ROSSENDALES - How to deal with them

BenefitMaster

OK, everyone.

If you get a Rossendales letter, this is what you do.

1) Write back. the letter should say

"Dear Rossendales. This debt is denied. Please return the case to your principal. If I received further correspondence from you I will commence legal action against you for harassment. Yours faithfully"

2) when they ignore your letter and write back, go to the police and complain of harassment, taking all of their letters with you. Don't leave until someone takes your crime report and tells you who your investigating officer will be.

If the guy on the desk says it's a civil matter, ask for the duty inspector, and wait for him to arrive, then complain about the civilian staff misleading a layman.

If he does the same, demand to speak to his Superintendent.

Remember, the Police are your servants, not your masters.

3) forward all rossendales letters from then on to the investigating officer.

There, nice easy steps that anyone can follow.

HTH

BenefitMaster.

matttye

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/1

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—
(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

It wouldn't be hard for Rossendales to argue that it was reasonable to write to you concerning a debt. In fact, a letter is a very reasonable way of discussing an alleged debt and it is something that should be encouraged. Doorstep visits and phone calls should be discouraged in favour of letters.

I think the police would laugh you out of the building and rightly so if you tried to suggest that two letters were harassment.

HO87

matttye wrote: »

It wouldn't be hard for Rossendales to argue that it was reasonable to write to you concerning a debt. In fact, a letter is a very reasonable way of discussing an alleged debt and it is something that should be encouraged. Doorstep visits and phone calls should be discouraged in favour of letters.

Assuming that the existence of the debt has been established and the writing of a letter was not solely based on the word of a cowboy company; that they have the correct recipient and they do not include the sort of mistruths that are rather common.

It also assumes that the recipient of the debt collector's letter does not suffer from some condition that is aggravated by persistent - and therefore unreasonable (from their perspective) demands.

Of course doorstep visits and phone calls should be discouraged but there are few DCA's who appear at all willing to forego those options as means of applying leverage.

matttye wrote: »

I think the police would laugh you out of the building and rightly so if you tried to suggest that two letters were harassment.

We are all entitled to our view and the fact that the police may indeed "laugh you out of the building" does not in any way mean that that is the correct or appropriate approach.

The police are not renowned for their alacrity in formalising reports of offences that place what they view as an undue burden upon their resources.

By writing to the DCA they are being put on notice that their conduct is viewed as harassment by the victim. They cannot then suggest that they were unaware of that and make use of the subsection (omitted from you quote) to escape from - "which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other"


But then there is always the civil approach and Ms Ferguson led the way against British Gas Trading of course.

The_Deep

Writing a couple of letters is not harassment. You might like to do a bit of research on what debt collectors can and cannot do,.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/debt_w/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/harassment_by_creditors.htm

HO87

The_Deep wrote: »

Writing a couple of letters is not harassment. You might like to do a bit of research on what debt collectors can and cannot do,.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/debt_w/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/harassment_by_creditors.htm

But a "course of conduct" must involve conduct on at least two occasions. So, two letters...

matttye

HO87 wrote: »

Assuming that the existence of the debt has been established and the writing of a letter was not solely based on the word of a cowboy company; that they have the correct recipient and they do not include the sort of mistruths that are rather common.

It also assumes that the recipient of the debt collector's letter does not suffer from some condition that is aggravated by persistent - and therefore unreasonable (from their perspective) demands.

Of course doorstep visits and phone calls should be discouraged but there are few DCA's who appear at all willing to forego those options as means of applying leverage.

There's a few assumptions in your first paragraph, so such advice should perhaps be tailored to when those assumptions are actually the position, rather than blanket advice for anyone who receives letters from Rossendales.

Let's not forget that there is an offence of 'wasting police time,' and reporting Rossendales when they are fully entitled to write to you about a debt that you actually do owe, would almost certainly be wasting police time. Especially if you demanded to speak to a superintendent who has far better things to do than take a crime report.

I find it unlikely that most forces would get involved, when you'd be better off complaining to the relevant ombudsman or other authority.

HO87 wrote: »

We are all entitled to our view and the fact that the police may indeed "laugh you out of the building" does not in any way mean that that is the correct or appropriate approach.

