'The Scarlet Pimpernel vs, Amex and all their DCAs'

[ScarletPimpernel]

Last week I was contacted by some woman at RMA about an Amex account. As is my usual practice, I informed her that I will only deal with them in writing.

 

I sent a CCA on Friday, which they signed for this morning. Then the woman phoned again. To say she was ill-mannered is an understatement; without checking to see who she was talking to, she launched into a tirade. I remained unmoved, and simply told her to respond to my letter, that the matter was now in dispute and that her call was now in breach of OFT guidelines. Alas, it only seemed to egg her on, and she quickly moved on to insults. Anyway, the upshot was that I told her that her tiresome moral arguments were not going to make me discuss the alleged debt.

 

"Do you think you're better than me?" she screeched.

 

 

 

"Well," I replied, "I'm not the one working as a call-centre drone in a dreary northern town, am I?" which seemed to go down quite well; I imagined her sitting with a face like an angry raspberry...

 

All of which is by way of an introduction to this thread. RMA promise to be rather more irritating than some of the others; any info on ways to deal with them, or inteliigence on how they operate is welcome.

 

So far I've CCA'd them, and sent a complaint about the data protection breach, and a telephone harassment letter. I plan to dispute the huge fees they've added to the debt. Anything else I can do?

[Curlyben]

Result.

I'd also pass this information to Preston TS as their file is getting bigger by the day.

 

Steven Brimble,

>> Lead Officer,

>> Lancashire County Counicl,

>> 58-60 Guildhall Buildings,

>> Preston,

>> PR1 3NU

[Monty2007]

Last week I was contacted by some woman at RMA about an Amex account. As is my usual practice, I informed her that I will only deal with them in writing.

 

I sent a CCA on Friday, which they signed for this morning. Then the woman phoned again. To say she was ill-mannered is an understatement; without checking to see who she was talking to, she launched into a tirade. I remained unmoved, and simply told her to respond to my letter, that the matter was now in dispute and that her call was now in breach of OFT guidelines. Alas, it only seemed to egg her on, and she quickly moved on to insults. Anyway, the upshot was that I told her that her tiresome moral arguments were not going to make me discuss the alleged debt.

 

"Do you think you're better than me?" she screeched.

 

 

 

"Well," I replied, "I'm not the one working as a call-centre drone in a dreary northern town, am I?" which seemed to go down quite well; I imagined her sitting with a face like an angry raspberry...

 

All of which is by way of an introduction to this thread. RMA promise to be rather more irritating than some of the others; any info on ways to deal with them, or inteliigence on how they operate is welcome.

 

So far I've CCA'd them, and sent a complaint about the data protection breach, and a telephone harassment letter. I plan to dispute the huge fees they've added to the debt. Anything else I can do?

 

Hi SP

 

I paid them for almost 2 years, also a debt from Amex. They are horrible as you have found but will stop phoning if you send them the appropriate recorded delivery letter (the one structured by Dave - DMD). They did not respond to my SAR or CCA requests and when I stopped paying them pleaded to be more helpful (fearful of losing their commission) but in the end passed the a/c back to Amex.

 

So aggressive at fist then when you show them you are not a muppet they conform and finally give up the ghost when they know the game is over! I learnt to "tame" them through CAG. It was a immensely satisfying!

[diskmandave]

To state that I'm sure Preston is no drearier than anywhere else in Lancashire!

 

Ashton Under Lyne is a lovely town thank y' very much!!

[alfwithhair]

RMA are the biggest bunch of muppets in the Land of Collection. However, I have to say they are one of the most amusing.

 

I know you shouldn't speak to them on the phone, but the temptation is too much sometimes when I see their number on my phone. Although I never tell them nothing of interest:cool:

 

You can wind them call centre srimps up something cronic, cheers me up no end when i'm on a downer to have a good slanging match with them. Just what the doctor ordered.

 

On a more serious note though, they never answer any letters, never stop ringing, no matter how many complaint letters you send and up to now have not come up with a CCA.

 

PS: Diskmandave; you are correct A-U-L is a great place. I have have many a good night in the bus station there in the 90's when I used to get pie eyed in the White House in Staylebridge on folk music night (Thurs) I used to have to sleep in A-U-L bus station as I usually missed the last bus back to Salford.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Ashton Under Lyne is a lovely town thank y' very much!!

