Received bill from debt collection agency. Didn't order anything!

chattychappy

dmg24 wrote: »

The OP (or someone in their household) received the goods. The goods would have been signed for by someone in their household. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, this is sufficient proof that the debt was incurred.

Disagree, there is no such presumption. Not sure what you mean by "evidence to the contrary". A court would have regard to all the circumstances of the case. For example, the claim the goods were collected, documentation retained by the merchant from the alleged order, the nature of the goods themselves.

If it is a CC debt, then there must be proof that the transaction was authorised, regardless of any debt claim that the merchant has on the cardholder - though the two would usually go together.

dmg24

chattychappy wrote: »

Disagree, there is no such presumption. Not sure what you mean by "evidence to the contrary". A court would have regard to all the circumstances of the case. For example, the claim the goods were collected, documentation retained by the merchant from the alleged order, the nature of the goods themselves.

If it is a CC debt, then there must be proof that the transaction was authorised, regardless of any debt claim that the merchant has on the cardholder - though the two would usually go together.

Evidence to the contrary means looking at all of the circumstances! The CC provider needs to prove that the debt was incurred, and proof of delivery is sufficient in the eyes of the court (one of the oldest established principles in contract law). The OP would then need to prove that the goods did not remain with him, hence proving to the contrary.

The initial burden is on the CC provider, and in this case would be easily fulfilled. The OP has a much harder job to prove that they did not retain the goods.

The difficulty with the OP claiming that the transaction was not authorised, is that he received goods and did not contact the sender of the goods to query it. That would imply (again, in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that he accepted the goods and so expected to pay for them.

dresdendave

If the items were charged to a credit card then surely Viking Direct would have had the payment authorised before despatching the goods. However the OP has made no mention of the transaction appearing on his father's CC statement.

If the goods were despatched on an invoiced basis, ie pay by the end of following month or similar, then surely a legitimate company like Viking Direct would contact the debtor to remind them that payment is overdue, rather than passing the debt to a DCA without speaking to the debtor first.

Perhaps the OP can confirm whether or not CC was charged or any reminder letters received?

chattychappy

dmg24 wrote: »

The CC provider needs to prove that the debt was incurred, and proof of delivery is sufficient in the eyes of the court (one of the oldest established principles in contract law).

Well... I don't recognise any such principle from my experience of contract law.

dmg24 wrote: »

The initial burden is on the CC provider, and in this case would be easily fulfilled.

So disagree with this bit also - especially "easily".

dmg24

dresdendave wrote: »

If the items were charged to a credit card then surely Viking Direct would have had the payment authorised before despatching the goods. However the OP has made no mention of the transaction appearing on his father's CC statement.

If the goods were despatched on an invoiced basis, ie pay by the end of following month or similar, then surely a legitimate company like Viking Direct would contact the debtor to remind them that payment is overdue, rather than passing the debt to a DCA without speaking to the debtor first.

Perhaps the OP can confirm whether or not CC was charged or any reminder letters received?

chattychappy has assumed a CC is involved. The OP has not mentioned this. From my experience of Viking Direct on their business side, they actually post an invoice as well as including a receipt with the goods. This is why, irrespective of who is chasing the debt, I think the suggestion that the whole burden of proof lies with the creditor is fundamentally flawed.

dmg24

chattychappy wrote: »

Well... I don't recognise any such principle from my experience of contract law.

So disagree with this bit also - especially "easily".

If you are not aware of the postal rule, I can only assume you have no knowledge of contract law.

chattychappy

dmg24 wrote: »

If you are not aware of the postal rule, I can only assume you have no knowledge of contract law.

Actually I'm involved in litigation on behalf of clients everyday.

The postal rule in English law is to do with a contract being formed between the parties on posting acceptance. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams_v_Lindsell

Nothing to do with performance of an existing contract, or use of couriers.

dresdendave

dmg24 wrote: »

chattychappy has assumed a CC is involved. The OP has not mentioned this..

I too suspect there is no CC involved. The confusion seems to have arisen due to this being posted on the CC forum. Perhaps the OP could clarify this? The more accurate information we have, the better chance we can offer relevant advice.

chattychappy

chattychappy wrote: »

[PS this assumes the order was originally placed on a credit card as this is a CC forum. If a straightforward commercial debt because the goods were sent on credit, then it is less simple. But they still have to prove that the money is owed.]

chattychappy wrote: »

..
If it is a CC debt, ...

See above posts

dmg24 wrote: »

chattychappy has assumed a CC is involved.

I didn't.

omgwhat

hi, thanks for the replies so far.

just to confirm, there has been no charge on any of my dad's CCs. my dad did not place the order. he has an account with viking direct however. if that makes any difference.

he simply has received a bill from debt collectors. none of his bank accounts have been charged.