OFT collection guidance - Advice please

CKhalvashi

Hey guys

I've been tasked with writing a letter to Lloyds, regarding breach of OFT collections guidance for a resident.

It's a mix of proof of debt, ill health, (IMO) deceptive practices, possible harassment and debt in dispute/incorrect amount.

Can I please have a link to the letters needed, and advice on what can be merged please?!

Thanks

CK

happy_bunny_2

Hi

Maybe a bit more info needed here.

What's the breach, account history etc?

It might be that separate letters are best.

HB

CKhalvashi

happy_bunny wrote: »

Hi

Maybe a bit more info needed here.

What's the breach, account history etc?

It might be that separate letters are best.

HB

Thanks HB. My resident will be referred to as 'N', for the sake of transparency.

It was a current account, with paid for package; closed at banks request in March 2013, and defaulted in May (from the paperwork I've seen). N has attempted to reclaim the fees (which was what lead to the account closure), and there seems to be a lot of uncertainty as to whether the debt can be proven in court (from what I'm aware, no ER checks could have been made at the time, nor was ID/address proof shown and signature given, as the bank never requested this).

N was taxi driver, working on long distance work (2000mi/£1500 a week takings on average), and subsequently diagnosed with cancer last year. For obvious safety reasons, even though N still holds a valid Hackney Carriage reasons, due to tiredness there is no longer the scope to work 5-6 12h days.

These are copy and paste from OFT guidance, and I've mentioned where in quotes. Outside this, there is my comment, as to why we feel this is relevant.

3.3f.
Failing to provide debtors or their appointed representatives with information on the status of debts

For example, not providing balance statements when reasonably
requested.

Letter sent April 4th, asking for all statements, and asking for bank proposal to resolve the situation regarding the outstanding balance. Bank have refused to help with I&E over the previous 8 months, as N was able to meet the minimum payments, despite having very limited income, and Lloyds having no known plan to close the account at this time.

3.3g.

Failing to provide 'debtors' with information on the outcome of
investigations into reasonably queried or disputed debts

Letter on April 4th, asking for dispute to be looked into (whilst asking for this to be put directly into dispute) had reply, stating that as the complaint had been investigated, there was no dispute, as the bank (despite having no evidence either way on phone calls) were satisfied that their staff did not miss sell (despite the account being opened in the period that products were routinely missold by the bank, relating to the fine last week).

Default issued on May 10, despite debt formally in dispute since April 8th (including two working days postage)

3.3h.

Failing to confirm, formally and unequivocally, that an offer to settle a debt, accompanied by the relevant payment, has been
accepted as full and final settlement of that debt (when this is
the case)

Letter received by N on December 9th, stating that a reduced settlement will be offered. Mentions nothing about F&F

3.3j.
Contacting debtors at unreasonable times

3.3k.
Ignoring or disregarding debtors' reasonable requests in respect of when, where and how to contact them

LTSB appointed NCI to visit address of N several times in May/June 2013, despite clearly being told that the debt was regarded as amount disputed. Were asked to leave several times, of which another 'agent' would visit within days. N has these logged, and has letters confirming visit times. Debt passed back to Lloyds on July 2nd, when I called office with N's permission, stating that this amounts to harrasment and trespass, with all contact to be in writing.

4th July, calls from BLS start, and in July (don't have this letter in front of me, but have seen it), letter from SCM solicitors received. Calls continued until July 18th, 3-4 times a day, with several requests for these to be stopped, including in April from LTSB collections, with number taken from system.

Debt was assigned to Wescot in October 2013, with calls re-starting. 26 known calls received on 2 phone numbers so far, again with no further permission granted to allow these calls, and permission revoked in writing in October to both LTSB and Wescot, with LTSB reminded that they are legally responsible for their contractors.

3.3l.Asking or instructing debtors to make contact on premium rate or other special rate telephone numbers

OFT consider this any phone number that costs more than a standard phone number to call. I reasonably consider 0845 telephone numbers 'premium rate' for this purpose, however views may differ.

CKhalvashi

3.6Putting undue pressure on debtors or relevant third parties

3.7
Examples of unfair or improper practices are as follows:

a.
contacting debtors at unreasonable times and/or at
unreasonable intervals


b.
pressurising debtors to raise funds by selling their property or by taking on further borrowing (including extending their existing borrowing)

Self explanatory, see post above under 3.3j/k. I consider no more than once a day as necessary, and anything over this as harrasment, and calls have at times been 2-3 calls, per telephone number, per day.

Asking if money could be borrowed was asked, including consolidation/new credit, for point B.

3.7o.ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled
or are disputed and continuing to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the claims are not valid

Summarised in post above. FOS are unable to intervene on first issue, as they feel informal process is not able to resolve the issue. Complaint will be raised shortly regarding the collection issue, to both Wescot and LBG.

3.9i
When a debt is reasonably queried or disputed, failing to investigate and/or provide details (possibly including, for
example, details of account history, payment schedules and
relevant correspondence) to the debtor, as appropriate, in a
timely manner or at all

Under OFT guidelines, 'timely manner' is five working days.

3.12/13, summarised with 3.3j/k

I do understand that this is a specialist one, so I'm not expecting any one answer to this.

N has no problem with paying what is legitimately owed, which will need to be done over a period of time, however having been diagnosed with bowel cancer myself, I do understand that the additional stress with actually put N's ability to earn (as self-employed individual) in a more difficult position.

I'm unsure as to how to proceed with this, as is a friend (recently retired solicitor, has dealt with a number of CCA claims before retirement), so any feedback would be excellent.

