MSE News: Banking trio used dubious 'legal' tactics to pressure indebted customers

elliebellie

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

It isn't always the case however in your circumstance it seems that you were perhaps paying below the monthly contracted amount so your arrears were increasing each month. There comes a point in any debt strategy that once it reaches a certain point i.e. 3 or 6 monthly payments in arrears that the debt will be passed on either to an internal or external dca. .

Going back many, many years these 'in house' dca's didn't exist. At the specific time that the arrears tipped over the 'point' the debts were passed out to external dca's. Due to this 'escalation' in action borrowers often started to pay or at least come to an arrangement whereas previously they hadn't bothered to contact the bank. Banks realised they could set up their own dca's and start to get the borrowers paying before they actually sent them on to the external dca's and therefore save themselves the fees.

As someone else commented, people are trying very hard to make this a scandal when it really isn't. I can see that if people persist in trying to stop this process then the fees the bank pay will increase - who's going to fund this.............

Much like the bank charge debacle, only one loser in this 'righteous' crusade and it won't be the banks.

The move to DG came after a repayment schedule had been arranged, agreed and had been (and remains so) maintained. There was no reduction or missed payments. Only wanted to make that clear as assumptions have been made in response above.

In terms of whether these letters are dubious, it is a difficult one, particularly if the people receiving them are vulnerable and getting a letter from a "solicitor" could drive them into making decisions that aren't right for their circumstances I.e making higher payments than they can afford.

Hanky_Panky

elliebellie wrote: »

The move to DG came after a repayment schedule had been arranged, agreed and had been (and remains so) maintained. There was no reduction or missed payments. Only wanted to make that clear as assumptions have been made in response above.

In terms of whether these letters are dubious, it is a difficult one, particularly if the people receiving them are vulnerable and getting a letter from a "solicitor" could drive them into making decisions that aren't right for their circumstances I.e making higher payments than they can afford.

Just wanted to clarify something as we often see statements such as the embolden one above.

Clearly you had missed payments or there would have been no need for an arrangement. People often confuse their contractual monthly payment with their (often reduced) arrangement payment. It is only the contractual monthly payment that really matters and counts towards the 'missed' payment part. So you can have arrears that increase whilst still making the arrangement payment. Increasing arrears means that the lender has to do something, often that's a referral to an internal or external DCA.

rizla_king

http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct/guidance/warning-notices/Employed-solicitors-publicity-and-information-provided-to-third-parties--Warning-notice.page

Warning notice

Employed solicitors: publicity and information provided to third parties

Issued on 8 July 2014

Status

This warning notice does not form part of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Handbook. However, the SRA will have regard to it when exercising its regulatory functions.

Who is this warning notice relevant to?

In-house/employed solicitors

Our concerns

There have been a number of complaints from the public regarding misleading information contained in letters and in letterheads, of some in-house solicitors. These complaints arise as a result of in-house solicitors giving the impression, through the wording contained in letters, through the use of business names by in-house solicitors, by the description of their regulatory status and by their contact details that they are an independent firm of solicitors or other legal services firm.

Overall, these approaches appear to be attempts to give the impression to a third party that an external agency or firm has been instructed to take legal action, up to and including, court proceedings.

These complaints have arisen most commonly in debt collection or enforcement matters where solicitors are employed in-house by the organisation seeking to recover the debt.

Further concern has been caused by complaints of solicitors having taken unfair advantage of a third party’s lack of legal knowledge, particularly in debt collecting matters, where the third party is unrepresented.
The SRA Principles

The SRA Principles are mandatory and apply to all solicitors and to those acting under their supervision. The following SRA Principles are of particular relevance to this issue.

Principle 2 – You must act with integrity
Principle 6 – You must behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services

SRA Mandatory Outcomes

The Outcomes in the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 are mandatory and describe what firms and individuals are expected to achieve in order to comply with the relevant SRA Principles. However, they are not an exhaustive list of the application of all the Principles.

The following Outcomes are of particular relevance to this issue.

