Hi Everybody, For anybody who is interested, Ruthbridge have a new Collections Manager (Rob), who used to be the Operations Manager for DLC. Mick Mcevoy who was known as Brian Blair has been removed from the company (about time). I would direct any of your complaints regarding both companies directly to Rob, you may get more respect from him than has previously been the case with others and he will certainly know the correct legal and compliant answers to any of your queries and obviously has a direct link with DLC. ITK

Just the sort of comment that I would expect. Thank you for maintaing my faith. ITK

Hello all, Obviously my knowledge of this business and how it works spans from both ends of the scale. I have posted previously both 'for and against' practices by DCA's, but it is always blatently obvious to me that this type of forum is always about people who do not have the slightest conception of how a DCA operates and how reliant they are on information supplied by a creditor and consequently all it really is, in this type of instance, is a place for debtors to hear what they want to about how to avoid facing up to their responsibilities. You can be as offensive as you wish to be, but at the end of the day, without having the background knowledge of various cases and the truth behind what some consumers allegations are (which are normally of course completely one sided) you actually have no right to spout what is wrong and right because you have no conception of how the law works, how compliant DCA's in the norm have to be and yes of course I accept that a lot of them are not (but ceratinly not all, although it is the nature of the beast to be tarred with the same brush) and to this end the forum just turns in to an area to have a moan about whatever you want to and the creditor or DCA, due to compliance, does not have a right to respond. Can you possibly imagine what it would be like if there was a forum designed for creditor's and DCA's who were able to respond with their own point of view on all of the cases complained about in these forums, you would be amazed at the information that consumers to do not tell you about because they do not want to be put under the spotlight, they only state what makes them look hard done by (naturally). There is always two sides to every story, but in reality and according to most on this forum, there is in fact only one side which is of course the one that is right and with views which can't possibly be wrong about anything. Everybody who asks for help is normally in trouble with debt and whilst I again accept that there are some who genuinely need good advice, for the most part and from what I have derived from this forum, they do not always get it because all you seem to want to do is to put consumers in a position whereby they create more problems for themselves than they are looking for. Nobody is above the law regardless of whether you are the accuser or the accused, both sides are equally liable to abide with what the law of the land states and whilst you may not agree with it and think you know better, your judgment is not material because it doesn't matter what you think and I'm afraid that you are stuck with that. What am I in the know about? More than you can possibly imagine and at least I do not have the arrogance to be so completely short sighted, single minded and blinkered. ITK

Oh look, peolple are passing opinions, according to some this is not what the forum is for. I am pleased that you recognise the naievity of consumers, but note that your interpretation of the truth seems to flount high court judges decisions. Do you really think you know better than they?? I don't and I am sure that none of you do either. The companies to which I refer, are all [problem] artists and the naievity in consumers who pay them good money to release them of their liability is frightening. Whilst of course I accept that a CCA should be legally binding, I do not accept that consumers willingilly sign contracts without the knowledge of it's legality. Everybody who applies for credit just wants the money and that is obviously the truth, yet the onus is always on the lender to prove that it is owed and not on the consumer to prove that they owe it. As I stated previously, it's always ok to spend, but nobody really likes having to pay it back do they? The argument is a no brainer really isn't it. You signed an agreement, or applied on the internet without a signature, you were supplied with credit, you agreed to terms and conditions, you spend the money and then you pay it back......oh no you don't, you ignore the terms and conditions and try not to pay instead. Give me a break! ITK

Oh dear, have I hit a nerve! Surely anybody who posts on this forum does so with their own opinions don't they? Some people just do not like hearing the truth of matters becuase it makes them feel guilty; strange then that it is ok for companies who do try to get you out of your agreement are greeted with open arms simply because they all tell you what you want to hear. Please explain why cca issues are always the responsibility of the creditor?...anybody who has signed an agreement is an idiot if they have not read and understood the content firstly and all of you have your own copy of that agreement and yet you request another one just in case you can argue that without it you don't have to go to court to repay the money which you spent. When you sign on the dotted line, YOU are agreeing to repay the debt, not just spend the money without knowing how you are going to repay it. Thank the lord that unsigned reconstituted agreements are now legally acceptable in a court of law. That is where the real and only opinions that matter will take place. This type of discussion is only acceptable to those of you who wish to avoid payment and that is the truth. And Gemspan, nobody has mentioned anything about DCA's who are chasing you for debt which you do not owe, why would you bring that up? Hypocrisy is the height of arrogance, don't you think?

