What evidence?

haribocrazy

hello.
I am putting together a complaint to the FOS about a claim from Hoist over an old current account. This is not my sons account--what evidence should they supply to prove it is his account?
This has been going on for some years and they have NEVER given any evidence (it really isn't his debt--ironic really, because he owed quite a lot and dealt with it. This is only a couple of £100 and is not his and is causing lots of problems).

We have asked for evidence when it belonged to mkdp and they said that they did not need to supply any. But I don't think thats right.!

Now been sold to Hoist and we have to start all over again. Anyway---would like to know just what they SHOULD supply, so that I can say that they have not.
And are there "official" rules re evidence that I can quote?

many thanks

HappyMJ

haribocrazy wrote: »

hello.
I am putting together a complaint to the FOS about a claim from Hoist over an old current account. This is not my sons account--what evidence should they supply to prove it is his account?
This has been going on for some years and they have NEVER given any evidence (it really isn't his debt--ironic really, because he owed quite a lot and dealt with it. This is only a couple of £100 and is not his and is causing lots of problems).

We have asked for evidence when it belonged to mkdp and they said that they did not need to supply any. But I don't think thats right.!

Now been sold to Hoist and we have to start all over again. Anyway---would like to know just what they SHOULD supply, so that I can say that they have not.
And are there "official" rules re evidence that I can quote?

many thanks

Does it appear on his credit report?

If it doesn't then I'd ignore them. They are just debt collectors. They have no real power to collect on the debt. If the owner of the debt wishes to pursue the debt they would have to start court action and at that point you will deny the debt exists then they need to prove to the court the debt is your sons. They think they can and you know they can't so no debt exists. They'll give up writing letters eventually.

If it does appear on your credit report I'd be demanding they remove it and I'd also write to the credit reference agencies asking them to remove it as well.

haribocrazy

Hi
It did when the previous company owned it. It might again.
We cannot ignore this because it just keeps coming back and appearing on his credit file.
MKPD also said that he had paid £1.00 a couple of years ago to the account and so it was not statute barred. So even if it was his (its not) he would still owm them money.

And I WANT to make this complaint. How dare they do this to people that owe nothing.

HappyMJ

haribocrazy wrote: »

Hi
It did when the previous company owned it. It might again.
We cannot ignore this because it just keeps coming back and appearing on his credit file.
MKPD also said that he had paid £1.00 a couple of years ago to the account and so it was not statute barred. So even if it was his (its not) he would still owm them money.

And I WANT to make this complaint. How dare they do this to people that owe nothing.

The FOS requires you deal with the debt collector first.

Have you responded to any of the letters from Hoist?

They are just trying it on. They all do it. Let them know the debt collector know the debt is disputed and let the CRA's know it is a disputed debt.

fermi

FCA rules. "Where there is a dispute as to the identity of the borrower or hirer or as to the amount of the debt, it is for the firm (and not the customer) to establish, as the case may be, that the customer is the correct person in relation to the debt or that the amount is the correct amount owed under the agreement." 7.14.4

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/CONC/7.pdf

What is sufficient evidence is up to a court if it ever came to that, which it won't, but you can point out that they are in breach of that FCA rule and that NO EVIDENCE has been supplied.

If he paid £1 I assume this was under a CCA request, that although not applicable to ODs in most ways, can be stressed to have been made in belief that it was a way to disprove the company's claim, and not any acknowledgment of the claim or liability.

sourcrates

Hi,


As MJ says, you have to follow the correct complaints procedure before the FOS can become involved, you say you have asked for evidence, and they have denied they must supply any, that is incorrect, they must supply evidence of a debt when asked, if they cant, they should cease all collection activity.

You cannot take someone to court for non payment of a debt, without been able to prove they are liable for that debt, when asked to do so.
You need to complain in writing to the debt collector, they should acknowledge your complaint, as per there own complaints procedure.


They then have 8 weeks in which to settle your complaint, if they don't do this, or you don't agree with there final response, you can then go to the FOS.

haribocrazy

Quick up date.
We did contact the FOS because MKDP have refused to give any evidence of ownership of the debt and have sold the debt on. The FOS do not seem keen on a complaint with MKDP but are happy to take us through a complaint about the original bank who sold MKDP the debt in the first place.
We told Hoist, who bought it from MKDP about the dispute and have a letter saying they will "investigate"--whatever that means.

So--my question--should we pursue a complaint about the bank? We have had no contact with them at all, apart from a letter saying that as my son was saying it was not his account they could not supply details of the account. No problem with them at all really. The problem has always been MKDP, but the FOS has said that the main problem is the bank. I don't really understand why they are saying this, and when we asked they said it was because the bank must have given MKDP the details about my son in the first place. I am not sure that they did--MKDP may have just gone fishing.
Anyway-- has anyone any experience with this sort of complaint??
Many thaks in advance.

National_Debtline

When a debt is passed or sold on by the original creditor the personal details of the liable person will be attached to the debt owed - that is how debt collectors know who to contact. Although I don't have the full picture it may be the case that the FOS have investigated similar issues before and want to go to the source of the problem, rather than deal with the behaviour of MKDP.


The main issue here is the liability of the debt and that is what the FOS appears to be interested in. It is important not to lose sight of your original goal (to get this debt off your son's credit file and draw a line under this matter). That doesn't mean you couldn't raise another complaint about MKDP's behaviour but be careful not to detract from what the FOS is able to help you with.


Laura
@natdebtline