Debt litigation question

MrsTinks

Personally I'd send a recorded letter asking them for proof of the debt and making sure it states she denies owing this money an if they believe she does then they need to prove it - make sure she DOES NOT SIGN the letter but just print her name (I'd do it all on the PC personally).
Also point out if they continue to contact her after receipt of this letter unless it is to prove she owes this money then they will be reported to the ombudsman and she will pursue them for harassment charges as they will be in breach

MrsTinks

PS you say they are genuine... I don't suppose someone is just using the details of a known company to try and get money from the lady? Wouldn't put it past some of the shady characters out there...

immoral_angeluk

MrsTine wrote: »

Personally I'd send a recorded letter asking them for proof of the debt and making sure it states she denies owing this money an if they believe she does then they need to prove it - make sure she DOES NOT SIGN the letter but just print her name (I'd do it all on the PC personally).
Also point out if they continue to contact her after receipt of this letter unless it is to prove she owes this money then they will be reported to the ombudsman and she will pursue them for harassment charges as they will be in breach

Completely agree with this. Keep copies of any letters you send or recieve.

Am I the only one who finds it a bit fishy that a 'solicitor' would happily send out letters with poor grammer and spelling? Don't they have proof readers/secretaries to make sure that kind of thing doesn't happen?

kissmeimposh

MrsTine wrote: »

Personally I'd send a recorded letter asking them for proof of the debt and making sure it states she denies owing this money an if they believe she does then they need to prove it - make sure she DOES NOT SIGN the letter but just print her name (I'd do it all on the PC personally).
Also point out if they continue to contact her after receipt of this letter unless it is to prove she owes this money then they will be reported to the ombudsman and she will pursue them for harassment charges as they will be in breach

Mrs Tine, many thanks for this idea. What is the significance of not signing it though? If they ask in court whether she sent the letter she would have to say yes so why refrain from signing it?
Also, is it significant whether this kind of letter is sent before or after they file a claim in court?

immoral_angeluk

kissmeimposh wrote: »

Mrs Tine, many thanks for this idea. What is the significance of not signing it though? If they ask in court whether she sent the letter she would have to say yes so why refrain from signing it?
Also, is it significant whether this kind of letter is sent before or after they file a claim in court?

Because it's not unknown for DCA's and other unscrupulous companies to copy your signature from letters you've signed and then produce a signed document to say you owe the debt. Dodgy, but not uncommon, and you can't argue that it's not your signature.

kissmeimposh

immoral_angeluk wrote: »

Completely agree with this. Keep copies of any letters you send or recieve.

Am I the only one who finds it a bit fishy that a 'solicitor' would happily send out letters with poor grammer and spelling? Don't they have proof readers/secretaries to make sure that kind of thing doesn't happen?

Good point. In fact the recipients name on the letters is actually wongly spelled (though only slightly wrong). We're quite certain that it is a solicitors firm but clearly not an eloquent one. Also fishy is that the letters have only small squigle mark instead of a signature and typed signatue line is always the name of the firm which is not the name of any one person. So even if one was to call up about the debt it would be like phoning a call-centre and relying on what was on the screen of their computer - something very different than being able to phone up and speak withthe specific someone who sent a letter. Ableit, this is not illegal; but it certainly makes it more difficult and distressing for anyone who would want to make clarifications and put something right.

The fact that no individual is willing to put their own true name to any of these letters is striking and does not contribute to confidence about their reliability or reputation. Would a court take this into account if they pursued her through the court system?

LilacPixie

I don't suppose the company is based in west scotland is it???

I know you don't want to name specifics but even if you PM'd one of us the company name.

It is quite common for a DCA to issues letters automatically and take no intelligent account of the particular circumstances of the individuals who are to receive them and who may, as a result, suffer distress out of all proportion to the (perhaps trivial) nature of the alleged debt. Second, in order to heighten their impact, they are commonly given a deliberately deceptive appearance in that they purport to come from an independent firm of solicitors while really emanating from a person who is a salaried employee of the creditor company. Many of these 'companies' also outsource the actual letter writting to offshore companies where english may not be the 1st language.

kissmeimposh

LilacPixie wrote: »

I don't suppose the company is based in west scotland is it???

.

I thought Scotts were reknowned for being honest and ethical. Actually, in this, all the parties are in England.

LilacPixie

AAA the chain of events sounded suspiciously like Buchanan, Clark & Wells. a supposed 'legal' firm based in Strathclyde. in reality they are just a subsidury company of the BCW Group and are just a debt collection agency.

This is my personal favorite letter to be sent in such circumstances.

Dear Sir/Madam

Account no:

You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

I am/we are familiar with the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and consider informing the OFT of your actions.

I/we look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully



(Your Name) Print do not sign

kissmeimposh

Thanks Lilac!! This is very helpful. Can you explain the significance of not signing, and whether sending it by recorded post would be considered equivalent to having signed it and therefore unwise?
Also, if the letters are coming from a genuine solicitors office, then would the OFT collections guidance still apply to them?
Thanks again!
PS- Interesting that the techniques/tactics appear to be common elsewhere, but I'm sure that the letter-writers here are not associated with the 'Strathclyde Three'...mentioned earlier in the thread.