MSE News: NatWest and Halifax caught sending misleading debt demands

Former_MSE_Helen

NatWest and Halifax are the latest firms we've found to have sent misleading payment demands to customers in debt...

Read the full story:

NatWest and Halifax caught sending misleading debt demands




Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

fermi

BOS letter which states their client has instructed them to commence court proceedings and papers are being prepared.

chanz4

so fermi , would you prefer them to put the high extra costs from an external company on your debt or deal with an inhouse one?

rizla_king

Natwest used Triton Credit Services as well.

http://i57.tinypic.com/sy4ln7.jpg

PeacefulWaters

The money is owed.

The letter header says "debt collectors".

The letter gives an opportunity to pay.

A firm or individual who is owed money has recourse to the courts in order to recover that money.

Am I missing something?

ehlo

I find it laughable that MSE is reported on these misleading debt demands now when forum posters have been posting about these in house debt companies since before I was even a member here!

chanz4

latest bandwaggon

matttye

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

The money is owed.

The letter header says "debt collectors".

The letter gives an opportunity to pay.

A firm or individual who is owed money has recourse to the courts in order to recover that money.

Am I missing something?

Just that they're in-house, i.e. in the same office as the banks.

They're intended to make debtors think their debt is progressing towards court or some other further action, when in actual fact it has probably just been passed from one desk to another.

With regards to the Unidebt letter in the article, "The account must be paid in full within 72 hours" is vague and unclear. The obvious response to that is "what happens after 72 hours?" They need to be clear about such things. It's a veiled threat.

PeacefulWaters

matttye wrote: »

Just that they're in-house, i.e. in the same office as the banks.

They're intended to make debtors think their debt is progressing towards court or some other further action, when in actual fact it has probably just been passed from one desk to another.

But this matters why?

They do seek court enforcement of debts, so I don't quite get the "outrage".

matttye

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

But this matters why?

They do seek court enforcement of debts, so I don't quite get the "outrage".

Because the debt hasn't actually been assigned to anyone else, it's still the same company, just masquerading as a different one.

bigadaj

matttye wrote: »

Because the debt hasn't actually been assigned to anyone else, it's still the same company, just masquerading as a different one.

So you'd want to be taken to court by a different company presumably?