Which debt collection agency's address is the one on the claim form?

So, set up by the very government that used underhand tactics to send these guys into a war that was none of our business !

No, it was a Labour government who sent us into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Leigh Day, one of the worst law firms involved in this, have given a good deal of money to the Labour Party, and also have a very close relationship with Emily Thornberry, the most ridiculous shadow Defence Sec imagineable, who has gone on record as saying she doesn't have a problem with it.

The other gang, Public Interest Lawyers, run by the odious Phil Shiner, also proclaim their socialist principles. They have such low morals, they make Lowell look like paragons of virtue.

Hi

Since the CAB 'Uncivil Recovery' article posted many years ago, they have taken the stance of accepting the easiest option. Get rid of the complainant!

 

It was CAB that got involved in the 2012 case where a retailer got spanked so why have they changed tack?

I don't think they've changed tack.

I suspect that this type of bad advice is down to some of the individuals who volunteer at CAB getting it wrong. Unhelpful and doesn't reflect well on CAB, but given the pressure on CAB, and the range of subjects they give advice on, I'm not surprised that they don't always get things right.

They've still not provided any evidence to back their assertion.

I'd have asked them for documentary evidence of the CCJ, and evidence that the judgment shows that payment is to be made to them rather than the OC, absent which (if a ccj exists), they can swivel.

The claimant is Retail Loss Prevention Ltd and their solicitors are listed as Shakespeare Martineau. I've no idea of their locus standi but there it is.

I wonder if RLP are doing what MIL Collections have started doing with private parking; assignments of debts that are based on speculative invoices (and so don't really exist), then bringing court claims. MIL never turn up to court and lose any defended claim, but I imagine the number of people intimidated into paying makes it worth while. It sounds like the sort of scheme that would appeal to La Lambert.

As I recall, the judgments that RLP crowed about on their website were almost all related to employee theft cases - but the claims were issued by the retailers.

I'd be inclined to accept the offer, though I understand completely that it doesn't really meet your expectation. However, I think that it would be unrealistic to expect a court to award more if FOS says that £500 is reasonable in the circumstances.

I do know something about security clearances, not least because I have one, and have been involved in assisting staff who needed to be cleared but who had financial difficulties. In my experience DBS NSV are usually quite helpful if they have all the information; I'd be surprised if they saw this as a problem if they had all the facts (except for DV, when they'd probably want to investigate further), and the individual rather than the employer/sponsor was dealing with them direct. What is clear is that FOS obviously don't know how security vetting works, in that once granted (at least up to and including SC), it's not usual for it to be reviewed until renewal, so it's normal for someone to have a valid clearance whilst a DCA is busy trashing their credit file; it only becomes an issue at renewal.

What makes me angry about cases like this is that for companies like Lowell, £500 is small change, and will do nothing to make them change their ways. Sloppy administration has long been one of the hallmarks of the debt industry, and FOS should be taking action to make them remedy their shortcomings.

my daughter is a nurse and was admitted into hospital twice last year. Once on a friday night, the other a saturday. Consultants and Dr's working? Actually no. On both occasions she had to wait until the following week to be seen. Didnt bother her, she expected it. You can say what you like about Dr's at weekends in a hospital, no Dr there to hear you

Utter nonsense. There is a difference between a patient not being seen and no doctors working. Even in the most hard-pressed NHS hospital there will be appropriate staff on duty; often they have to prioritise their work, so that patients with the greatest clinical need may be seen whilst those with less need may have to wait.

But enough of this; stick to the topic now, please.

They called on Christmas Day? Are you sure? Getting staff to work on a bank holiday when they are legally entitled to a day off is to say the least, surprising.

 

 

I would have phoned them back and had a chat regarding the legality of forcing the staff to work. Like something out of the Victorian era! Maybe they run a workhouse?

I feel quite sure that everyone who was working on flood relief over the Christmas period, and nurses, doctors, paramedics, firefighters, police officers, soldiers, sailors, and airmen would have been glad of your intervention to stop their bosses making them work! And what of the volunteers, like the RNLI, Community Responders and Samaritans, who give up their own time to help others - should they not do so because it reminds you of the Victorian era?

On the other hand, many I know volunteer to work over Christmas, either because they are paid more, or because it suits their personal circumstances.

As for debt collectors, they will be getting paid for it.

How would the credit know that there are zero assets?