Hi everybody, it's been a while. Thre has been a great deal said about CCA case law and the wrongs and rights of morals. The fact that anybody challenges a CCA (s77/78) issue with the sole intention of trying to get out of paying their debt, is simply wrong. For those of you who have been informed by all of these company leaches who incorrectly advise you of what they can and will do for you to ensure you do not have to repay your debt, you are being conned, which is easy of course when you are being told exactly what you want to hear. Regardless of what those of you state who claim not to be trying to get out of paying, well, you are really, as you would not be challenging anything otherwise would you (please don't lie to yourself). If you spend the money, (including all of you crooked solicitors out there who are just as bad as anybody else and you know who you are don't you), then repy your liabilities. Most creditors or DCA's will be empathetic, but the more you try to delay paying for no good reason, the harder you will eventually find it to strike an amicable deal and it will cost you all a great deal more in the end. Just grow up and face the problem rather than trying to spend somebody else's money with the intention of not paying it back...other's pay for your ineptitude. ITK

Hi all, As Experto Credite, have only recently (in past 7 months) entered in to this type of market and because it is their investors who have purchased this type of debt, they are striving to and indeed are obligated to ensure that their investors are happy that they are seen to do the very best possible job they can. This includes a required high standard of compliance, which is all important to such an investor, a training programme for their collectors which is both informative and apparently highly regarded in the industry already, is by the book and teaches the importance of empathy as well as that of not only listening, but also in taking the correct course of action for the consumer rather than simply their own company and certainly not treating calls as a personal campaign, which many of the other agencies out there do as a matter of course. Experienced collectors will also be retrained by this company if it is thought that poor previous traits have been brought to the company from previous DCA's and when they inform a consumer that any given dispute will be investigated, it will be acted upon swiftly as long as the consumer is compliant in supplying full details as to what the dispute relates. Expert Credite will not demand that which a consumer cannot afford and indeed as I understand it, they will quite happily comply with previous arrangements made by MBNA in relation to instalment programmes and indeed as long as a financial breakdown (standard requirement of course) is supplied, they are quite willing to reduce a previous monthly arrangement without it being a problem should disposable income be in the negative. Nominal instalments via the CAB or Debt Management Agencies are also accepted without question as long as the consumer contacts the company to supply any ID ref number so that Experto can contact the said DMA to advise of their interest in the said DMP and that the DMA is given the correct info from the consumer that instalments should be redirected accordingly. The collectors will be polite in discussing your debt and infact face sanctions should they be found to be non compliant in any way. Calls are recorded and listened to on a daily basis by a quailty control department and even the smallest non compliant error, whether it be an OFT or company breach, will be stamped upon. There is also a collections support team in place which constantly updates files and queries and has a direct link with MBNA, allowing them to ensure that disputes and required documentation are followed up on a regular basis. This does not always mean that the consumers required response is faster than normal however, as Experto obviously has to rely on the vendor to respond at speed also. Nevertheless, it is obviously in the companies and their investors favour, to ensure that disputes are dealt with in the most efficient manner possible. I am also informed that they have a returns policy which in effect allows the company to return debts to MBNA if it is found that previous agreements between the consumer and the vendor prior to purchase have been acted upon inappropriately by the vendor. On many occasions the collection agency is tarred with the same brush as previous agencies, or, in this case, as the vendor and this alone can make it difficult if a debtor contacts an agency with the attitude that they are ready for an argument due to previous treatment. Nobody wants debt and nobody wants to be treated like a moron, but in reality, all debtors want whatever help they can get because burying your head in the sand or spending money on attempting to evade your debt simply does not work. Are Expert Credite leading the way in a new era of debt rcovery? Probably a bit strong to say that I guess, but they appear to starting off on the right foot, so why not give them the benefit of any doubt. If I am wrong about them, I am sure somebody will let me know. Hope this gives you food for thought. ITK

Varde Investments own the debt. Experto Credite are the Asset Managers acting on their behalf. MBNA have made obvious errors in the wording of their correspondence, but again Experto have no control over this. Hope this helps. ITK

If the NOA you relate to is the 'Goodbye' letter issued by MBNA, then this is their error and not that of Experto Credite, if the NOA relates to the 'Hello' letter from Experto sent to all debtors, then the debts have simply been passed to Experto by Varde Investements. With this I see no problem. You are incorrect by the way that anybody working at Experto Credite ever 'headed up Ruthbridge'. That company has always been under the ownership of he who will not be mentioned.. (I don't want to be rude). Stefan Russell, who you are obviously referring to, was the Sales Manager there in the past, but he made the intelligent move of releaving himself from that motley crew. Finally the text you have quoted does not state that Experto Credite have/does purchase debt. It states that their knowledge along with financial backing puts them in a strong position in this field...this may or may not be true, but all it means is that as managers of debt 'purchased' by the 'financial backing company' (Varde Investements) they have the required experience to be able to deal with purchased debt. Hope this clarifies things for you. ITK

