Text from "Opos Limited" - should I get in touch?

lewisa

Ignore everything except letters that drop through your door. If or when you get a letter respond in writing.

Under no circumstance speak to a DCA verbally, ever. They will not think twice about falsifying notes about what has been said and it is important that should it come to it you are able to refute any !!!!!!!! they give an ombudsman or court about non existent phone calls that never happened by stating categorically that you never spoken to them verbally.

Id adopt that stance with any billing issues with utility companies as well as they are just as likely to feed lies about phantom phone calls to an ombudsman and the courts.

MataNui

Arleen. They cant send court papers to an address they know the debtor is not resident at. Any judgment gained by doing so would be set aside on request.

Arleen

MataNui wrote: »

Arleen. They cant send court papers to an address they know the debtor is not resident at. Any judgment gained by doing so would be set aside on request.

Yea they can, more than that - they have to, as they must provide with last known address of the debtor when filling in court paperwork. Whether it's up to date, or will the person receive it is not their, or courts, problem - only if this is the last address provided to them.

GingerBob_3

OP, personally I wouldn't have called them, but given that you did, you handled it correctly thereafter. Under no circumstances should you divulge any personal details to scum. That is standard practice. You deal with these people in a "robust" manner, which is how - apparently - they like to describe their approach. Bloody low lifes!


They are doing exactly what someone above suggested; fishing for some gullible sod to pay up for fear of a doorstep visit.


Incidentally, in the case of doorstep visits you order them off your property without discussion - standard practice again.

GingerBob_3

Arleen wrote: »

Yea they can, more than that - they have to, as they must provide with last known address of the debtor when filling in court paperwork. Whether it's up to date, or will the person receive it is not their, or courts, problem - only if this is the last address provided to them.

I believe this is right, and it's a major shortcoming in the law as it stands. I think I read recently that the government is addressing the problem, mainly as a result of that other bunch of scum - private parking companies - exploiting the loophole.

GingerBob_3

MataNui wrote: »

Arleen. They cant send court papers to an address they know the debtor is not resident at. Any judgment gained by doing so would be set aside on request.

I guess this is also right. If they know it is not the right address then their actions would be verging on illegality.

Arleen

GingerBob wrote: »

I guess this is also right. If they know it is not the right address then their actions would be verging on illegality.

You guess, that part is correct. They do not have any obligation to verify the address or any actual means to do it besides trying to contact the debtor about it. So if you have provided them with a wrong address it is your problem as you will not receive court letters.
The solution for that is incredibly simple, keep all accounts with your current address, and when you move make sure to set up mail forwarding. The alternative would be for them to provide no address at all to the court (in that case where they know that the address is wrong), and I fail to see how it would be any better, as it introduces the murky waters of debt collection agencies trying to determine whether address is "bad".

lewisa

Arleen wrote: »

You guess, that part is correct. They do not have any obligation to verify the address or any actual means to do it besides trying to contact the debtor about it. So if you have provided them with a wrong address it is your problem as you will not receive court letters.
The solution for that is incredibly simple, keep all accounts with your current address, and when you move make sure to set up mail forwarding. The alternative would be for them to provide no address at all to the court (in that case where they know that the address is wrong), and I fail to see how it would be any better, as it introduces the murky waters of debt collection agencies trying to determine whether address is "bad".

Doesnt alter the fact that the CCJ can be set aside and further that if the company made an error such as not updating an address when they should have that you can take action to recover your losses ie the £255 fee for the hearing.

Arleen

lewisa wrote: »

Doesnt alter the fact that the CCJ can be set aside and further that if the company made an error such as not updating an address when they should have that you can take action to recover your losses ie the £255 fee for the hearing.

Actually That alone will not be enough to get CCJ set aside. Even if they did use a wrong address in error (and let's assume this as absolute truth for this example that is beyond a reasonable doubt) you will still need to have a valid defence as to why you do not owe the money, as clerical errors do not change the fact that you owe it.
And if you do not owe it, then set aside will be granted, regardless of any delivery circumstances.

lewisa

Arleen wrote: »

Actually That alone will not be enough to get CCJ set aside. Even if they did use a wrong address in error (and let's assume this as absolute truth for this example that is beyond a reasonable doubt) you will still need to have a valid defence as to why you do not owe the money, as clerical errors do not change the fact that you owe it.
And if you do not owe it, then set aside will be granted, regardless of any delivery circumstances.

Sorry, I forgot that being beyond reasonable doubt was an important factor in civil litigation.

Back in the real world, it was enough for me to get one set aside when it was a valid debt that was enforced at the wrong address, the original judgement will still be set aside to provide the debtor chance to pay within the 28 day timeframe of a new hearing.

You need to be friendlier to the judge mate and cut out the reasonable doubt Rumpole of the Bailey nonsense, it can work wonders.