The police are not renowned for their alacrity in formalising reports of offences that place what they view as an undue burden upon their resources.

By writing to the DCA they are being put on notice that their conduct is viewed as harassment by the victim. They cannot then suggest that they were unaware of that and make use of the subsection (omitted from you quote) to escape from - "which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other"


But then there is always the civil approach and Ms Ferguson led the way against British Gas Trading of course.

I'm not suggesting that the letter is a bad idea, not at all, simply that bothering the police with it is.

HO87

Quoting slabs of text will make for a very long thread. However:

matttye wrote: »

There's a few assumptions in your first paragraph, so such advice should perhaps be tailored to when those assumptions are actually the position, rather than blanket advice for anyone who receives letters from Rossendales.

Entirely correct. Except that this is advice specifically for those in receipt of letters from Rossendales in relation to private parking charge notices (PCN's). That is why it is on this board.

PCN's are not debts but merely assertions of a debt. In strictly legal terms they are simply "invitations to settle" and don't represent a debt in the same way as an account with a utility company might. PCN's don't become debts until judgment is entered.

Wasting police time? Reporting harassment is not making a false report which is what would have to be proved to get past the D of PP's test.

Appropriate ombudsman? The supervising bodies (OFT and the FCA) - albeit they have only recently taken up a shared responsibility for the field have proved themselves none too willing to take on reported abuses. Making a report to them will result in an exceptionally long silence. It took the OFT over 3 years to get to grips with Roxburghe UK Ltd - and that was after they launched an investigation and suspended their licence in 2011.

And what is wrong with reporting a criminal offence to the police?

matttye

Ignore me, I'm being thick. At least with regards to the legitimacy of their writing to you. I didn't even realise I was on the PCN board - a subject I know little about.

Any dealings I've had with Rossendales usually involve when they're chasing clients of the firm I work for for legal aid contributions.

---

Nothing wrong with reporting a criminal offence to the police, but I stand by what I've said that I think you'd be hard pressed to persuade anyone that it is harassment to receive two letters from a company about an alleged debt.

To make a report of harassment you must actually feel harassed, so advising people to go out and report harassment as soon as they've receive two letters is foolish, as different people will have different thresholds.

Making a report of harassment if you don't feel harassed is making a false report and would qualify for the purposes of wasting police time.

HO87

We're all allowed ignorance. Especially on a Sunday.

Debt collectors are all about harassment (small aitch) and rely on over-topping their victim's tolerance levels so that they will pay up. To suggest otherwise is to indulge in a degree of completely inappropriate intellectual dishonesty.

A PCN represents an unusual type of alleged debt and often the recipients of DCA letters could not by any definition be described as having responsibility in the matter. Sending a letter as soon as possible draws a line swiftly and clearly. Several DCA's have settled out of court for failing to adhere to the contents of such letters in relation to PCN's but I accept that you may be unaware of that.

Reporting the issue is going to depend upon your own tolerance level. Our suggestion is that you demonstrate a zero-tolerance of DCA's who do not have a shining record with regard to the pursuit of PCN debts. Roxburghe is a good example of that and besides misstating the law, using what was purportedly a firm of solicitors when in reality they "rented" a solicitor's name and produce his letters themselves; repeatedly threatened court action but never took it and then used another firm of solicitors who were closed down by the SRA.

And those sort of actions do not amount to harassment?

matttye

I don't disagree with anything you've wrote there. My only concern is the advice in the OP to report the matter to the police after two letters have been received.

If you genuinely feel harassed after receiving two letters then go ahead, but as you and I have agreed, it will depend upon the individual's tolerance level.

You should report harassment when you feel harassed - not when you have received an arbitrary number of letters. I have a feeling the advice is somewhat to "get one over on" Rossendales rather than to forward a genuine complaint of criminal conduct.

HO87

Fair comment.

However, I think you might misunderstand normal operating procedures for DCA's where the level of harassment increases geometrically and is not simply a linear progression. Their conduct does need to be stopped quickly if you are not going to suffer repeated letters (sometimes 2 or 3 a day), telephone calls and text messages (as many as 20 in a day).