Debt collector letter

ziggy81ziggy

TurboTommy wrote: »

See my post above, mate.
Telecoms Ombudsman seemed very interested when I spoke to them regarding this. I'd called them to see if they had any previous correspondence about my complaint re. PO, but they only keep records for 12 months. They asked me to explain the issue and said if I don't get anywhere with PO (now TalkTalk), or any answers from the debt collectors, then they will be happy to take it on for me.

We crossed messages there!

I'm going back on chat to National Debtline to check which Ombudsman I can put on the letter then will just send the complaint as advised.

rizla_king

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/debtcollecting-note.html

collection of debt due under a phone contract fall under the 'utilities' type debt as the are not FCA/consumer credit regulated, but are mere service contracts

FOS will trow the complaint back at you of you try to go via them

sourcrates

Tommy,

That letter is excellent, but don't be surprised, if, as you suspect, a court claim drops on your door mat.

Or the other scenario is the debt will be sold on, or passed around another DCA, so you may have to go through this farse again.

TurboTommy

sourcrates wrote: »

Tommy,

That letter is excellent, but don't be surprised, if, as you suspect, a court claim drops on your door mat.

Or the other scenario is the debt will be sold on, or passed around another DCA, so you may have to go through this farse again.

Thank you sourcrates.

Glad to know that I'm able to write a sensible response off my own back now.
If court papers were to drop on my doormat, do you think that I would have a reasonable case with the evidence of these letters that I have sent? I mean, they have supplied me with no evidence of when this debt is from, what it relates to etc. I don't believe that I have been unreasonable in my requests for information, and my unwillingness to provide personal details to a DCA without being supplied with such information...

sourcrates

TurboTommy wrote: »

Thank you sourcrates.

Glad to know that I'm able to write a sensible response off my own back now.
If court papers were to drop on my doormat, do you think that I would have a reasonable case with the evidence of these letters that I have sent? I mean, they have supplied me with no evidence of when this debt is from, what it relates to etc. I don't believe that I have been unreasonable in my requests for information, and my unwillingness to provide personal details to a DCA without being supplied with such information...

i think a court would take a similar view.

Personally I doubt you'll hear from them again.

TurboTommy

sourcrates wrote: »

i think a court would take a similar view.

Personally I doubt you'll hear from them again.

Hi all,

Just a quick update.
I received a response back, again, from PDCS. Much the same in its message, but rather different in content:

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your recent letter.
Data protection is a legal requirement for us which is why we are extremely diligent when ensuring we are speaking to the intended recipient. Before we can discuss this matter with you we would need to confirm full data protection.

To clarify our position we have been advised by our clients to pursue a Mr **** **** in connection with the supply address of ** ******* *********. We would ask if you can confirm the connection you have with this supply address and your date of birth.

Unfortunately, until data protection is confirmed we would be unable to discuss this matter any further with you. I can confirm that this will be our last correspondence in which we will request data protection from you. If this is not provided, we will be unable to action this accordingly and you may receive further letters and phone calls from us.

If you would prefer to confirm these details via telephone blah. blah. blah.
This matter has now been placed on hold for 28 days for these details to be confirmed.

Somewhat contradictory, in the penultimate paragraph, I thought - They're not going to contact me again, but if I don't respond, they will contact me... Perhaps a little bit threatening in the final sentence of the penultimate paragraph, too.
Also, 28 days for me to confirm my personal details with them - seems very generous given their previous time-demands.

Either way, just as before, they won't be getting any personal details. They have chosen not to respond to the vast majority of the content of my letters... I'm going to go down the formal complaint route with them, using the template linked to earlier in this thread. I've already drafted this out, but I'm in no rush to send it, given I have 28 days!

I've already opened a case with the Telecoms Ombudsman (T.O.), which cannot be actioned until 18th April due to the time that has to have passed since first contact, but by the time that PDCS respond to this, I will have already taken it up with the T.O.
T.O. were very interested in taking this on, especially considering they may well have already battled this one before for me (something which I suspect, but is yet to be confirmed as I have no knowledge of what the debt I am being chased for actually relates to).

If it turns out that this is indeed the same 'debt' as was previously written off as Post Office's error, I'm going to discuss with the T.O. regarding taking further action against Post Office, for passing on a debt that doesn't exist, my harassment from the DCA for months now, and the fact that my personal details have obviously been banded about for no good reason.

TurboTommy

As an aside, I'm still trying to find out when my contract with Post Office actually terminated.
I've downloaded a full copy of my Equifax credit record and there is no mention of any agreement, previous or otherwise (where there is for old phone contracts of years gone by, etc.), or any outstanding debt for that matter.
Given this, I'm considering whether this will already be statute barred anyway - as I don't even have a rough date to go from. It's pretty tough to figure out when there doesn't seem to be anything, anywhere relating to it.

ziggy81ziggy

Hi Tommy,
Thanks for keeping us updated.
I wrote back to PDCS again, telling them that National Debtline has advised that I am under no legal obligation to confirm my personal details and reiterating that the onus is upon them.
Waiting for their response....

TurboTommy

Hi Ziggy,

No problem at all. After the help that I've received, it would be a bit rude of me not to update everyone with how I got on, and hopefully this will help others in a similar situation.

Oh I'm intrigued to see whether they take any notice when it's come from National Debtline... Have you sent them the transcript as proof? I've informed them of this, twice, in my previous letters, but they have ignored it and are hiding behind data protection. Waiting to the end of the month to send my formal complaint letter in reply, seeing as they've been so kind as to give me 28 days to respond :T

Tommy

TurboTommy

Just to keep the thread up to date, so that it doesn't get too far behind, here's a quick update.

Ive sent off my complaint letter to PDCS, as I the information that I have requested has not been provided, so I am unable to investigate whether this debt indeed relates to myself. So far I have seen nothing to say what the debt relates to, or from which date the debt originates, so I am unwilling (and not obliged) to give my personal details when I believe this debt does not relate to myself. I've also complained that the constant letters demanding payment and personal details constitute harassment, and are against the FCA debt collection guidelines (quoted as appropriate).

I have also sent a letter of complaint to the PO. I have stated that I am aware that the apparent debt has been sold on, as informed on the telephone by one of their call-handlers, but there was no debt there to be sold on in the first place. I've complained regarding mistreatment of my personal data, which is now in the circle of DCAs and will lead to constant harassment for payment.

On Monday, I am able to contact the Telecoms Ombudsman again and set the ball rolling with their investigation too. If the debt relates to what I believe it does, then that was written off 5+ years ago as an administrative error by PO, following the Telecoms Ombudsman's original investigation, so I'm extremely confident that they will not be able to convince the Ombudsman that it is a legitimate debt this time around.

I shall update further, as and when.
Tommy