MSE News: Provident is latest firm caught sending misleading payment demands

chanz4

its legal to use a trading as name

SnowTiger

MSE making up it's own news stories! The only person quoted in the article as saying the letter is misleading is MSE's Wendy Alcock.

Personally, I don't find anything misleading about it.

Monkeyballs

Could it be that the people posting on here that they don't find anything misleading about this have never been in the position of receiving one?

I'm not saying that I have had one but if I was in severe financial hardship (of my own making or not, remember not everyones situation is the same) and I received this then I would be panicked... Why not just send the same on their own headed paper? Why from C K Edrupt & Co, their "solicitor"?

I could perhaps understand if legal proceedings were beginning but passing a debt to a 3rd party debt collector as in this case is just intimidating!

Now I have a debt which has been passed to Buchanan Clarke & Wells (not a provident debt) but luckily I'm with Step Change on a DMP but why wouldn't the letter suggest getting debt advice or refer to any enclosed supporting documentation detailing what to do if the person is in financial hardship? Why? Because their hope is that it makes that person think they have to do whatever it takes to get the money.

In other words, it's overkill and it's intentionally misleading with intent to cause distress and panic.

MB

SnowTiger

Monkeyballs wrote: »

Could it be that the people posting on here that they don't find anything misleading about this have never been in the position of receiving one?

I'm not saying that I have had one but if I was in severe financial hardship (of my own making or not, remember not everyones situation is the same) and I received this then I would be panicked... Why not just send the same on their own headed paper? Why from C K Edrupt & Co, their "solicitor"?

I could perhaps understand if legal proceedings were beginning but passing a debt to a 3rd party debt collector as in this case is just intimidating!

Now I have a debt which has been passed to Buchanan Clarke & Wells (not a provident debt) but luckily I'm with Step Change on a DMP but why wouldn't the letter suggest getting debt advice or refer to any enclosed supporting documentation detailing what to do if the person is in financial hardship? Why? Because their hope is that it makes that person think they have to do whatever it takes to get the money.

In other words, it's overkill and it's intentionally misleading with intent to cause distress and panic.

MB

Why would it make anyone panic and/or be distressed (more)?

The letter simply says the debt is being passed to a Debt Collection Agency. Are you suggesting someone would panic and/or be less distressed if the latter arrive on Provident headed paper?

Lots of companies and organisations operate under different names.

Take, erm, MoneySavingExpert.com as an example. At the bottom of every page it contains this text:

MoneySavingExpert.com is part of the MoneySupermarket Group...

Why isn't that information proudly displayed at the top of every page? Why isn't this website simple called MoneySupermarket? Something to hide, perhaps?

What was all that bleating by MSE's Paloma Kubiak and Wendy Alcock about misleading?

Monkeyballs

Hi,

This will almost certainly annoy some folk on here but...

About a year ago I entered into a DMP with Step Change and one of my creditors at the time (and still is I should add) is Provident.

At the time they agreed to the terms of the DMP and that no further charges would be applied.

Shortly after, I contacted them to ask if they would remove the front loaded interest* to which I received a reply from CK Edrupt** saying really rather bluntly "No" and suggesting that pressing the matter would potentially result in legal action to recoup the full amount, additional (not specified) fees and that the agreed DMP would be put at risk, etc...

I can remember getting this and thinking oh, I'm still pretty nervous about the whole DMP thing and don't want to rock the apple cart and left it at that.

Back in May this year I got a letter from CK Edrupt & Co telling me that they will no longer be acting on behalf of Provident??? Why would they do that if they are just an internal collections dept. for Provident? It sounds like the debt is being passed back to Provident until a time when they employ another Solicitor doesn't it?

* My last loan, taken while suffering with a gambling problem that my agent knew about was for about £2k of which almost £1k was immediately handed back to repay an outstanding loan which is (so my agent told me) the only way they could lend me another £1k and the interest on the £2k was about £1.5k LOL jeez, I have to laugh or I'd cry through hindsight and a more "normal" mindset...

** If I'd not received a letter from a previously unknown company which was apparently Providents Solicitor then I may have put i a formal complaint at the time... By receiving this letter (which I have annoyingly lost somewhere) I was persuaded to not take an action available to me!

Anyway, I can tell by some of the previous posts on this thread that I'll get some "constructive criticism" but I'm a big lad...

MB

Monkeyballs

SnowTiger wrote: »

Why would it make anyone panic and/or be distressed (more)?

The letter simply says the debt is being passed to a Debt Collection Agency. Are you suggesting someone would panic and/or be less distressed if the latter arrive on Provident headed paper?

Lots of companies and organisations operate under different names.

Take, erm, MoneySavingExpert.com as an example. At the bottom of every page it contains this text:



Why isn't that information proudly displayed at the top of every page? Why isn't this website simple called MoneySupermarket? Something to hide, perhaps?

What was all that bleating by MSE's Paloma Kubiak and Wendy Alcock about misleading?

Hi ST,

If you're already in distress about your financial situation then just getting a letter from a previously unknown source with the mention of being a Solicitor acting on behalf of one of your creditors just adds fuel to the fire and your already muddled mind overthinks!

At least if it came from Provident then you would know who you were dealing with and it's one less set of fingers in the pie...

