca requests under s78 of the consumer credit act and i wanted to be sure i wasn't missing something what with all the recent developments with the mcguffick case and what have you and i don't deal with cca requests as i'm filed based.

also i don't think it reflects on my experience and and knowlwedge of the debt collection industry that i don't know much about the removal of defaults as it is kinda the opposite of what the debt collection industry is about, surely that makes sense, right?

and with regards s40 of the administration of justice act, fair enough i didn't realise that it was no longer a criminal offence but it is still an offence and in any case as a criminal offence it was always a paltry one with only a tiny fine as a consequence of conviction so it's splitting hairs a little really, but op best scrub "crimnal" and just put offence.

never in doubt, i really am a debt collector, i have been for over a year i mean ask yourself this question, if i was going to lie about what i do for a living would i really choose debt collector as my "fantasy job" i mean come on, credit me with some immagination, i mean i could be a fighter pilot, a doctor an astranought and you think i chose debt collector.....really?...lol

i like you N.I.D and your a very knowledgeable and helpful guy but seriously, calm down a little ....... :beer:


Edit: N.I.D i'd wager you know more than alot of people "in the industry" and i applaud you that you use it to help the average man in the street make a stand and/or get a grip of their financial issues....Do i want to "pit wits"? nah mate i couldn't be arsed.....do i think i'd win?....win what? when did this become a competition? or a battle?.....like i said....calm down mate.

never-in-doubt

confused90 wrote: »

Never in doubt you are one of the most helpful people i have encountered on mse and at the same time one of the most volatile and sometimes unnecessarily abrupt and agressive people i have met on here.

Actually I am very protective over misgivings and will correct people that give wrong advice - if that is abrupt and aggressive then so be it.

confused90 wrote: »

strike this up as number two time you have bitten my head off and number two time you were wrong.

Hardly mate - hardly.....

confused90 wrote: »

the reason i posted the question in the thread you linked to is because barclaycards response went against my understanding of the rules surrounding cca requests under s78 of the consumer credit act and i wanted to be sure i wasn't missing something what with all the recent developments with the mcguffick case and what have you and i don't deal with cca requests as i'm filed based.

s.78 or at least the principles surrounding basic debt recovery is basic and to me, not being a DCA, comes as second nature. What this means in laymans is a true DCA would actually know the basics and not need to ask for advice, certainly not from someone that is so vehemently against DCA's - why did you keep the fact you're a DCA quiet from me?

I'm sorry but I hate you guys more than the banks and to think I actually helped you - i'm disgusted with myself. :mad: :mad: :mad:

* Not aimed at you personally, but at DCA's as a comodity.

Also, the McGuffick case had absolutely no influence on anything to do with s.78 or s.127 of CCA - it simply allowed the lender to register a default. The Carey v HSBC case simply allowed for the lender to send a true copy and not the original. No other laws have changed, as most DCA's know and frequently use against debtors (until the debtor comes and finds me in which case I set the DCA straight)....

confused90 wrote: »

also i don't think it reflects on my experience and and knowlwedge of the debt collection industry that i don't know much about the removal of defaults as it is kinda the opposite of what the debt collection industry is about, surely that makes sense, right?

You standing by this story then? That you're a DCA? Fancy a little quiz.......

confused90 wrote: »

and with regards s40 of the administration of justice act, fair enough i didn't realise that it was no longer a criminal offence but it is still an offence and in any case as a criminal offence it was always a paltry one with only a tiny fine as a consequence of conviction so it's splitting hairs a little really, but op best scrub "crimnal" and just put offence.

LOL - !!!!!!? Mate, come on please think about what you're typing. It is not an offence, period. As part of the McGuffick case 'reasonable collection activity' is allowed and acceptable. There is no offence unless the DCA is asking the wrong person for money or threatening the person or using false claims.....

confused90 wrote: »

never in doubt, i really am a debt collector, i have been for over a year

That explains a few things.

confused90 wrote: »

I mean ask yourself this question, if i was going to lie about what i do for a living would i really choose debt collector as my "fantasy job" i mean come on, credit me with some immagination, i mean i could be a fighter pilot, a doctor an astranought and you think i chose debt collector.....really?...lol

Thus I am confused as to why you never made that little fact known a lot sooner. Incidentally, why did you keep it quiet and act 'daft'?

confused90 wrote: »

i like you N.I.D and your a very knowledgeable and helpful guy but seriously, calm down a little ....... :beer:

I am calm, I am also extremely clued up on this process and seriously have doubts as to your claims, sorry but that is my opinion. I can link you to two DCA's I know of on here and both are far more knowledeable than yourself and offer a lot more input, no offence intended but I hope you can see what i'm saying.......