 

 

I think it is morally acceptable to want proof of death and a signed statement from, for example, the Executor. Not owning a house is easily checked but many persons have life assurance and, if they do, then surely that should be used to clear debts?

 

 

As I said, if someone owed me money I wouldn't simply accept their word and 'write it off'. Why should we expect creditors to do that?

This thread is about someone who died intestate. Why you are now seeking to mislead everyone by going on about executors is unclear and unhelpful.

A life assurance/insurance policy is not legally required to be used to pay of debts, because the money belongs to the named beneficiary, not the estate. That is rather the point of it, after all.

As to notifying creditors of the death, that is not unreasonable; but why should those left behind have to incur cost to satisfy some company's internal procedures? Deaths are a matter of public record, so if a company wishes to have a copy of the death certificate for their own purposes, they can easily obtain one. Quite why they should seek to harass the bereaved for something they can so easily do themselves is beyond me.

If there is an estate, then once priority debts have been settled then creditors can make a claim in the usual way.

You'll forgive me for saying this, but you do seem to have a somewhat naive view of the financial industry. They are in it for profit, and nothing else. When a creditor lends money, they do not do so for some philanthropic reason, but because it will make them more money. There is no moral component to the industry. They know that when lending money they take a risk that it won't be paid back for one reason or another, and they take precautions against it. If you look around CAG, you will see that almost all the debt litigation is not begun by lenders, but by parasitic debt purchasers who pay pence in the pound for delinquent accounts. The original creditor has already written the debt off, and claimed the full amount against tax. They may not have made as much as they would have done, but they have not lost.

At a lower level, those who work in the industry who ask the bereaved to pay debts they do not owe are almost invariably doing so because they will make a commission from it.

I feel no sympathy for the financial industry; it's a necessary evil, but not something to lose sleep over, and certainly not something the bereaved should feel any moral responsibility toward.

I was thinking about RLP the other day; it's a few years now since their name started to appear on this forum.

Our advice has never wavered, and we've seen that the only time a retailer tried court (perhaps on RLP's recommendation, given that they were in court)

in a properly defended case, the retailer lost and RLP's claims were shown to be baseless.

Then there was the Law Commission's report, that said that companies in the 'civil recovery' industry, of which RLP is the largest,

used 'misleading and aggressive' practices. We've seen ACPO instruct RLP not to pretend that a relationship exists between them when it does not.

It struck me that after all this time, RLP is still essentially a one-woman backstreet speculative invoicing operation.

After all the risible suggestions of police investigations and the spurious attempts to blacken CAG's name,

I remain of the view that a narcissistic personality is involved.

Could this be the reason why RLP as a business doesn't appear to have grown much.

A look at its accounts shows that its turnover is very small - less than £500k - but with 'debtors' at almost £250k.

I wonder if all the speculative invoices are added into the 'debtors' column

- perhaps a forensic accountant may have a view on whether debts that don't really exist can be included.

Maybe that's why it hasn't been snapped up by a company like Capita, who bought Parking Eye, and run TV Licencing,

so aren't averse to speculative invoicing and a spot of intimidation (just my opinion, of course).

So whilst La Lambert's need to control and sense of invincibility may play a part (as evidenced by her obvious involvement in cases - doesn't she have people to do it?),

it may just be that it's simply not much of a business. It probably keeps her and the other director, the luridly-named Rhianna-Jade Lambert, in Mercedes, but a big player it's not.

In summary, then - nothing to be afraid of - just a rather unpleasant woman who chooses to make her money in a rather unsavoury

- but entirely legal - way.

e that you are aware of the fact that debt collection agencies are not allowed to do the following ten things:

 

They cannot call you over and over repeatedly. Debt collection agencies are not allowed to keep calling and having your phone ring over and over until you pick up.

They cannot call you at odd hours. It is legal for debt collection agencies to call you between 8 am and 9 pm (your local time) Monday through Saturday and between 1 pm and 5 pm (your local time) on Sundays. ]

 

NOTE:_ They aren’t allowed to call outside of those hours and they aren’t allowed to call you on official holidays. So if you get a call from a debt collection agency at midnight on Christmas then you have the right to force them to not do that anymore.

 

They cannot threaten you. Debt collection agencies are not allowed to make threats. They can’t say that they’ll sue you when they don’t intend to do so. They cannot threaten to tell your employer or your friends or anyone else about your debt problems.

They cannot speak to you using abusive language.