 

 

Yes, but I'm a Yorkshireman, so it's compulsory for me to disparage the 'wrong side of the hill'!

[Curlyben]

Now Now boys, lets leave the "Roses" out of this

[ScarletPimpernel]

It seems RMA are not only synaptically challenged, they are also semi-literate. Today's offering, with the usual excessive emboldened text and unnecessary capitalisation, has a personal salutation (Dear Sir Percy...), but finishes with 'Yours faithfully'. How do they expect anyone to take them seriously when they make such basic errors?

 

Anyway, it seems that it is vital that I call them today. I must do it immediately, apparently. They also tell me that I should have sent the card back to them, cut in two, even though they have never asked for it.

 

A quick reply sent, to the effect that I won't be taking up their invitation to speak to their ill-mannered Gracie-Fields soundalikes, but if they want the card they can have it, just as soon as they comply with my CCA request and send me a stamped addressed envelope.

[ScarletPimpernel]

So, despite having received and signed for a letter which includes a CCA and a second line of dispute, RMA have today sent me a postcard (standard 'I will be calling' nonsense). I shall add it to the collection of evidence of OFT guidance breaches.

[ScarletPimpernel]

RMA have been busy of late, it seems.

 

Yesterday I received an acknowledgement of my complaint (rather later than the 5 working days required by FOS and CCA 2006), and asking for a further 10 days to deal with it.

 

Today, RMA have responded to my CCA requests, 19 days after they defaulted, by providing me with:

 

1 x handwritten compliment slip 'find enclosed copies of credit agreements'

1 x form headed 'Your personal invitation' - no prescribed information, no Amex signature or stamp, no terms and conditions

1 x extended payment option form - no prescribed information, no terms and conditions

1 x 'Gold Credit Card Application' - No prescribed information, no terms and conditions

 

They have not supplied any statement of account.

 

All in all, rather a good result, I think. No doubt they'll soon be back in threat mode, but it's nice to know they have nothing enforceable.

 

As an aside, does anyone have any Amex terms and conditions? RMA have added substantial 'referral fees' to the accounts, apparently in line with the terms. I'm sure these don't comply with the OFT guidance, but would be interested to check them out further.

[Curlyben]

*Cough* yeah right.

I'm surprised that they sent anything at all.

Oh well I hope they have a new dictionary that includes the words UNENFORCEABLE and Get Stuffed

[ODC]

How sad.

Too Bad.

Never Mind

[ScarletPimpernel]

Postman Pat (or more likely Postma Piotr), has brought the latest missive in this saga. RMA are now using NCO headed paper, and inform me that due to the nature of the complaint the most appropriate action is to forward it to American Express to investigate. So, one of NCO/RMA's staff is ill-mannered and breaches data protection law and OFT rules, and it's a matter for Amex to investigate? Oh well; it will be interesting to see what they have to say.

 

Anyway, the signatory to the letter, who is apparently a manager, must be a busy boy. He not only signed all the letters to date (in the latest he signs himself 'Mr', presumably because his style is that of a 12 year-old and he's keen to convince me that he's a grown-up), he also hand wrote the envelope when sending me my application forms.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I have now heard from Amex, whose response to my complaint is entirely useless save that it has given me a good laugh.

 

For the amusement of readers, I reproduce the main part of Amex's letter below:

 

Please be advised that RMA have worked for American Express for a number of years and we have always found them to be a reputable company, operating within the guidelines laid out by the Consumer Credit Act of 1974. However, please accept my apologies if at any time you have been given misleading or conflicting information by any of RMA's representatives. I can assure you any anomalies have not been intentional.

 

So, after I had wiped the tears of laughter (and disbelief) from my eyes, I read it again, and find that in fact neither RMA/NCO nor Amex has actually responded to the complaint I raised, which referred to breaches of the Data Protection Act and the OFT guidelines. So, standard 'make smoke and zig-zag' manoeuvre by referring to the CCA.

 

Another letter to both the pond life at RMA and Amex (who should know better), making the complaint even simpler to understand, and asking for their final response before I push it to FOS.

 

I think I'll draw Amex's attention to a few threads on CAG, which show how unintentional RMA's 'anomalies' are.

 

Oh yes, and Amex included yet another copy of the entirely unenforceable application form that RMA had already provided - another unintentional anomaly, presumably.

[ODC]

Excellent news as far as you are concerned SP. Reminds me of a little hole Clownells have dug themselves into IN WRITING to me.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Nothing heard from RMA, although Amex have acknowledged my last letter and promised a response.

