Watch for Misbehaviour by Debt Collectors

HO87

I have specifically not posted this in the debt forum because of its relevance to the actions of certain debt collectors in relation to the collection of unpaid tickets issued by private parking companies..

This article relates to the revocation of the CCA licence of Carlton Business Ltd debt collectors from Dartford, Kent and the very recent upholding of that decision at Tribunal for, amongst other things, posing as solicitors when contacting alleged debtors.

It seems that the OFT are slowly getting to grips with some of the practices used by debt collectors - particularly threatening to issue proceedings and not following through and other forms of harassment - that it seems to me includes asserting that registered keepers of vehicles are liable; using CPR 31.16 (particularly) as a threat; threatening to make an application for an Norwich Pharmacal Order.

I suggest that recipients of DCA letters, including any such threat, are advised to complain. There is no mechanism to complain to the OFt direct, it seems so they'll have to go through TS - despite the fact that the OFT point complainants to the Financial Ombudsmen in the first instance.

peter_the_piper

Is Graham White/Roxburgh the next, it seems to be just the same ploy as the one in the article.

HO87

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Is Graham White/Roxburgh the next, it seems to be just the same ploy as the one in the article.

Indeed. However, the situation with Roxburghe/Graham White would seem to be heavily tied into their link to HFO Services/HFO Capital and ultimately Turnbull-Rutherford although the latter is not implicated directly as a company.

All three companies were told at the same time (20 May 2011) that the OFT were "minded to revoke" their licences (Click Here opens as a .pdf from OFT website) and a senior member of Turnbull-Rutherford (Click Here - opens as a .pdf from the OFT website) was informed that the OFT are minded to compulsorily vary the group licence so as to exclude him from CCA coverage. The person concerned has previously been an "officer" at Roxburghe.

The word is that there is an ongoing appeal (the OFT are being understandably tight-lipped) and one suspects that the matter will be heard at the First-tier Tribunal in due course.

This may or may not all be linked to a number of matters unrelated to private parking charges.

There are a number of links on the www.turnbull-rutherford.co website that provide an insight into some of the alleged practices. Some of this is somewhat hair-raising if true.

GoogleDan

After the riots spilled over into Ilford, lets just say my job required me to be working all the hours under the sun, I overstayed in one of the town centre car parks and started receiving letters from Parking Eye, now Roxburghe and I presume soon Graham White Solicitors.

I wanted to share with you how Roxburghe have changed their letters to possibly become even more intimidating, in particular;

We are fully aware of anecdotal information being presented via the internet and on various websites and you may feel this guidance is worth following. We strongly urge you to speak to independent legal advice rather than rely on these opinions, and we would respectively suggest that you refer to the Civil Procedure Rules part 31*, and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17.

My question being; has Roxburghe found some loop hole and switched onto people not paying up, or is this just a another scare tactic??

peter_the_piper

Another scare tactic. It shows the power of forums like this if they have to try to put you off listening to the advice here and on others. note. lots of solicitors don't really have the foggiest idea how parking law works.

HO87

GoogleDan wrote: »

After the riots spilled over into Ilford, lets just say my job required me to be working all the hours under the sun, I overstayed in one of the town centre car parks and started receiving letters from Parking Eye, now Roxburghe and I presume soon Graham White Solicitors.

I wanted to share with you how Roxburghe have changed their letters to possibly become even more intimidating, in particular;

We are fully aware of anecdotal information being presented via the internet and on various websites and you may feel this guidance is worth following. We strongly urge you to speak to independent legal advice rather than rely on these opinions, and we would respectively suggest that you refer to the Civil Procedure Rules part 31*, and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17.

My question being; has Roxburghe found some loop hole and switched onto people not paying up, or is this just a another scare tactic??

There can be no doubt that this paragraph (which we have been seeing for some time now) has been included with the sole intention of intimidating its recipients the majority of whom will be completely ignorant of the real implication of the Civil Procedure Rules. The sections quoted would suggest to the uninitiated that a court could order the disclosure of the name of driver, for example. The obvious implication being that Roxborg would make use of this section to obtain the details.

What Messrs Roxburghe do not tell you, of course, is what the overriding section at 31.1(2) says. Which is:

This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track.

And on which track do the type of claims involving allegedly unpaid private parking company invoices run? Why, the small claims track, of course.

You might conclude, not unreasonably, that not only is the quotation included intended to intimidate but also to substantially mislead. Why should a company, who certainly regard themselves highly even if others, including the OFT do not, want to intimidate and mislead? Could it be that the so-called debts they are purporting to pursue lack any legal merit and they know it?

Roxburghe's were informed by the Office of Fair Trading, earlier this year, that they were "minded to revoke" their Consumer Credit Act (debt collection) licence. Their investigation continues. The more ongoing complaints that are made then the more accurate a picture the OFT will be able to form. Complaints to the OFT may be made in writing via your local Trading Standards department. Roxburghe's CCA licence number is: 0533468.

peter_the_piper

ITV1, 10.35 Monday(england/wales) program on Bailiffs. Whether its about real ones or the ones who think they are real one I'm not sure. Could be worth a look.

Orford

peter_the_piper wrote: »

ITV1, 10.35 Monday(england/wales) program on Bailiffs. Whether its about real ones or the ones who think they are real one I'm not sure. Could be worth a look.

It's mainly concerning Rossendales

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/11153/online-news/rossendales-rebuffs-malpractice-claims

peter_the_piper

Very poor attempt at saying its only one man, we're ok gov.