O(8.1) – your publicity in relation to your firm or in house practice or for any other business is accurate and not misleading, and is not likely to diminish the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services.
O(8.4) – clients and the public have appropriate information about you, your firm and how you are regulated.
O(11.1) – you do not take unfair advantage of third parties in either your professional or personal capacity.

Regulatory action

Failure to comply with this warning notice will lead to regulatory action. Regulatory action may also be necessary because of misconduct that has already taken place.

Our expectations

All solicitors must act with integrity and maintain the trust the public places in them and in the provision of legal services. We expect that all publicity and information regarding your position, as an in house/employed solicitor, is compliant with the Principles and relevant Outcomes in the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

We have reviewed a number of complaints and a range of letters sent by solicitors employed within financial (and similar) institutions to pursue debts or other outstanding sums of money.

We consider that, through a range of approaches, attempts are being made to mislead third parties (invariably individual debtors) that their case has been referred by the organisation owed money to an independent law firm to pursue the debt, notably the "naming" of in-house legal teams in the style of independent law firms.

We consider that such approaches do not meet the requirements of Principles 2 and 6 and of Outcomes 8.1, 8.4 and 11.1.

Letterheads must be clear as to the organisation employing you and you must not give any impression that you are part of an independent law firm or firm of solicitors or an independent solicitor.

Any contact details should ensure the third party is aware who they are contacting whether you directly, the in-house legal department or other staff of your employer.

Any correspondence from you, or sent under your supervision, must indicate your individual status as a solicitor regulated by the SRA but must not seek to give any impression that the organisation which employs you is regulated by the SRA.

Overall, the obligation on you is to take positive steps to ensure that third parties are clear about your status and relationship with the organisation seeking recovery of the debt.

In considering any complaints or regulatory action the SRA will consider whether the Principles are being complied with and Outcomes being met. We will consider the overall impact on the third party of information provided in the letterhead, the body of the correspondence and in the references made to regulatory status. In particular we will consider whether the totality of the information provided makes the solicitor’s status clear or whether it gives a false impression and may mislead.
Further help

If solicitors require further help, they can call or email the SRA Ethics helpline.

elliebellie

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

Just wanted to clarify something as we often see statements such as the embolden one above.

Clearly you had missed payments or there would have been no need for an arrangement. People often confuse their contractual monthly payment with their (often reduced) arrangement payment. It is only the contractual monthly payment that really matters and counts towards the 'missed' payment part. So you can have arrears that increase whilst still making the arrangement payment. Increasing arrears means that the lender has to do something, often that's a referral to an internal or external DCA.

I have no intention of explaining the ins and outs of my dealings as to contractual monthly payments etc etc, but just to say I received a letter to say the account had been transferred from internal debt collection dept to DG solicitors, with no change to the arrangements, it's just they would be looking after the account for the foreseeable future, that's it, no legal action, no threat of legal action, just a shift from one dept to another, simples!

Hanky_Panky

elliebellie wrote: »

I have no intention of explaining the ins and outs of my dealings as to contractual monthly payments etc etc, but just to say I received a letter to say the account had been transferred from internal debt collection dept to DG solicitors, with no change to the arrangements, it's just they would be looking after the account for the foreseeable future, that's it, no legal action, no threat of legal action, just a shift from one dept to another, simples!

Yes - and I'm just explaining why and the normal circumstances for the referral.

miniandrew

I came across an in-house solicitor for a finance company. They told me they were a 'department' of the 'client' they were representing.

If they are a department, whether they have individual solicitors or not in there, then the solicitors themselves must be employed by the 'client' company' as are all their staff. The SRA entry says they are employed by the Department, not the company.

If that's the case, can they charge hourly 'fees' like an outside firm can when they litigate on behalf of this so called 'client'?

I've been charged a fortune in 'legal fees'. I can understand them passing on barrister costs and court fees, but their own charges as hourly fees when they are under an employment contract with the company itself and probably getting a salary?

They are not working as sole practitioners either, this is all done in the name of xxx xxxx Legal Services acting on behalf of their client xxxx xxxx plc.

Debt collectors to you and me without a Debt Collectors licence at that.

Any ideas on those charges as I think this is a rogue solicitor personally although it's obvious by their name as to who they are so no deception or confusion there.

Ta