This isn't in date order, it's in guidance order, and therefore if this doesn't make sense, please let me know. It's probably not helped that my first language is not English!

Thank you!

CK

fermi

I'll try and have a look at this later. Today or tomorrow if no-one else has come back with detailed replies.

I think though that you are stretching the OFT guidelines a bit on some points.

On others there are recent rulings on harassment that might be relevant that back up or go beyond what the OFT require.

For example:

Roberts v Bank of Scotland plc and another [2013] All ER (D) 88 (Jun) in the Court of Appeal.

The court concluded that:

(1) The existence of a debt did not give a lender the right to bombard the debtor with calls. It was for the debtor to decide whether they wanted to discuss the matter with the creditor.

(2) In respect of the harassment appeal, the claimant had made it perfectly clear that she had not wanted to speak to the bank, and she had been perfectly entitled to do so. Once the bank had phoned a few times, it had been clear that no progress was to be made. Further calls had been futile and should have been stopped. The judge had been right to characterise the calls as intimidation and they had been wholly unjustified.

If they should respect a request not to call in that case, then certainly should respect that request when prepared to engage more in other forms as is here.

CKhalvashi

fermi wrote: »

I'll try and have a look at this later. Today or tomorrow if no-one else has come back with detailed replies.

I think though that you are stretching the OFT guidelines a bit on some points.

On others there are recent rulings on harassment that might be relevant that back up or go beyond what the OFT require.

For example:

Roberts v Bank of Scotland plc and another [2013] All ER (D) 88 (Jun) in the Court of Appeal.

The court concluded that:



If they should respect a request not to call in that case, then certainly should respect that request when prepared to engage more in other forms as is here.

Thanks for that Fermi, you're a star!

I appreciate that I may be pushing a few points, however I'd rather do this initially to find where it stands, rather than be left in a position where I'm not aware of what could be done; again why there is probably too much info here.

Out of pure interest (on a personal level), was the latest LBG fine referring to packaged current accounts in any way, as I got the impression it was, but can't find any proof of it!

If you need any further info, please let me know.

sithemadmonkey

I don't know the exact details, but the LBG fine mainly related to investment (e.g. stocks and shares ISA) and protection (e.g. critical illness) products. Don't know if packaged accounts were involved at all.

fermi

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Letter sent April 4th, asking for all statements, and asking for bank proposal to resolve the situation regarding the outstanding balance. Bank have refused to help with I&E over the previous 8 months, as N was able to meet the minimum payments, despite having very limited income, and Lloyds having no known plan to close the account at this time.

As far as I know the statement reverence in OFT guidance is related to regular one or a statement on request showing what is owed, what past payments were made etc. Not that they should provide a full set of back statements on request. Not withstanding point 3.9i

I think a creditor could reasonably only be expected to provide that under a SAR etc.

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Letter on April 4th, asking for dispute to be looked into (whilst asking for this to be put directly into dispute) had reply, stating that as the complaint had been investigated, there was no dispute, as the bank (despite having no evidence either way on phone calls) were satisfied that their staff did not miss sell (despite the account being opened in the period that products were routinely missold by the bank, relating to the fine last week).

Default issued on May 10, despite debt formally in dispute since April 8th (including two working days postage)

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Nothing preventing a credit defaulting a disputed account, unless of course the dispute relates to the fact of a default in itself. Even then they can default and it will be up to you to complain to FOS and ICO etc.

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Letter received by N on December 9th, stating that a reduced settlement will be offered. Mentions nothing about F&F

Settlement offers are referred to in various ways. Operative word is "settlement" though, as that means no further liability exists or will be pursued. A settlement means an end to the matter, otherwise it wouldn't be a settlement.

Don't think I would get too hung oup on this one.

CKhalvashi wrote: »

LTSB appointed NCI to visit address of N several times in May/June 2013, despite clearly being told that the debt was regarded as amount disputed. Were asked to leave several times, of which another 'agent' would visit within days. N has these logged, and has letters confirming visit times. Debt passed back to Lloyds on July 2nd, when I called office with N's permission, stating that this amounts to harrasment and trespass, with all contact to be in writing.

4th July, calls from BLS start, and in July (don't have this letter in front of me, but have seen it), letter from SCM solicitors received. Calls continued until July 18th, 3-4 times a day, with several requests for these to be stopped, including in April from LTSB collections, with number taken from system.

Debt was assigned to Wescot in October 2013, with calls re-starting. 26 known calls received on 2 phone numbers so far, again with no further permission granted to allow these calls, and permission revoked in writing in October to both LTSB and Wescot, with LTSB reminded that they are legally responsible for their contractors.

Definite grounds for complaint as they have disregarded OFT guidelines and behaved in a way that would likely have been found against if compared to the Roberts high court case.

fermi

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Self explanatory, see post above under 3.3j/k. I consider no more than once a day as necessary, and anything over this as harrasment, and calls have at times been 2-3 calls, per telephone number, per day.

As said, ref to guidelines and Roberts case. Is out of order.

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Asking if money could be borrowed was asked, including consolidation/new credit, for point B.

if asked in that fashion, then again out of order.

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Under OFT guidelines, 'timely manner' is five working days.

3.12/13, summarised with 3.3j/k

I do understand that this is a specialist one, so I'm not expecting any one answer to this.

Obviously they don't think there is a dispute, so also would not think they had to do that. Plus the statement issue is vague and a bit contradictory in places in the guidelines.

Nevertheless, if you put forward what you to believe to be a genuine dispute, at the least they should make a timely response to that. Even if to dismiss it.

CKhalvashi

I've just sent this for review. Thank you so much for this Fermi, will post letter when it's been looked at by N.

CK