No, that was an error. Even I make them sometimes, but only sometimes. ITK

Yes, Defaults will if ness be re issued after they have expired, but this is still often on a regular basis due the persistant defaulting of a consumer who may have temporarily rectified a defaulted position only to stray back in to the same scenario. As a matter of interest, some of you obviously believe that I work for for Experto Credite. For the record, I do not. I retired form the debt recovery world some time ago, but this does not mean that I do not keep in touch with what goes on and with who and my personal contacts are many. Whilst Paul Thompson and Stefan Russell are still pivotal players at the company, I am informed that the Norwegian connection also relays a hefty clout these days. And again for the record, nothing on their website nor in their correspondence, states that Experto have purchased any debt portfolios. You can read any text and decide what it's content means yourself, but in the case of 'Pumpytums', you are simply reading it the way you want it to sound for your own purpose. Please just accept that you are incorrect in this matter. As for my change of heart...it has not changed in the slightest, but I am old enough and wise enough to know that some of the Debt Recovery Agencies out their do stink and some simply do not. Many break the law and ignore OFT guidelines and get away with it, some walk a thin line. In my view, for what it is worth, this company appears to be trying to set the trend straight rather than making it more anti consumer. Happy New Year to you all. ITK

(And yes, the word was misspelt on purpose). ITK

Dear Scarlet Pmpernel & Pumpytums, firstly, acquisition does not mean purchase..it mean to acquire..not the same thing at all..Experto do not purchase debt..secondly, if you have read any of my previous entries you would be well aware that I treat everybody on this forum with the intelligance they deserve. Just because the debt recovery industry doesn't have the greatest reputation in the country, this does not mean that they are all 'monkeys' as I believe somebody has quoted. Some of them are happy to treat consumers like human beings and discuss cases on their merit, unfortunately, the consumer fails to want to see it this way when it is them that has to find the money to repay that which they had originally glady spent. So many consumers are happy to pay the real monkeys fees, the ones that attempt to convince you that agreements may not be enforceable and so should not be paid back. 99.9% of credit agreements can be enforced and for the most part, neither a creditor nor a collection agency actually wants to enforce the debt, they simply want there money back and they expect that because you have agreed to repay a debt, that you will do so. It is at this point that the consumers morals fly out of the window so to speak. For those of you who actually wish to deal with your debt situation rather than evading it, which is quite a different and very serious position to place yourself in, all I am saying is that you will do much worse than to speak to this particular collection agency...that is if you have 'a modicum of intelligance ' of course. Kind Regards ITK

Hi all, Firstly, please note that Experto Credite will do their best to solve your dispute, but they do have to refer back to the vendor (MBNA) and this is time consuming. It is correct that cases are placed on hold until MBNA respond, but normally the cases sold by MBNA in this scenario are logged on their own system as having been resolved. Secondly, I do not believe that it is actually illegal to sell an account whilst in dispute, but the vendor should certainly inform the purchaser in such cases. Default notices can be issued on a regular basis and it does not have to be the case that the consumer has received it for it to be valid. i.e if you have moved to another property and mail is not forwarded on, the creditor only has to confirm that the default notice was issued, not necessarily received by you, but simply that it was issued. Kind Regards ITK

Hi, just to let you all know; Experto Credite do not purchase debt, but rather act on behalf of a company of investors who do. MBNA have written to all account holders who's debts have been sold on and Experto Credite have in turn written to the same consumers confirming that they act on behalf of the new assignees. This does not mean that you have received the correspondence, but rest assurred that the letters have non the less been sent. The Experto correspondence does not state that 'they' have purchased the debt. With regards to client ref numbers, ie the original card number to which debts relate..MBNA supplied Experto with a number which they used to replace the original one in order to remove the debts from their ledgers, apparently this is the only way they could incorporate the removal of same from their system. Experto have since been supplied with the correct numbers and will happily supply you with the same if you give them a call. You should note that this particular Collections Company is very strong in compliance matters and they will endeavour to help you in which ever way they can, unlike many others which we all know about. You should find negotitaion with this company quite straight forward also as their training standards are high and they will not harrass you or attempt to force you in to payments you can't make. I know it is un usual for me to give a thumbs up to to a Debt Rcovery Company, but this one should not pose you any problems. Good Luck ITK