I am not having a go at you as such, moreso trying to clear the air cos something isn't quite right with this picture...... ;)

VanillaDelia

One thing you could do if they still say they haven't received a payment is get CCCS to send a Proof of Payment for that month, that will shut them up. If they ring again just tell them a proof of Payment is in the post from CCCS. It worked with one of my debts who also claimed to have not received payment.

I know that wasn't your main concern but I hope it will help you to know that if you are in a similar position with any other creditor that you can get them the proof sent and it will shut them up for a while as they should agree to pop the account on hold.

10past6

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Thus I am confused as to why you never made that little fact known a lot sooner. Incidentally, why did you keep it quiet and act 'daft'?

This is not an attack on you confused, but I'm also dubious about your claims re your profession, something about your postings just doesn’t ring true.

never-in-doubt

10past6 wrote: »

This is not an attack on you confused, but I'm also dubious about your claims re your profession, something about your postings just doesn’t ring true.

Ahhh forgot to ask mate, could you have a look here - she needs an experts eye I think (yes that'll be you) - we're all going round in circles bless.....

Help had a man at the door what do i do now

confused90

never-in-doubt wrote: »

s.78 or at least the principles surrounding basic debt recovery is basic and to me, not being a DCA, comes as second nature. What this means in laymans is a true DCA would actually know the basics and not need to ask for advice, certainly not from someone that is so vehemently against DCA's - why did you keep the fact you're a DCA quiet from me?

I'm sorry but I hate you guys more than the banks and to think I actually helped you - i'm disgusted with myself. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Ahhh...i see now it makes sense why your so aggressive all of a sudden but thats fine i'm not in the slightest bit concerned that you hate me or what i do for a living nor am i offended, it comes with the job.

But regarding being clued up on the in's and outs of the consumer credit act it really isn't that important to my role as approximately 70% of my work involves investigating and collecting unpaid utility debts before they get to court stage, this is split between domestic and business users and either way is not covered by the consumer credit act.....what i do have to know is what i can and can't do or say to debtors in the pursuit of my duty, i can not misrepresent my powers or unduely harrass people.

and i have to disagree with you on one point, section 40(1) of the administration of justice act has not been removed/deleted and therefore is still an active pice of legislation meaning breaching it is still an offence, all the mcguffick case has done is blur the line on what is a breach, it did not alter the law itself.


Alot of people "hate" debt collectors, i have had dealings with some myself as you know (thats right debt collectors are not immune to financial disputes with lenders, it happens to us too) and so i accept your feelings and feel free not to extend your offer of help in future if doing so compromises your personal and moral beliefs but i did not hide the fact i am a DCA from you it just didn't come up, for example have you told me what you do for a living yet in case it conflicts with my moral values?...no you heven't because it simply isn't what people do is it?

never-in-doubt

confused90 wrote: »

and i have to disagree with you on one point, section 40(1) of the administration of justice act has not been removed/deleted and therefore is still an active pice of legislation meaning breaching it is still an offence, all the mcguffick case has done is blur the line on what is a breach, it did not alter the law itself.

I never said it was removed mate - I clearly said it is not an offence. Simples The McGuffick case is not definite either - it is due to be appealed yet. But alas, nothing within mentioned s.40 so dunno where you got that from.

confused90 wrote: »

Alot of people "hate" debt collectors, i have had dealings with some myself as you know (thats right debt collectors are not immune to financial disputes with lenders, it happens to us too) and so i accept your feelings and feel free not to extend your offer of help in future if doing so compromises your personal and moral beliefs but i did not hide the fact i am a DCA from you it just didn't come up, for example have you told me what you do for a living yet in case it conflicts with my moral values?...no you heven't because it simply isn't what people do is it?

Everyone knows what I do mate, its no secret - I work in internal fraud and usually this entails subbing for the banks to catch their staff stealing/it abuse etc......

Ironic eh? I actually catch the filth from inside out :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

If only they knew what or more who I was, think i'd still have a job, or at least, think the banks would still sub me? :eek:

mrstinchcombe

Im sure the OP appreciates you two hijacking their thread when they are asking for advice. Grow up.