'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?

[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'!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[ScarletPimpernel]

A letter from Amex today, telling that they are waiting for me to get in touch. They appear to be easily confused, since it is them who have to respond to my formal complaint - 3 more weeks and I can go straight to FOS.

 

Anyway, as I have a spiffy new printer/scanner, I thought I'd post the 'agreements' Amex sent me. I confess that I am actually looking forward to their solicitor's opinion as to enforceability...

 

 

 

 

The last one is a charge card, and is, of course, not subject to the CCA 1974. They've asked me to pay this 'as a gesture of good faith'; I am writing to them asking for a refund of penalty charges 'as a gesture of good faith', naturally.

 

This is all that was sent; if anyone has any terms and conditions for the Blue credit card, Gold credit card, or Green chargecard with extended-payment-option-for-added-CCA-goodness I'd be interested to see them.

[ScarletPimpernel]

If RMA's poodle had troubled to read post 25 he would have seen that I saw RMA off with one letter.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Just discovered, where the dog had pushed it, a letter from AIC, delivered yesterday. It's the copy of their complaint procedure I requested two months ago. Curiously, it was posted a couple of days after Amex signed for my latest letter in which I commented upon AIC's failure to respond to my complaint.

 

AIC tell me that they believe I have 'the right to a fair, courteous and swift service at all times.". I suspect their learning curve will be a steep one...

[ScarletPimpernel]

A letter from Amex this morning to say that they will accept much reduced amounts.

 

I have sent them a quick reply, reiterating that my position remains the same, and slapping them for failing to respond to my complaint.

 

I smell victory...

 

 

In the meantime, my complaint to AIC has now been delivered. It will be interesting to see how they reply; I expect, however, that they are mixing a large pot of whitewash as I type.

[ScarletPimpernel]

After a short break, Amex appear to have resuscitated this pile of unenforceable poo.

 

I invited them to respond properly to my complaint, and said that I would now be taking their various breaches of the law and OFT Guidance to FOS. For some reason Amex don't want to write to me any more, other than to send out 'please ring us to discuss the matter' template letters.

 

Whilst I was away a letter arrived from AIC, chasing the same account they'd previously backed off from some months ago, and there were two from Moorcroft's risible 'pre-court division' relating to the other Amex accounts (so that's RMA, Newmans, AIC (twice) and now Moorcroft).

 

Today, before I had posted the standard replies to Moorcroft, I had two more Moorcroft letters, this time in lurid yellow envelopes, which are 'notices of intended litigation' (apparently valid even if not read by me - are Robinson Way aware of this blatant plagiarism?). Except that they're not - they just say that if I don't pay they'll recommend that Amex go to court. Which is interesting, because going to court seems to be something that Amex are very reluctant to do, no doubt because they know the debts are unenforceable.

 

So, I am now in something of a quandary. Should I send the standard 'account in dispute, CCA default' feck off letter to Moorcroft (bearing in mind that I've spent nearly £40 on postage so far), or ignore them?

[ScarletPimpernel]

Quick update: Two letters received from Moorcroft today, both telling me that they are 'continuing to seek to obtain the credit agreement you requested'. Well done, Moorcroft...

 

Only I didn't ask you for any agreements; I told you that your demands for payment were unlawful because your client was in default of a CCA request, and that what they had sent was unenforceable, and that I wouldn't therefore be dealing with you.

 

Hey ho. I suppose eventually you'll send yet more photocopies of the same unenforceable application forms as RMA and Amex (three times) have already sent. Cretins.

 

If anyone wants to decorate a room with unenforceable application forms, Amex are definately the creditor to be with.

[ScarletPimpernel]

An interesting development. Last week I received two letters from AIC, one the usual threat-o-gram, and the other waffling about sending an 'agent' to my house. AIC have become tiresome so I ignored them.

 

Today I received a letter, on impressively heavy notepaper, from a very well-known firm of solicitors (not the usual deadbeats like Brachers et al; I won't name them for the moment, but can say that they are named quite frequently in Private Eye). They tell me that Amex understand that I am 'aggrieved by their collection attempts', and therefore offer me the opportunity to pay by £1K instalments, failing which they will bring proceedings. Apparently Amex will waive their non-OFT compliant and unenforceable 'file referral' fees as a 'gesture of goodwill'.

 

Sadly, as well as getting the postcode wrong, they also appear not to be aware that their clients remain in default of my s.78 request, have failed to comply with the OFT Guidance on many occasions, and have failed to respond to my formal complaints.

 

I wonder if I should let them bring the matter to court, or just write and let them know just how vexatious and irritating their clients really are?

Edited July 18, 2008 by ScarletPimpernel

[ScarletPimpernel]

Surely not Sue, Grabbit and Runne or Carter [edited]

Have they said which jurisdiction they intend issuing these proceedings under.

 

No, they don't mention jurisdiction. I take the letter as a high-class, rather oleagenous threat-o-gram at this stage; I'm not sure a firm in their league are stupid enough to issue in the circumstances - but then, like prostitutes, lawyers will do anything for their clients if the money's right...

Edited August 31, 2008 by jonni2bad
Quoted post only

[ScarletPimpernel]

By way of an update, I responded to the the solicitor's (Pishcon de Reya), threats by pointing out that their client had persistently and consistently failed to meet their legal and regulatory obligations, appeared to be relying upon documentation that would not stand up to scrutiny by anyone other than the most weak-minded of individuals (e.g. DCAs), and that I would welcome an opportunity to put this misconduct before a judge, along with a counterclaim for refund of charges and damages.

 

Since then, it's all gone quiet, with nothing heard from either Amex, Pishcon or anyone else.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Weren't De Reya the same ones who contested Rankines ?

 

 

Indeed - they were for Amex. Apart from their letter, the only other communication I had from them was an email (I'd emailed a copy of my response at 5 mins past their deadline), claiming (incorrectly) that there was no attachment, but helpfully containing, under the sig block, a link to Pishcon's gloating page about Rankine on their website. My email is, in any case, set to auto-respond to them saying that their messages can't be received.

 

I've just added a link to Arkell vs. Pressdram to my auto-response, in case they try to contact me again.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Well, well. Two begging letters from Moorcroft this morning, both related to wholly unenforceable Amex accounts. I have sent my template Amex response.

[ScarletPimpernel]

This just in from Moorcroft:

 

Dear Sir Percy

 

I write further to your recent communication in relation to the above account.

 

I have therefore taken this opportunity to investigate the points that you have raised. My review has brought me to the very strong conclusion that there is a clear conflict of opinion here between your perception of the account in question and the views expressed by our client with regard specifically to the question of liability. Whereas I would ask you to accept my assurance that we have been acting in good faith on the instructions of our client, it is clear that there is an impasse here with regard to the account. I believe therefore that the most sensible course of action would be for this company to return the account to our client and to cease any further activity with regard to it.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Some drone

 

Interestingly, this appears not to be a template. I doubt that even Moorcroft would use such dreadful English in a template, and the letterhead is on heavier paper than the usual threatograms. Still, the message is clear.

 

I wonder who Amex will give this dross to next?

[ScarletPimpernel]

 

I wonder who Amex will give this dross to next?

 

It's SRJ, of Woking, who have sent me a 'confirmed resident' threatogram.

 

Given that the address they are writing to does not actually exist (it's a ghost address for security reasons), they have at least made me smile.

 

I've sent the usual letter.

 

Amex are persistent, if completely non-compliant; I think it's time for a letter to the OFT.