 

If you are ever on the phone with a debt collection agency and they begin to swear at you, call your names or otherwise speak to you abusively then you should hang up. You should immediately put in writing what happened and send it to the management of the agency.

They cannot talk to other people about your debt. Debt collection age

 

If it was me I send a complaint to the FCA/ etc etc etc giving date /time/ and their company name. also their organisation of debt collectors etc should be told, and your MP if they are of any worth should step in.

 

 

Frt info:-

 

Debt collection is big business. A staggering 20m cases, worth a total of £12.7bn, were passed to debt collectors last year alone.

worried women looking at statement

Anxious times: Complaints have streamed in from distressed victims of debt collectors

Debt collectors typically earn between 10% and 50% of the money collected.

 

But complaints from distressed victims of these firms have soared. Watchdog the Office of fair Trading (OFT) was swamped with 11,180 complaints last year, compared with 8,961 the previous year. And consumer groups claim this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Marc Gander, from the Consumer action Group, says: 'The situation is completely out of control. Thousands of people are finding themselves chased by a succession of debt collection agencies for money they never owed in the first place.'

 

Despite the OFT having new powers to shut down rogue debt collectors, firms are continuing to chase people who've never missed a payment in their lives. And there are worrying reports of harassment by firms which are flouting industry rules.

Household names, including utility firms and mobile phone providers, are often at the root of the problem, selling on questionable debts and leaving their customers at the mercy of these debt collection firms.

 

Money Mail, the OFT and the charity Citizens advice have uncovered shocking evidence of:

• Consumers being threatened with legal action and bailiffs for bogus debts;

• Exasperated consumers being forced to fight these bogus debts for years;

• Household-name companies that initiated the debt failing to intervene and leaving customers at the mercy of collection firms;

• Bungling firms failing to investigate disputed debts before selling the debt to a collection firm;

• Credit records blighted for years as debt is sold from one collection agency to another;

• Consumers being hounded at all times of the day and night;

• Rogue debt collectors hassling neighbours to chase debts.

 

How the debt collection agencies work

Some collection agencies are departments or subsidiaries of the company that owns the original debt. They typically get involved earlier in the debt collection process and, in theory, have a greater incentive to maintain a good relationship with the customer.

 

But in many cases, the debt is sold to a third-party firm — which has no such incentive. Typically, they will get paid only if they collect the money, so are effectively incentivised to chase you until you pay up — whether it is a genuine debt or not.

Often, debt will be bought and sold in bundles. The cheaper the package, the less information about the debtor is available and the more work is needed to track down the right person — and the more likely they are to get the wrong one. This debt is often sold on again if the debt collector isn't successful.

Mr Gander says: 'It's like Chinese whispers. Bogus debt is sold on to a debt collection agency which will have some paperwork, but with no direct knowledge of the customer. It becomes increasingly difficult for the customer to challenge these debts.'

 

Worryingly, Mr Gander claims in some cases when debt is sold on, the collection firm might put a fresh mark on that person's credit record. This breaches rules from the Information Commissioner dictating that there can be only one default date for a debt. he says: 'In the worst cases, a black mark on your credit record — which should only last for six years — can be on your record for much longer, even if you didn't owe the money in the first place.'

What is being done?

 

Though there are plenty of guidelines which are supposed to protect consumers, critics say they are woolly and not rigorously enforced. Debt collection firms are regulated under the Consumer Credit act and must hold a Consumer Credit licence.

These licences are issued by the OFT, which is also responsible for policing the industry.

Under the guidelines, for example, debt collection firms are not allowed to pursue the debt if it is disputed. They not allowed to contact you at unreasonable times or hassle you constantly. Neither should they make threatening statements, pressurise you into paying in full or in unreasonably large instalments, or to sell property or borrow more money to pay off the debt. Firms must also investigate a debt properly when it is disputed.

 

Crucially, the OFT has no powers to investigate individual complaints and will intervene only if it receives many complaints about the same firm.

The charity Citizens Advice says some debt collectors are clearly breaching regulatory guidelines and industry codes of conduct. a spokesman explains: 'We see cases amounting to harassment, where people get phone calls several times a day from creditors and debt collection companies acting on behalf of creditors, sometimes in the early hours or late at night and sometimes at work.

'We also see cases where firms contact neighbours and relatives to try to trace debtors. Besides being in breach of OFT guidelines, this sort of harassment can cause immense additional stress and anxiety to people already overwhelmed by debt problems.'

