orange adventis debt collection

foodster

Cheers folks.we are finding this very stressful

foodster

more news. i phoned the financial ombudsman who told me they couldn't advise and to contact the office for fair trading. they then told me to ring the financial ombudsman as they couldn't help. the only positive thing i got from either body was the phone number of the ombudsman for communications to report orange. 033044016144. not much help from them.
i then rang my union legal help line and spoke to a solicitor which was really helpful.he told me that they are in breach of the data protection act 1998. he dictated a letter i was to send them. when i've typed it all up i shall post it here so maybe others will be able to utilise the information in it.

MikeWhite

foodster wrote: »

i then rang my union legal help line and spoke to a solicitor which was really helpful.he told me that they are in breach of the data protection act 1998. he dictated a letter i was to send them. when i've typed it all up i shall post it here so maybe others will be able to utilise the information in it.

Good news and a good idea talking to the union. I did the same years ago when a store went bankrupt and the administrators pursued me for goods that I paid for before I left the shop! The advice I received was either ignore it but have the hassle of a potential court appearance or send them my credit card statement (with number deleted in case they tried to charge me again!).
Mike

foodster

hello again.
sorry for the delay in posting the letter dictated to me by unites legal help. here it is, obviously with the names of the debt collection companies currently involved. i had sent a letter posted here by fermi which worked with the Advantis company but now it turns out Capquest have passed the claim onto another company called Pastdue. this is the letter dictated to me over the phone which ive just sent to both Capquest and Pastdue. i phoned Capquest and when i informed them i'd be informing the Information Commissioners Office they suddenly became very helpful:

If you believe that I owe this money then the simple thing to do would be to issue county court proceedings. Be aware that I will not be intimidated by constant bombardment of letters, phone calls for payment and in fact will issuing a counter claim for losses incurred as the victim of unlawful harassment and will issue a separate claim for flagrant breeches of the Data Protection Act 1998.
These counter claims will exceed the value of the claim you wish to make against me on behalf of Capquest and Orange.I will also be issuing a complaint to the Information Commissioners office about breeches pf the Data Protection Act 1998 and I will ask the commissioner to fine your company the maximum amount for breeching this Act which is £500,000.
Please appreciate that you should not delude yourselves and think that by bombarding me with letters I will give in and pay the £401 you want.

You also have a duty under the Data Protection Act to hold correct information and a duty to update and amend your records so I will not be receiving any more communications and threats.

A copy of this will be sent to Pastdue, Capquest, Orange and the Data Commissioners Office.

Buzby

Your penultimate paragraph is sadly nonsensical. Any obligation under the DPA does not require them to 'amend their records' simply because you tell them to. Did your solicitor tell you this?

You'll continue to receive letters should they decide to post them - you have no power to stop them, just as King Canute failed on the beach!

You cannot write on behalf of the data subject - they must do it. They must reject the claim against them, and state that they will be prepared to fully protect their interests against any and all spurious claims made by this firm.

As there is no adverse CRA info, you can afford to sit it out - say in the absence of any new information from the alleged creditor, you consider the matter closed.

Should they wish to raise formal proceedings, you will ensure this will be fully defended, and will additionally ensure that all your costs in defending your good name will be claimed against them.

grumbler

I don't understand either what all this has to do with DPA and why the solicitor is so determined with referring to it.

Silk

grumbler wrote: »

I don't understand either what all this has to do with DPA and why the solicitor is so determined with referring to it.

It will be to do with the data being incorrect .....The Act requires them to follow the priciples that the data is accurate, not out of date, recorded correctly and not to be confused with information about someone else etc etc.
Trying to link two different people to the same data would breach the act

MataNui

Since a mobile phone contract is a credit agreement Orange would have put a default on the persons credit report. Since Your partner does not have any default or record of the credit agreement on her record then it would be logical to assume Orange have put a default on the correct record. The problem is with the debt collectors. Orange have probably provided them with only basic information and they have joined the dots (incorrectly though). This happens all the time. In my experience these people have no regard for privacy or the law so getting them to stop will not be easy. A solicitor is probably the only way to get them to back off. Fortunately there is little they can do beyond harassment. They have no powers to take goods or trash your credit report and are not likely to take it to court.

foodster

Buzby. with regards to the penultimate paragraph i was instructed by the solicitor to inform of this. it was to do with Adventis not informing Capquest i believe.i didnt understand what he was saying so i queried it and apparently they do have a duty to keep records upto date.we have had a reply from Pastdue and after receiving the letter they have closed the claim, Capquest are also investigating so it seems there is something to it. Capquest told me over the phone that it is probably an incorrect trace which is where the data protection comes into it i suppose.