 

Today I received a letter from AIC chasing one of the same Amex accounts RMA are dealing with. Here's my reply (more or less):

 

Thank you for your letter dated xx 2007. I do not acknowledge any debt to you or any company you claim to represent. All communication in this matter must be in writing.

 

It is unclear why you have contacted me, since I am already dealing with another gang of disreputable cretins regarding the same account; your client has not informed me of any change to this situation. Additionally, the alleged debt is disputed because it consists partly of unlawful penalty charges, and because the other DCA/your client have failed to properly comply with a formal request pursuant to s.77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I am sure it is unnecessary to remind you that the Office of Fair Trading Guidelines on Debt Collection (with which, as holders of a consumer credit licence, you are obliged to comply), states that the following are unfair practices:

 

-using more than one debt collection business at the same time

-not informing a debtor when a case is passed to a different debt collector

-ignoring or disregarding claims that debts are disputed

-not ceasing collection activity when a debt is disputed

 

Furthermore, the ‘referral fee’ you have added does not meet the requirements of the OFT guidelines on charging for debt collection.

 

In the circumstances, I am sure you will understand that I am unable to assist you in this matter. Any further correspondence, other than your confirmation that you will be taking no further action, which is required by return post, will result in a formal complaint to the appropriate regulatory and enforcement authorities.

[Seahorse]

Note to self: stop reading SP's threads for fear of sides bursting open and messing up the carpet.

 

[ODC]

''Another gang of disreputable cretins''

 

 

PRICELESS:D

[barneydouble]

I had a card from RMA to say mr green would be coming to see me xmas eve ha ha ha .I wonder if he will be dressed in red with sack full of presents?

shame I wont be in to find out.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Just a quick update. I've had another letter from Amex apologising for the length of time it's taking them to respond to my complaint, which they say is 'due to its complexity'.

 

Let me make it simple for you, Amex:

 

1. You employed RMA to (attempt) to collect on these accounts

2. RMA breached the Data Protection Act 1998 and the OFT guidelines

3. Far from being 'unintentional anomalies', this is their SOP; see the helpful link to CAG I gave you

4. Under the OFT guidelines you have third party responsibility for their actions

 

There - not complex at all, is it?

 

In the meantime, AIC sent letters regarding the other 2 Amex accounts, but have now gone quiet. I suspect that my 'feck off' letter above did the trick, because this morning I had letters from Newmans about the same accounts. I think, just to save postage, that I'd better point out to Amex that all 3 acounts are entirely unenforceable.

[ScarletPimpernel]

And so it goes on...

 

Two more letters from AIC today. They are now confining themselves to two of the four accounts, and Newmans have the other two. None of this, however, alters Amex's responsibilities under the OFT guidance.

 

AIC are now threatening litigation, so I thought I'd give them a ring to make sure they'd got my earlier letter (even though they'd signed for it). The calls (recorded) were quite amusing:

 

AIC drone: (unintelligible)

Me: Hello, is that AIC?

Drone: Reference number!

Me: Is that AIC?

Drone: Has someone called you?

Me: No, I rang you! Is that AIC?

Drone: Why are you asking?

Me: I want to make sure I've got through to the right company. I can't think why you wouldn't want to tell me the name of your company. So, Is that AIC.

Drone: Look, you must have a reference number or I can't talk to you.

Me: Really? How odd. I do have a reference number, but I need to be certain I've got the right company before I divulge it. Maybe it'd be easier if I made it a simple yes or no answer? So, am I through to AIC?

Drone (mumbling): Yeah.

Me: Splendid. What's your name?

Drone: Why?

Me: I like to know ho I'm dealing with, that's all. Is your name a secret?

Drone: Er, my name's Mr xxxx

Me: And your first name?

Drone: Eh?

Me: What's your first name?

Drone: Err, I'm Mr xxxx

Me: I know that, but what's your first name?

Drone: errrm....

Me: I can see that this isn't going to be easy. Why is it such a problem for you to tell me your name? Was the question too difficult?

Drone: I don't have to tell you. *Click*

 

Undeterred, I called again. The same drone answered:

 

Me: Hello, is that AIC.

Drone: You just called a minute ago. I'm don't have to talk to you *click*

 

So there we are; they'll be writing to ask me to stop harassing them by phone next. I got the impression it's not the world's busiest office.