 

Experts say tougher debt collection guidance introduced by the OFT in 2006 has made little headway in cracking down on the cowboys, and that many firms are simply ignoring them.

 

Since then, the OFT has been able to strip debt collection firms of their licence to trade. But it has used its new powers sparingly, taking action against just 20 firms since April 2008.

There are an estimated 350 debt collectors operating in Britain and critics argue the OFT needs to get tougher. Mr Gander says: 'The guidelines covering debt collectors are woolly and are failing to protect consumers. The OFT is failing to rigorously enforce these rules by using its new beefed-up powers. No one is scared of them.'

Joanna Parsley, from Credit action, says: 'The OFT really needs to take more licences away from these firms to send out a strong message.'

Kevin Brennan, shadow Consumer minister, says: 'It's outrageous that people are finding themselves pursued for debts they don't owe.

'There should be a greater onus on the big companies that hire these debt collectors. They can't be allowed to wash their hands of responsibility to their customers when they sell on a debt.'

 

Peter Wallwork, chief executive of the Credit Services Association — the trade body for debt collectors — says: 'Considering how big this industry is, we receive relatively few complaints.

 

'No one wants to be in debt and I think that's one of the reasons why we get a bad press. If anyone is being harassed by one of our members, please call us on 0191 286 5656.'

 

 

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-1704403/How-to-keep-debt-collectors-off-your-back.html#ixzz3vQCdxBpC

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

That article is from 2010, and not helpful to the OP.

The OFT is no more, and its Debt Collection Guidance no longer applies.

The FCA is now in charge of licencing the debt industry, and publishes its rules in its CONC Handbook, which you can find in full in the CAG library.

At the start of this thread it was mentioned that 1st Credit was based in Redruth but it was later explained that they are actually based in Reigate. Both 1st Credit and the Cabot group use the address of a unit on an industrial estate in Redruth

when corresponding with "debtors" in Cornwall. Whether they adopt this practice in other areas or not I do not know but it does seem a bit strange.

It's just one of the ways this grubby industry tries to intimidate people by making them think they're local, playing on the common fear that someone will come knocking.

A few years ago Robinson Way used to pretend they had an office in Lisburn, whilst the reality was that it was an accommodation address at a cheque-cashing shop. Several others have similar arrangements.

In addition to the questions stu007 has asked, can you also let us know:

- have you engaged with the Veterans Welfare Service

- the Royal British Legion

- SSAFA

on this issue?

On Tuesday 5 January, Mike Kane MP will propose a debate to bring in a bill to amend the Mesothelioma Act 2014.

The idea is to improve access to pensions and/or compensation for veterans who suffer mesothelioma as a result of service.

This discussion will be a Ten Minute Rule Motion.

Watch the debate on ParliamentTV from approximately 3:30pm.

I think Lowell are chancers; they may be big players in the debt world, but it's still a grubby industry.

Remember, the drones who chase debts are usually driven by commission; if there is a better way to encourage poor practice I don't know it.

In my last dealings with them, they lied and tried to mislead me; not once, but several times. When I complained, they just cut all contact. So I think that this is their standard operating procedure; they only do the right thing when they've been caught out.

I'd go for something like this:

FORMAL COMPLAINT

 

Thank you for your letter dated xxxx.

 

I am aware that the Financial Conduct Authority, in its CONC handbook, states that: "A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid."

 

Further, the FCA is clear that: "Before pursuing a customer for the repayment of a debt, a firm must take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy and adequacy of the available data so as to ensure that the true customer is pursued for the debt and that they are pursued for the correct amount."

 

You have signally failed to meet your obligations in both of these respects.

 

In my letter dated xxx I made clear that I was not the debtor you are pursuing. It is, therefore, unclear to me why you imagine that sending me a copy of an agreement relating to an address to which I have never had any connection would suddenly make me responsible for someone else's account, or demonstrate that you had carried out anything like due diligence in your tracing activity. I can only assume that this is some sort of asinine attempt to pressurise or harass me into paying money I do not owe.

 

For the avoidance of any doubt, I repeat that I am not the debtor you are seeking, and no money will be forthcoming.

 

I require you to deal with this letter according to your complaint policy, a copy of which you should send to me without delay. My complaint is (1) that you have pursued me for a debt I do not owe, after I have made clear to you that I am not the debtor, and (2) that you have failed to meet your obligations under the FCA rules.

