is it time for fun games...

stator

trisontana wrote: »

"Having taken the above into consideration I am able to up hold your complaint and to confirm we are no longer instructed on this"

Does that mean they are disentangling themselves completely from ZZPS . Or just for this case?

Just that one case, from what I read

enfield_freddy

they are solicitor's and know how easy it is to be reprimanded by the SRA , they have been in business for a long time and know being reprimanded or even taken to court would hurt there core business, which is as a general solicitor's , with this motoring thing taking only a small %of there time

The_Deep

Mud sticks, and we can throw a lot of it in their direction.

HO87

[FONT=&quot]One really has to ask quite how much due diligence WH conducted when taking instructions from ZZPS? After all aren't solicitors supposed to "know" their clients?

The simplest of searches [FONT=&quot]sh[/FONT]ould have thrown up their erstwhile client's connections with the DCA's - Roxburghe UK Ltd and HFO. Roxburghe went into administration late last year after having their DCA licence renewal refused by the OFT following a three year investigation. Whilst that decision is subject of an appeal the reasons for the refusal by are made clear in the OFT's press release at the time:

The OFT found evidence of misleading and unfair practices in the businesses' operations, including:

[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]sending debt collection letters which misrepresented debtors' legal position[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]misleading and otherwise inappropriate behaviour by HFO and Roxburghe agents during phone calls to debtors[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]failing to properly investigate disputed debts[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]failure to respond appropriately to the concerns of regulators, including the OFT.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This was topped off by a quote from the OFT's Senior Director for Consumer Credit:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

'We expect businesses in the debt collection sector to behave with integrity and treat their customers fairly and transparently. We will not hesitate to refuse to license debt collection businesses that fail to do so.'

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Is it, therefore, wholly unreasonable to conclude that it was the OFT's view that Roxburghe (as well as HFO) had acted without integrity and that its dealings with its customers were neither fair nor transparent? It would seem that they paid scant regard to the OFT's concerns if they failed to respond appropriately to them. Not perhaps how one might wish a client to behave?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The full press release is here[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Over the years Roxburghe used the "services" of three law firms to send escalated debt collection letters to the more intractable debts/recalcitrant debtors. It has been known for some time that letters in the name of Graham White & Co (operated by Michael Sobell) were actually produced by Roxburghe themselves and calls to GW's numbers appeared to have been diverted to Roxburghe's office for some reason.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When GW's disappeared into the woodwork a new player, GPB Solicitors of Stratford, took up the cudgels and letters from them soon took up where Sobell had left off, or or least where his letterheads had. Although the telephone number on GPB's letters bore a Stratford code calls again seem to have been answered at Roxburghe Towers and the typeface and format of letters was otherwise identical to the format of GW's version. Coming to the conclusion that all that GPB were doing was supplying a front for Roxburghe to use - as GW had done before them - was inescapable.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Not long afterwards GPB were closed down by the SRA - for matters that were ostensibly unconnected with Roxburghe. A third solicitors stepped in only a short time before Roxburghe lost their licence and there matters came to a halt.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Whither WH? Perhaps they need to read their own website, specifically on their debt recovery page - http://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/expertise/debt-recovery/ where, at the bottom of the page, in the Knowledge & Insight section the headline - "Closure of Geoffrey Parker Bourne Solicitors, Stratford upon Avon" is reported together with advice for those that might have been affected by the closure.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Perhaps they might like to take up the cases of those poor recipients of letters from GPB, or was it Roxburghe?[/FONT]

Sam_Fallow

We did send a letter to the SRA who said

We protect the public by focusing on the most serious issues we receive. We treat every complaint with considerable care but not every allegation is investigated further by us.
Whilst we are not taking further action at this time, your information is very important to us. It can be used, with reports from other sources, to identify trends and behaviour. This may result in follow-up action in the future - so please be assured it has been kept on record.

They also said that if we didn't receive a satisfactory resolution from the solicitors to then report to the Legal Ombudsman.

As we feel that WH have responded to our satisfaction that no further action is necessary. But I would suggest that anyone else in a similar situation follow the same route and hopefully achieve the same outcome on an individual basis and who knows, they may drop ZZPS altogether.

Derek2

Hi Sam, would you please be able to share your templates over PM? I have received the Right Hassle threat letter and want to follow your lead here

Sam_Fallow

pm sent.


Just to update this, we've received no notice of cancellation on this final ticket so out of curiosity I went to the iwanttopaymypcn.net website and put in the reference number. It came back saying they were 'waiting for the issuing company to provide details'.

Wonder what that implies?

I also checked the status of the other tickets which said they had been dropped.