MSE News: 'Halifax, Lloyds TSB and NatWest's fake letters as bad as Wonga's'

Hanky_Panky

sourcrates wrote: »

You are ALL missing the point here.


The companies concerned were writing letters purporting to be from fictitious law firms,
Not necessarily.
at the very least this is mis-representation, at worst, it may be illegal.
Not at all in the way they did it.


In any event, it is poor business practice, and would be frowned upon where similar tactics used in any other industry.
As above - shock horror, lender chases bad debtor asking for payment. 'Hang them ! Hang them all !!'

See above - I think you've missed the point.

fevlo

sourcrates wrote: »

You are ALL missing the point here.


The companies concerned were writing letters purporting to be from fictitious law firms, at the very least this is mis-representation, at worst, it may be illegal.


In any event, it is poor business practice, and would be frowned upon where similar tactics used in any other industry.

Well said and despite what others have said, youve not missed the point.

Creditors cant send letters that could be considerd to be official court documents so why is sending letters to look like they from a legitimate solicitors firm acceptable ?

Ive even had one DCA send me a printed Postcard which simply said "Hay, its Dave, hows things, Please call me"

If I still had them I would be sending them in !

sourcrates

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

See above - I think you've missed the point.

I call a spade a spade, its not about a creditors right to pursue someone for an outstanding debt, what they have done wrong is pretend to be something there not, you may think this is acceptable business practice, I dont, and in the near future I can see the FSA clamping down on such things.
Pretending to be someone you are not is simply mis-leading, and where does it end, what if everyone behaved in a similar fashion, who could you trust ?
Its the tip of the slippery slope, akin to scam emails supposedly from banks, asking you to "verify your details", but actually from some scammer in Nigeria, if it looks real enough, the more gullible and the vulnerable, will fall for it, and could end up getting into a lot worse situation than they already are.
Its simply not right, and such practices should be outlawed.

This is another example of someone claiming to be what there not, do you then think this is also acceptable ?

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/phones/2014/08/beware-cold-callers-pretending-to-be-from-moneysavingexpertcom?_ga=1.205009168.1676863258.1405719003

Thrugelmir

sourcrates wrote: »

Pretending to be someone you are not is simply mis-leading, and where does it end, what if everyone behaved in a similar fashion, who could you trust ?

So when I buy branded goods or products. I should see the Companies name? So not Walls Ice Cream but instead Unilever Ice Cream. and so on and so on.

moohound

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

FTFY - sure some do but most letters go out because the lender isn't hearing back from the borrower. not sure it needed fixing

Also in your case it is appropriate that they continued to write to you as your arrears were getting worse every month - you could easily argue that it was their responsibility to inform you of this. I was fully aware of this I was in a DMP Unfortunately when arrears continue to get worse with no real end in sight There was an end in sight as I am now debt free, as are many who have paid off their debt via this method, see the roll of honour then there is little option for the lender other than to escalate the action taken. Finally people's circumstances change, they might be in a position to pay the full payment now, it's usually the lender who barks loudest that gets paid first.

I hope the Wonga debacle and the publicity associated with letters of this type, prevent other people receiving them.

sourcrates

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So when I buy branded goods or products. I should see the Companies name? So not Walls Ice Cream but instead Unilever Ice Cream. and so on and so on.

In that context no, my point was specifically about the debt collection process, and the fact that some people, who could not afford to pay what was been asked of them, were duped into believing the account was been handled by a solicitor, the very mention of that word to some people is very scary, and if you are in a vulnerable group, you may be frightened into paying more than you could reasonably afford to do so, the very thing MSE campaigns against all the time.
That was my point, and I stand by it.

Killick

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So when I buy branded goods or products. I should see the Companies name? So not Walls Ice Cream but instead Unilever Ice Cream. and so on and so on.[/QUOTE



Unilever are not pretending to be Walls, they ARE Walls There is no deception or intent to deceive.


The use of fictitious Solicitors or Lawyers who do not exist by a creditor in an attempt to scare and apply undue pressure, is a deliberate deception with intent to decieve

Hanky_Panky

sourcrates wrote: »

In that context no, my point was specifically about the debt collection process, and the fact that some people, who could not afford to pay what was been asked of them, were duped into believing the account was been handled by a solicitor, the very mention of that word to some people is very scary, and if you are in a vulnerable group, you may be frightened into paying more than you could reasonably afford to do so, the very thing MSE campaigns against all the time.
That was my point, and I stand by it.

No they were'nt ! Even the supposedly terrible Wonga letters didn't do that - you need to do your research more properly.

Hanky_Panky

sourcrates wrote: »

I call a spade a spade, its not about a creditors right to pursue someone for an outstanding debt, what they have done wrong is pretend to be something there not,
No they haven't - as above, do your research.
you may think this is acceptable business practice, I dont, and in the near future I can see the FSA (the FCA) clamping down on such things. Possibly, but unlikely when nothing wrong has actually happened.
Pretending to be someone you are not is simply mis-leading, and where does it end, what if everyone behaved in a similar fashion, who could you trust ?
As above this has not happened.
Its the tip of the slippery slope, akin to scam emails supposedly from banks, asking you to "verify your details", but actually from some scammer in Nigeria, if it looks real enough, the more gullible and the vulnerable, will fall for it, and could end up getting into a lot worse situation than they already are.
Its simply not right, and such practices should be outlawed.

This is another example of someone claiming to be what there not, do you then think this is also acceptable ?

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/phones/2014/08/beware-cold-callers-pretending-to-be-from-moneysavingexpertcom?_ga=1.205009168.1676863258.1405719003

I do feel a bit sorry for you as like other 'campaigns' on this site you have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. This is possibly one of the reasons vulnerable people like you get 'duped' into things

fermi

--> Shaming of our bully banks: We DID intimidate customers with fake debt collection letters, admit bosses

Update from treasury committee.