CPM ignoring transfer of liability abroad completely (no rejection letter, nothing)

zhonguonuren

If they send 3, I would write a letter saying it is breach of GDPR (not updating their records and using personal data to harass you when you are not liable). Say if it does not stop you will have no alternative but to commence legal proceedings. 

If you do claim, I would only claim for £300 (lower court fee too - just in case you don’t win).   I claimed for £500 and the judge reduced it to £250 (plus costs).  To be fair, it’s not easy to put a value on harassment.  Obviously this is considered at the lower end of the scale.  

D_P_Dance

If you can show that you have been treated for stress by your GP, are receiving counselling for anxiety, prescribed happy pills, and moved into the garden shed, go for the monkey 

paulstevens64

In case the OP is not experienced in Foreign Office Patois: "go for the monkey" is a reference to the sum of £500. A monkey is £500.  The Deep is not suggesting any form of animal abuse.

D_P_Dance

In case the OP is not experienced in Foreign Office Patois

Whether he/she is or not is this is cockney rhyming slang, 

DoaM

Regarding the letter the driver sends ... perhaps they construct it in their native language and also include an English translation (using Google translate)? (Making it clear that Google translate has been used).

Impossibleparker

D_P_Dance said:

If you can show that you have been treated for stress by your GP, are receiving counselling for anxiety, prescribed happy pills, and moved into the garden shed, go for the monkey 

Ok, I keep this in mind. I am curious where this monkey expression comes from? There is not even a £500 note but there is a €500 note. 

Impossibleparker

DoaM said:

Regarding the letter the driver sends ... perhaps they construct it in their native language and also include an English translation (using Google translate)? (Making it clear that Google translate has been used).

That is a very shrewd move indeed. I think I will do that. Maybe also add at the end a sentence like: I demand (or expect) that future communication is made/handled in my native language, the official language of my country.

nosferatu1001

Impossibleparker said:

D_P_Dance said:

If you can show that you have been treated for stress by your GP, are receiving counselling for anxiety, prescribed happy pills, and moved into the garden shed, go for the monkey 

Ok, I keep this in mind. I am curious where this monkey expression comes from? There is not even a £500 note but there is a €500 note. 

https://metro.co.uk/2018/01/10/much-pony-monkey-cockney-rhyming-slang-money-explained-7219427/
most common explanation is that the 500 rupee note had a monkey on it, and so returning soldiers from the old empire could use that to mean 500 pounds. 

D_P_Dance

Does Hobson Jobson offer any explanation, does anyone have a copy?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18796493

henrik777

Johnersh said:

Umkomaas said:

I'd say that, ultimately, they would never take this to court - but there's no need for them to make that decision until years down the track. In the meantime, there's nothing to stop them (nor will it) from harassing, haranguing, intimidating and threatening the keeper in the hope they will at some stage cave and cough. And once the details are loaded into the hopper, it will all be completely automated, no further effort from the PPC (or the debt collector/legals they might employ). 

Well apart from the Court of Appeal authority in British Gas v Ferguson which they should be reminded of, if the correspondence continues.

The courts have made clear that persistent unmeritorious debt collection which disregards responses raised by the recipient can constitute actionable harassment in both the civil and criminal courts. 

Also Harrison v Link Financial

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html

Cumulatively and damningly is what I find to be the way that MBNA and the Defendant went about recovering their debt. I am satisfied that the Claimant's description of the way that he was hounded by his creditors is essentially correct not least in the use of "non-traceable" telephone calls. It seems to me that such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of consumer debt. Whatever the strength of the suggestion that the courts should only be a last resort, I can see no legitimate comparison between a series of measured warnings which, after full opportunity for response, lead to legal proceedings and what took place. Even more is the situation to be deprecated when it was only well into this action that the Defendant was able to comply with section 78 and thus able to pursue a claim. An inability to comply with section 78 can be no excuse for conduct of which it must be supposed the sole purpose must have been to make the Claimant's life so difficult that he would come to heel. I cannot think that in a society that is otherwise so sensitive of a consumer's position this is conduct that should countenanced.