Working for robinson way?

Gilbert2

SarEl wrote: »

How, other than in your mind, is this unpleasant or aggresive? Being intimidating or aggresive in debt collecting is against the law. So being a "big lad" or having knowledge of "boxing" would be irrelevant. Both infer an intent which is contrary to the law in terms of the collection of debt. So if you know nothing about the law on collecting debt, please refrain from posting.

You were unpleasant & aggressive in prior posts to other members and subsequently since.

If being a 'big lad' and being a 'boxer' are irrelevant then why did you point out these elements in the first place from your first post?

You were the one who initially highlighted them from the OP's initial post.

And I do know about the law on debt collection, I have worked in the finance industry since 2004 and have held, and continue to hold, a Consumer Credit Licence.

I can tell you, collecting cash door to door, which is what the OP could well be doing, being a 'big lad' and a 'boxer' will be virtues when on a housing estate at night, on your own.

The OP need not be aggressive or demonstrate his pugilism.

Simply being of a physical presence that may make potential muggers think, 'He's a big lad, I doubt whether I'd succeed in robbing him' may be enough.

That is not an intent, it is simply being.

Which is effective.

Gilbert2

SarEl wrote: »

It was a utility bill error - three times admitted by British Gas - and the compensation they paid me was more than a years bills!. They were told to leave and refused, which is trespass. They threatened to enter the property and seize goods without a warrant. They attempted to physically intimidate me. I proved it because they were arrested, and spent a very uncomfortable period in the cells. I know the law on debt, thank you.

I'm sorry but something does not add up here.

As a complainant to the police, one doesn't have to 'prove' anything for your antagonistic/s to be arrested.

The police only require a suspicion a crime has been committed to arrest.

The debt collectors must have continued to refuse to leave your property to the police themselves, not on what you say you proved to the police.

And I doubt whether the police would have arrested the individuals because you said they physically intimidated you.

I'm quite surprised the police even turned up to this incident, let alone arrested them. An alleged BG debt is a civil matter.

There is something missing, either the two collectors admitted to the police they were acting in the way you said, or they continued with this behaviour in front of the police and ignored warnings of arrest or you live on the set of Midomer Murders.

No way would they have been arrested in the circumstances as described by you.

LannieDuck

I clicked on this thread thinking it would be an interesting discussion about the difficulties of working as a debt collector. What I got instead was far more entertaining

Caroline_a

Gilbert2 wrote: »

I'm sorry but something does not add up here.

As a complainant to the police, one doesn't have to 'prove' anything for your antagonistic/s to be arrested.

The police only require a suspicion a crime has been committed to arrest.

The debt collectors must have continued to refuse to leave your property to the police themselves, not on what you say you proved to the police.

And I doubt whether the police would have arrested the individuals because you said they physically intimidated you.

I'm quite surprised the police even turned up to this incident, let alone arrested them. An alleged BG debt is a civil matter.

There is something missing, either the two collectors admitted to the police they were acting in the way you said, or they continued with this behaviour in front of the police and ignored warnings of arrest or you live on the set of Midomer Murders.

No way would they have been arrested in the circumstances as described by you.

You obviously are unaware that SarEl is a barrister...

ILW

Quite a lot of the argument about matters of law are irrelevant to many debtors.
In real life away from the ivory towers, they just see a big bloke on their doorstep saying pay me and I will leave.
Many will pay this person because he seems more intimidating than the bloke from the housing department.
For many people, the law and real life are separate things.

Gilbert2

Caroline_a wrote: »

You obviously are unaware that SarEl is a barrister...

Matters not.

Debt collectors do not get arrested in the circumstances as described by member SarEl, ie simply on her word and her word alone.

The debt collectors must have given reason for the police to arrest them whilst they were present.

You will note they were arrested, as stated by member SarEl, nothing about any charges being brought subsequently.

I wonder why that is?

Especially as the officers would have been witnesses themselves, after all, they arrested them.

It just does not add up.

scooby088

My advice with regards to debt collectors is never allow them into your house, they have no right unless court appointed and with a warrant. I will inform them that I only deal with such companies via email, letter, phone. Anytime dealing with them will be billed at my normal rate and will be invoiced as such to their head office.

Finally if I was ever stupid enough to invite a debt collector into my home I don't get intimidated easily as I am pretty strapping myself so no problems on that count.

carebear13

Op- my hubby is a self employed debt collector and works full time paye too. Pm me and will try and answer whatever questions you have.

Gilbert2

scooby088 wrote: »

My advice with regards to debt collectors is never allow them into your house, they have no right unless court appointed and with a warrant. I will inform them that I only deal with such companies via email, letter, phone.

However, if you do then subsequently ignore the debt collectors via email, letter or phone then they are quite entitled to pay you a personal visit, though it would be up to you to invite them in.




Anytime dealing with them will be billed at my normal rate and will be invoiced as such to their head office.

Unless the company had prior knowledge of what your normal hourly rate was, I think you would struggle to enforce the bill in any way whatsoever.

And what do you mean '...anytime dealing with them...?'

If you owe a legitimate debt then you can't bill them for resolving the issue anyway!!

Finally if I was ever stupid enough to invite a debt collector into my home I don't get intimidated easily as I am pretty strapping myself so no problems on that count.

Yawn.

There's always somebody else around the corner, bigger and better.

.................

Gilbert2

Caroline_a wrote: »

You obviously are unaware that SarEl is a barrister...

By the way, if we look at a scenario where, in litigation, SarEl is on one side advocating against another who is advocating as an opponent and the opponent is given judgment, then SarEl has lost.

To sum that up, SarEl, by definition, is not always right.