MSE News: Wonga to pay £2.6m after threatening borrowers with fake lawyers

beamerguy

Prior to the Police now saying they will investigate Wonga, it was stated that because the last investigation was by a now defunct authority, it is no longer applicable (or some rubbish like that")

DAILY MAIL TODAY ONLINE
Leonard Rossiter WHO DIED 30 YRS AGO
ANOTHER WITCHUNT
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2672922/Sex-predator-victim-great-celeb-witchhunt-Police-probe-46-year-old-allegation-against-late-comedy-genius-Leonard-Rossiter.html

The authorities faff around looking after people who are living today (wonga customers) yet want to investigate a man who died 30 years ago ?????

SIMPLY LACKS ALL CREDIBILITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO "TRY" TO RUN THIS COUNTRY ---- OPERATIVE WORD IS "TRY"

fermi

BBC R4 Moneybox @ Midday today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b047w54z

This week it emerged that Wonga sent letters from non-existent law firms to customers in arrears between 2008 and 2010. The company has been ordered by the Financial Conduct Authority to pay £2.6m compensation to customers. The City of London Police have confirmed they will re-consider opening a criminal investigation into this matter. Paul Lewis speaks to the Jonathan Smithers of the Law Society of England and Wales.

Aquamania

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Why? Has it changed?

No, I haven't changed it.

Please re-read it. You obviously have mis-understood.

Alpine_Star

Aquamania wrote: »

No, I haven't changed it.

Please re-read it. You obviously have mis-understood.

I understand what ''Is it perhaps as reported on ITV news that no impersonation has occurred'' means.


Wonga have issued a public apology in which it openly admits its letters ''gave the misleading impression that customers’ outstanding debts had been passed on to a law firm''.


The letter by the ''law firm'' clearly makes reference to ''we have been instructed by Wonga...'' and ''our clients...''.


What is that if it's not impersonation?

Aquamania

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I understand what ''Is it perhaps as reported on ITV news that no impersonation has occurred'' means.


Wonga have issued a public apology in which it openly admits its letters ''gave the misleading impression that customers’ outstanding debts had been passed on to a law firm''.


The letter by the ''law firm'' clearly makes reference to ''we have been instructed by Wonga...'' and ''our clients...''.


What is that if it's not impersonation?

What has this got to do with your first question you asked me? There's no point taking a snippet of my post and then attempting to use it out of context.

Here is the original response of mine in full:

Aquamania wrote:

"Using lawyers as fake as its puppets, then having the stomach to charge people for it is a thuggish tactic, aimed at scaring and intimidating people who are already struggling.

"I'm glad to see the FCA taking action. I hope this is just the first move against a dirty, dangerous industry. Wonga may have used 'Chainey, D'Amato & Shannon' as the name of its false lawyers, but 'Shyster, Shyster & Shyster' would've been more appropriate.

As I understand it, it is illegal to impersonate a solicitor, barrister, etc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3400309/Man-facing-jail-after-admitting-he-impersonated-a-barrister.html

Therefore, one would expect that if such action had occurred, then those responsible would be up before the beak.

So why hasn't this occurred?
Is it perhaps as reported on ITV news that no impersonation has occurred, just that debt collection letters purporting to be from what turned out to be fake debt collectors were sent out? (although the debt itself was genuine)

The City of London Police said that they have decided not to proceed with a case, because while the letters clearly implied they were from law firms, they made no such direct claim.

http://www.itv.com/news/2014-06-25/wonga-to-pay-2-6-million-compensation-to-customers-sent-fake-legal-letters/

I wonder if Wonga will now be employing the services of genuine legal advisors over the possible libellous comments made by Martin S. Lewis and published on this site?

You then asked

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Since when have ITV news been an authoritative source of legal opinion?

The Law Society who represent those that actually practice law believes that 3 offences could have been committed:

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press-releases/law-society-calls-for-criminal-investigation-of-wonga/

As I said:

It wasn't the legal opinion of ITV. ITV were just reporting the facts. Please don't shoot the messenger.

The facts were:

The City of London Police said that they have decided not to proceed with a case, because while the letters clearly implied they were from law firms, they made no such direct claim.

It appears they are now revisiting that decision, with something about the fact the regulator has now concluded their involvement in this matter. I can't see how that changes the reason for the initial decision of the police ... but we'll have to wait and see.

City of London Police said in a statement:

In March 2013 the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) met with the City of London Police to consider their (OFT's) investigation into Wonga and whether it should be referred to the National Policing Lead for Fraud.

The interests of the consumer were at the forefront of these discussions and directed the decision that the most appropriate course of action was for the OFT to continue to investigate as regulator focusing on but not limited to the consumer credit act, legal services act, and unfair trading regulations.
Now that the regulator's investigation has concluded and a compensation agreement has been reached with Wonga, the City of London Police will be reassessing whether a criminal investigation is now appropriate.

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-0...ing-practices/

Are you now posting in an attempt to incite an argument?
If so, I'm afraid that won't wash with me.

fermi

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b047w54z

Listen from 6 mins 35s in.

Aquamania

fermi wrote: »

Example letter courtesy of MSE and Paul Lewis apparently.

Thanks fermi.

I see at the bottom it says:

Wonga.com Limited t/a Barker and Lowe Legal Recoveries.

It seems the City of London police are correct in their assertion that, whilst the letter may imply it originates from a law firm, it doesn't actually make such a claim.

beamerguy

Aquamania wrote: »

Thanks fermi.

I see at the bottom it says:

Wonga.com Limited t/a Barker and Lowe Legal Recoveries.

It seems the City of London police are correct in their assertion that, whilst the letter may imply it originates from a law firm, it doesn't actually make such a claim.

And there is the problem of Wonga ?

There is NO Barker and Lowe and it also already proven that these two names are members or Wonga staff

It is fraudulent, deceptive and designed to look like a like firm such as a solicitors.
Even the wording of the letter gives the reader the impression it is from a legal firm which Wonga are NOT, they are lenders

rizla_king

Just implying it or presenting it in a way likely deceive the average consumer is enough.

Aquamania

beamerguy wrote: »

And there is the problem of Wonga ?

There is NO Barker and Lowe and it also already proven that these two names are members or Wonga staff

It is fraudulent, deceptive and designed to look like a like firm such as a solicitors.
Even the wording of the letter gives the reader the impression it is from a legal firm which Wonga are NOT, they are lenders

With all due respect, there doesn't need to be anyone called Barker or Lowe; it's was just a trading name - the company behind it is named.

Where was it proven these were actual names of Wonga employees? ... not that it matters, just interested.