ROSSENDALES - How to deal with them

BenefitMaster

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

Writing two letters is sufficient for a harassment case to proceed.

matttye

HO87 wrote: »

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).

I appreciate the need to nip it in the bud and I do not see a problem with sending back a letter to them in the exact terms set out in the OP. My only issue is with the advice to automatically report harassment after 2 letters to the police without actually taking into account whether the recipient of the letters does feel harassed.

What if the police ask if the person feels harassed by these letters and they say no? That's a waste of everyone's time.

BenefitMaster wrote: »

Writing two letters is sufficient for a harassment case to proceed.

Agreed. However, the person making the complaint of harassment must genuinely feel harassed. Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act says that not only must the person feel harassed, but the offender must know or ought to know that their conduct amounts to harassment (I am simplifying the wording of the law but that's effectively what it says).

There's nothing wrong with making a complaint if you do genuinely feel harassed, but advising people to make a complaint as soon as they receive a second letter - without taking into account their actual thoughts on the matter - is irresponsible.

HO87

Irresponsible? That's a tad strong.

Experience shows that many DCA's choose to ignore all such letters regardless of the fact that they are well aware of the law (knows or ought to know etc) and that harassment need only amount to distress. Not forgetting that, from a legal stand point, in issuing these baseless demands the DCA's take their victims as they find them - the thin skull rule - and cannot in any way anticipate how an individual will react to them.

Which is more irresponsible?

The advice is, I respectfully suggest, issued with a surfeit of caution.

matttye

There's no doubt that DCA's are irresponsible and behave abhorrently, but it's important that they are dealt with properly. Making flippant crime reports is not a good way of dealing with them.

I think emphasis should be put on the fact that someone must feel harassed if they're going to make a crime report about harassment, but aside from that the advice is good.

If people understand that they need to feel harassed, it will help them report the crime in the right way. Emphasis needs to be placed on how it harasses them rather than simply the fact that they have been written to twice.

E.g.:

"I've been written to twice by Rossendales and wish to make a complaint."

This doesn't really get to the crux of the issue and the police might not understand what the actual crime is supposed to be at first.

"I've been written to by Rossendales despite my requests for them to stop, they've provided no evidence that I actually owe any money and I find their letters intimidating and distressing."

Gets to the point a bit more.

Formulating a report in the right way should hopefully reduce the need to demand to speak to senior officers as advised in the OP.

HO87

In order to satisfy the offence there is no requirement that someone need feel "harassed". It is sufficient that they were "distressed".

I am heartened that your experience of the average "front counter" at a police station in 2014 enables the view to be formed that the mere way in which a report of crime is presented will elicit the right response. That is likely to be true in many cases but where slightly unusual matters are concerned sometimes you do need to speak to the right person and that often entails speaking to someone with a demonstrable level of knowledge of the criminal law (not that that always applies with senior officers).

matttye

HO87 wrote: »

In order to satisfy the offence there is no requirement that someone need feel "harassed". It is sufficient that they were "distressed".

I am heartened that your experience of the average "front counter" at a police station in 2014 enables the view to be formed that the mere way in which a report of crime is presented will elicit the right response. That is likely to be true in many cases but where slightly unusual matters are concerned sometimes you do need to speak to the right person and that often entails speaking to someone with a demonstrable level of knowledge of the criminal law (not that that always applies with senior officers).

I would include behaviour that causes alarm or distress in my definition of harassment, but apologies if that wasn't clear.

I see what you're saying but at least going there with the right mindset will get you off on a better footing. You need to feel harassment (or alarm or distress ) and this needs to be made clear to the person you report the crime to. It is not sending two letters that is the crime - it is the harassment that is the crime - and that needs to be made clear.

The initial post does not make that very clear.

wakaday

Received a letter last from Rossendale. I was being chased for a parking 'fine' by Excel/ Roxburghe/ Graham White from an alleged over stay PCN from March 2010. I engaged them with the usual letters , last I heard from Graham White was August 2010, but I'm not planning on contacting Rossendales.
Regarding the important letters to watch out for, what are the LBC , LBA and MCOL (money claim on line?)

Dee140157

The last 3 are all versions of what you may receive actually from the PPC or their real solicitors telling you action is being initiated to take you to court. This is different from the threats saying we will recommend that our client takes you to court.

Under no circumstances should you ignore any of these.

Coupon-mad

wakaday wrote: »

Received a letter last from Rossendale. I was being chased for a parking 'fine' by Excel/ Roxburghe/ Graham White from an alleged over stay PCN from March 2010. I engaged them with the usual letters , last I heard from Graham White was August 2010, but I'm not planning on contacting Rossendales.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663 - OK, I know that thread may start stroppily but shows you what to search for to read other threads.

wakaday wrote: »

Regarding the important letters to watch out for, what are the LBC , LBA and MCOL (money claim on line?)

LBC/LBA = letter before Claim or Letter before Action
MCOL = (money claim on line) yep.

James_N

having received an "aged debt" begging letter from Rossendales Collect, on the same lines as dozens (hundreds) of others, I have chosen to ignore. Each new post delivery disappoints me, since it has the usual bills and statements I actually incurred.

Has anyone received a continuation of the initial "threat".