 

I require your response to my complaint, together with your proposals for resolution, within 7 days.

 

In the meantime, no further correspondence will be entered into.

If the parasites want sight of the death certificate then they can obtain it for themselves, how can anyone work for such morally bankrupt companies?

Lots of companies will reply to a letter notifying them of a death, and ask for a certified copy, which is quite expensive. There's no legal requirement for this; it's just their own process.

I suggest sending a photocopy of the death certificate in the first place, accompanied with a note along these lines, addressed to 'Deceased Accounts Department':

The death was registered at (Place) Register Office on (date). If you require a certified copy, you can obtain one from the Register Office upon payment of the statutory fee.

I was involved in dealing with a relative's affairs after he died intestate. I was surprised at how many companies tried to extract money from his widow, usually by phoning to say that 'a payment is due on the account', saying that a utility account couldn't be changed into her name unless she first paid an outstanding bill that she wasn't responsible for, or suggesting that a payments needed to be made until they'd confirmed the death. One suggested that the widow had a 'moral responsibility' to pay - they got a formal complaint. In the end it took a few calls and letters to straighten out - but no money.

£10000.00 is the figure in the claim.

Ten thousand, then?

It isn't just the cost of taking cases to court that discourages retailers doing so. It is also the potential for bad publicity, especially in cases where someone has made an honest mistake, or security guards have overstepped their duties. RLP and the like con't care about the circumstances - they just want money - but a large retailer would be concerned if stories about how people with poor mental health were being pursued in court, for example.

The classic case, of course, is the one where RLP advised a major retailer to bring an action against two girls who had already been dealt with by the criminal justice system; it resulted in a humiliating defeat for the retailer. We can't name the retailer, because they asked the judge for anonymity.

Au contraire, I never said I was a lawyer. However, I have produced enough essays and answers to problem questions on all the legal subjects required for a qualifying law degree to know how to think like a lawyer.

Has it occurred to you that some of the people on this forum, to whom you are preaching, have actually qualified and practiced as lawyers?

I rang the insurance company, they are paying the bills at the moment, he said as they haven't seen my medical history yet, it's with Latitude, I'm also worried because it looks like we will miss our flights and its says £7.5m medical but £1000 for transportation costs, we won't get flights for that price plus I will need to find my wife a hotel as we are due to check out tomorrow!!

It's such a worry, I felt like discharging myself but a lady at the hospital said that it can default your claim if you go against doctors advice!!!!

Without sight of the insurance policy it's impossible to say for sure, but I suspect that £1000 for transportation probably relates to ambulance transport. Look under the Repatriation section for the amount covered to bring you home. The cost of bringing you back, either with medical escorts if required, or perhaps staying in a hotel until fit to fly, is sure to be covered.

Let the assistance company sort it out for you; this is all new for you, but routine for them.

Your wife should get in touch with the assistance company about the hotel etc., if she hasn't already.

Do you need to travel to the States or is this just a holiday?

 

As far as I can see, worst case scenario, when you get back your insurance company refuses to pay and you owe the hospital lots of money. How are they going to get it?

 

20 years ago ish my stepson travelled to America during a break of Chemo, he collapsed and needed an operation to remove a tumour on his spine . We never heard anything about it again , he had got travel insurance but hadn't told them he was a cancer patient .

 

he returned to the UK with an envelope full of xrays and CT scans

You will find that nowadays US hospitals are adept at pursuing people for their money wherever they are.

OP will probably have a medical assistance service attached to his insurance; it's usually a condition of the cover that they are contacted if the insured is admitted to hospital. The hospital may already have done this. In any case, they will usually manage the hospital, including payments and any necessary travel arrangements.

Sorry, i had to snigger at her statement. I wouldnt believe that woman if she said the sky was blue.

I suspect that her conscience came at a high price; her offshore puppet masters must be impressed. Still, puff pieces like this in Credit Today is just part of the mutual masturbation this bottom-feeding industry likes to participate in. After all, who else would be interested in their grubby activities?

Yes,... Now i have been told off for saying this but ill PM you...

They do take debts and are based in Reigate which is a stones throw away from where I work.

Please abide by the forum rules, especially:

3.5 A thread/post will be edited or deleted if it contains:

 

 

d) Offering to advise members or asking members for advice by PM

Otherwise, you are likely to attract moderation, which is likely to start with the removal of PM ability.