Like I say, if you've not been in that situation then it won't mean as much to you and can't really be compared to MSE and MSG unless you find that threatening in anyway?

MB

Hanky_Panky

Monkeyballs wrote: »

Could it be that the people posting on here that they don't find anything misleading about this have never been in the position of receiving one?

I'm not saying that I have had one but if I was in severe financial hardship (of my own making or not, remember not everyones situation is the same) and I received this then I would be panicked... Exactly - hopefully into action to do something about it. Why not just send the same on their own headed paper? Why from C K Edrupt & Co, their "solicitor"?

I could perhaps understand if legal proceedings were beginning but passing a debt to a 3rd party debt collector as in this case is just intimidating! It's supposed to be.

Now I have a debt which has been passed to Buchanan Clarke & Wells (not a provident debt) but luckily I'm with Step Change on a DMP but why wouldn't the letter suggest getting debt advice or refer to any enclosed supporting documentation detailing what to do if the person is in financial hardship? Why? Because their hope is that it makes that person think they have to do whatever it takes to get the money. Exactly - what's wrong with that ?

In other words, it's overkill and it's intentionally misleading with intent to cause distress and panic.

MB

So in summary - it's supposed to be an escalation specifically designed to make the borrower 'panic' slightly into actually doing something. Experience shows that often borrowers don't respond to the numerous other letters sent out by the lender (where incidentally they may get all the advice to see a debt advisor) and bury their head in the sand. How many times have you seen that statement on here ?

Hanky_Panky

Monkeyballs wrote: »

Hi,

This will almost certainly annoy some folk on here but...

About a year ago I entered into a DMP with Step Change and one of my creditors at the time (and still is I should add) is Provident.

At the time they agreed to the terms of the DMP and that no further charges would be applied.

Shortly after, I contacted them to ask if they would remove the front loaded interest* to which I received a reply from CK Edrupt** saying really rather bluntly "No" and suggesting that pressing the matter would potentially result in legal action to recoup the full amount, additional (not specified) fees and that the agreed DMP would be put at risk, etc...

I can remember getting this and thinking oh, I'm still pretty nervous about the whole DMP thing and don't want to rock the apple cart and left it at that.

Back in May this year I got a letter from CK Edrupt & Co telling me that they will no longer be acting on behalf of Provident??? Why would they do that if they are just an internal collections dept. for Provident? It sounds like the debt is being passed back to Provident until a time when they employ another Solicitor doesn't it?

* My last loan, taken while suffering with a gambling problem that my agent knew about was for about £2k of which almost £1k was immediately handed back to repay an outstanding loan which is (so my agent told me) the only way they could lend me another £1k and the interest on the £2k was about £1.5k LOL jeez, I have to laugh or I'd cry through hindsight and a more "normal" mindset...

** If I'd not received a letter from a previously unknown company which was apparently Providents Solicitor then I may have put i a formal complaint at the time... By receiving this letter (which I have annoyingly lost somewhere) I was persuaded to not take an action available to me!

Anyway, I can tell by some of the previous posts on this thread that I'll get some "constructive criticism" but I'm a big lad...

MB

What action ?

Monkeyballs

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

So in summary - it's supposed to be an escalation specifically designed to make the borrower 'panic' slightly into actually doing something. Experience shows that often borrowers don't respond to the numerous other letters sent out by the lender (where incidentally they may get all the advice to see a debt advisor) and bury their head in the sand. How many times have you seen that statement on here ?

So it's ok to send an intimidating letter to make someone do whatever it takes to get money to get them off their back?

Regardless of where they get the money?

If someone is in dire financial straits and are being hounded and do not know where to turn, what benefit does a letter like this offer the debtor? None whatsoever.

Remember, this isn't just going to be sent to some scumbag chav who has borrowed money without the intention to pay it back.

I know people bury their heads in the sand, but sending something like this out to someone in debt does nothing to help them deal with their problem or am I missing something here?

It's simply not necessary.

As for what action I might have taken, I have the option to make a complaint to the FOS if I want to (MB grabs crayons and starts drawing a target on his chest).

MB

antrobus

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

Provident are owned by Unum so I am not the least bit surprised at their dirty tricks.

I don't think so.

Provident Financial Plc is a listed UK company. I don't believe it has any connection to the US company also named Provident that merged with UNUM.

tomtontom wrote: »

I don't see anything misleading about that letter if you bother to read it fully. It is from a solicitor, they state their relationship to Provident, and they state that they are referring the case to a debt collection agency. What is misleading about that?

To be honest with you, I thought everybody did this. In the sense that every company chasing unpaid consumer debt had a subsidiary/trading name somewhere under the title 'Bloggs & Co' that was just a front for their recoveries dept. On the basis that sending a letter that looked like it came from a solicitor might persuade some people to actually cough up some money.

British Gas certainly had one. I know because I was once in dispute with British Gas and I had a letter from something like Richard Smith and Co (a trading name of British Gas) threatening all sorts. Which I ignored. So they even phoned me to chase. I said there was a dispute. They said that I'd have to contact British Gas to sort that out. I pointed out that they were British Gas. They terminated the call at that point.

I won in the end as well.:)