Brighthouse family harassment

Flyboy152

George_Michael wrote: »

BarclayLloydnat bank
"Good afternoon. I'm trying to get hold of Mr Michael and there is no reply when we call his mobile phone. He gave this number on his bank account application form, and I was wondering if you would have any other numbers where we could possibly contact him regarding an urgent matter"

The above conversation is basically what happened a few months ago when following a trip I made to Italy.
My debit card was cloned and suspicious activity was flagged up by the banking system.
I would hardly class what they said to my wife as harassment, especially as the phone number for my house was freely given by me when I opened the bank account.

I always advise them when I am travelling overseas so they know that the only contact number for me is my mobile, therefore they were well aware that by calling my landline they wouldn't be able to speak to me directly.
Was I upset or did my wife feel threatened or harassed?
Far from it.

Were they asking this to chase for late payments?

Flyboy152

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Yes, that is illegal, but we don't know that is the case here.
Even if the people who were referred to in the data didn't give their permission, that in itself is not illegal.
The OP may have completed a form stating that permission was given by the people concerned, and until Brighthouse were informed that this was not in fact true, how would they know this.

If the people named did not give permission, then Brighthouse would have a legal obligation to amend their records accordingly.


Anyway, as a few people has already mentioned, all of this is pure speculation (on my part, and also on the part of others).
We have no way of knowing who was named on the paperwork, if they knew they were named, what they agreed to, etc, etc.

The finance company have to ask the named people for the permission, not someone else.

Flyboy152

paddyrg wrote: »

Looking at this from the vendors viewpoint for a moment, they are providing goods to a demographic no prime lender would touch, as they have a huge default rate. I assume the extra contact details are because their customers have a habit of moving house at short notice, and having 5 extra contacts reduces the risk of everyone moving all at once!

Should people who can't afford new stuff buy new stuff? Clearly not the best plan, but they see all the same TV ads and aspirational dramas full of beautiful people with new stuff, and get all aspirational themselves, and houseproud. Companies like Brighthouse have always existed in some form to engage the lower end of the market. I have a clock which is powered by florin coins, so the householder would always have the 4s every week for the doorstop collector for their insurance, same market, different angle and age.

And then only charging three quid for a missed payment, this is hardly a back alley mugging! The admin, interest, delays and extra costs associated with a letter will only mean higher fees for the defaulted borrower. They take a big risk, but seem to get grief for having given credit where little is due. Clearly they are no angels, but hardly devils either.

Fist of all, they are not "vendors," they are a finance company. Secondly, it doesn't matter whether they are lending money to a ninety-year old woman on a basic state pension to buy a ten bedroom mansion, they cannot operate outside of the regulations.

MamaMoo_2

Maybe if the OP had actually bothered to keep to their end of the contract, then this wouldn't be an issue? If BH are resorting to phoning the references, then obviously there's an issue.
OP, if you don't like it, have them collect the goods and terminate your contract.

shaun_from_Africa

With my wife and I they don't bother contacting us first

And as I stated, they may have tried contacting the OP.
Just because the OP said that they didn't bother, doesn't mean that they didn't try.

Flyboy, you seem to have forgotten to post the link to any legislation stating that it is illegal for brighthouse to ask the OP's contacts if they had any other contact details for them.
On more than one occasion you have clearly stated that they were not allowed to ask this, and on more than one occasion you have failed to back up this claim.
Why is that I wonder?

The finance company have to ask the named people for the permission, not someone else.

The people named were not guarantors, simply points of contact.
Once the loan application has been submitted, Brighthouse telephone the people named to ensure that they gave permission for their names to be used.

Presumably because they had family members on their database, because they had been customers of this finance company.

More assumptions.
The reference given have to be from people living at a different address to the person applying for the loan.
Therefore they may not have been previous customers of the company, just family members living elsewhere.

spookykid

Just to clarify ( because I think people may have misinterpreted my thread ). The point I'm trying to make is that brighthouse don't contact you first about your missed payment/s. Rather they contact the named person on the contract first and that they take this coarse of action after just one missed payment. I could understand their actions if we had missed several payments in a row which would give them cause for concern but, that is not the case. They should only contact named people once all other avenues of contact have been exhausted where the OP has failed to respond to their attempts of contact.

shaun_from_Africa

I could understand their actions if we had missed several payments in a row which would give them cause for concern but, that is not the case.

But your opening post appears to state that this has happened more than once.

Instead they contact a member of family that you have named on the contract first and, in some cases, have contacted a member of family that you have not named

.

Flyboy152

MamaMoo wrote: »

Maybe if the OP had actually bothered to keep to their end of the contract, then this wouldn't be an issue?

This is nothing to do with the OP's payment history, it is to do with the harassment by Brighthouse.

If BH are resorting to phoning the references, then obviously there's an issue.

These people were not referees, they were names of people that the OP was asked to provide, in order to get the financing. He was presumably told that of he didn't provide these names (without the permission of those people), he could not have the loan.

OP, if you don't like it, have them collect the goods and terminate your contract.

Again, not the point.

Flyboy152

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

And as I stated, they may have tried contacting the OP.
Just because the OP said that they didn't bother, doesn't mean that they didn't try.

So, now the OP is a liar? What do you have to support that assumption?

Flyboy, you seem to have forgotten to post the link to any legislation stating that it is illegal for brighthouse to ask the OP's contacts if they had any other contact details for them.
On more than one occasion you have clearly stated that they were not allowed to ask this, and on more than one occasion you have failed to back up this claim.
Why is that I wonder?

Because I am not here to educate you. I have pointed you in the general direction; I hear google is a wonderful learning tool.

The people named were not guarantors,

:huh: I know these people are not guarantors, it is others who were assuming that and confirmed by the OP that they weren't.

simply points of contact.
Once the loan application has been submitted, Brighthouse telephone the people named to ensure that they gave permission for their names to be used.

The finance company had not sought the permission of these people; before the contract concluded, it cannot be sought retrospectively. One of the basic principles of the DPA is that any information held must be appropriate and relevant, surely you agree with that.

More assumptions.

Hence the use of the word, "presumably."

The reference given have to be from people living at a different address to the person applying for the loan.
Therefore they may not have been previous customers of the company, just family members living elsewhere.

Not too far fetched as you assume. If any of those people had used this finance company before, it is not inconceivable that they used the OP as "a point of contact," on their contract. It doesn't take much for even the most basic of CMS to cross match the names. If that is the case then they are using that data illegally.

Flyboy152

spookykid wrote: »

Just to clarify ( because I think people may have misinterpreted my thread ). The point I'm trying to make is that brighthouse don't contact you first about your missed payment/s. Rather they contact the named person on the contract first and that they take this coarse of action after just one missed payment. I could understand their actions if we had missed several payments in a row which would give them cause for concern but, that is not the case. They should only contact named people once all other avenues of contact have been exhausted where the OP has failed to respond to their attempts of contact.

No, they should not be contacting these people at all.