 

Still, nothing ventured:

 

Different, female drone: AIC, can I help you?

Me: Hello, I'm recording this call. I'm ringing about some letters I have received from you; I'm concerned about why you've sent them.

Drone: the usual DPA questions, answered by me.

Me: Can you tell me your name, for the recording?

Drone: Xxxx Xxxxx (I recognise this from the signature, as a manager, on the letters)

Me: I wrote to you before Christmas to let you know that your client was in breach of the OFT guidelines, so you shouldn't be contacting me again. Can you tell me why you have written again, because now AIC are in breach?

Drone: We've written to you because you owe our clients money, and we've been instructed to collect it.

Me: I understand that, but you have to comply with the OFT guidelines; are you familiar with them?

Drone: Of course.

Me: Excellent. So you'll know that the OFT says that a creditor has to inform the debtor before passing an account to a new DCA.

Drone: No they don't. They don't have to do that.

Me: I think you'll find that they do. Anyway, apart from that the accounts are disputed, and the OFT says that collection activity can't continue until disputes are resolved. Are you familiar with that part?

Drone: Look, they've instructed us to collect the money, so that's what we do.

Me: Yes, but you have to comply with the OFT guidance; you do understand that?

Drone: We do what our client instructs us to do.

Me: Okay. Perhaps they didn't tell you about the dispute; but you are aware of it now. Anyway, there's the other issue I mentioned earlier - I wrote to you about that.

Drone: No.

Me: What do you mean.

Drone: We haven't had a letter.

Me: Really? How odd, because it was signed for by you.

Drone: Well.... Look, we do what our client instructs us to do. That's all.

Me: Yes, but don't you see that you have an obligation to comply with the rules set by the regulators.

Drone: If our client instructs us to collect, that's what we do.

Me: Even if that means you are in breach of the OFT guidance or the law?

Drone: What law?

Me: I asked for copies of all the agreements under the CCA; they sent unenforceable application forms; but they didn't send all the required docs, so they're in default. Whilst there's a default, they can't chase for payment. Surely you know that...

Drone: Err, well we just do what our client instructs us to do...

Me: Yes, I've understood that. Are you saying that your client's instructions take precedence over your legal and regulatory obligations?

Drone: Yes, of course.

Me: Are you sure? Remember I told you this is being recorded..

Drone: pause Thank you, Sir Percy *click*

 

All in all, amusing but unproductive. I then spoke to Amex, to let them know I'd be adding to the complaint they signed for yesterday. They tried a bit of the old 'it may be unenforceable but you have a moral duty to pay' drivel, but were otherwise quite helpful, and assured me that they will investigate my complaint (the woman actual sounded as if she was cringing when she heard the AIC creature!).

 

So, another letter off to Amex.

 

Perhaps a mod could change the thread title to SP vs Amex's DCAs?

[Brassed off]

SP - that's a classic !!

 

Do you fancy a trip over 't 'ill so you can ring a few of my favourite DCAs?

 

I should warn you, you may end up in the Naughty Corner

 

PS - If you want to change your thread title, I can always report your post

[ODC]

Brilliant SP. Just Brilliant. What a muppet to admit that their clients are more important than the law.

 

Nice recording for you Tube

[ScarletPimpernel]

Letter from Amex this morning, with their final response to my complaint about NCO/RMA, which the latter passed to Amex rather than deal with it themselves. Amex's points:

 

- RMA failed to carry out any identity check on the phone before discussing the debt

- RMA's phone contact was inappropriate; Amex says it advises all DCAs it uses that contact must be within OFT guidance, and that if a customer says contact is only to be in writing, they should comply

- RMA were wrong to say that they can phone twice a day

- Amex have offered to knock £150 off the unenforceable debt as a goodwill gesture

 

Interestingly, Amex arrived at their conclusions about the telephone call after listening to a recording of the conversation. When the drone called me, there was no mention of calls being recorded. I was going to SAR Amex anyway, for penalty charge claim purposes; I will ensure I ask for the recording, too.

 

Amex have also said that they have called Newmans off, so I'm now waiting for their response to my complaint about the Sweaties at AIC.

[ScarletPimpernel]

...and another letter from Amex, in which they tell me that they will be 'internally reviewing the agreements with our solicitors', and will then write again.

 

Still nothing from AIC in response to my formal complaint, perhaps unsurprisingly.