Robinson Way

[huggles]

Ah, yes. That's what it's all about isn't it?

 

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I have already seen one person on a thread this evening post up a copy of a letter that he sent to a DCA that was, as could be evinced from his previous posts on the subject, a pack of lies, after they didn't respond to a CCA request. Do you support this? And saying, "well, it's what DCAs do" is, I'm afraid, not a good enough answer.

 

Did any of the people that responded to this thread ask when he obtained the card - ie, whether he's actually eligible for a copy of the paperwork? Well, no. Because (and this is universal policy on this part of CAG) "send CCA" is the universally-parroted response to any thread started, regardless of whether the poster has already clearly categorically stated that they owe the debt.

 

Now, once and for all: Does CAG endorse debt avoidance or not?

[Sol]

Huggles you miss the point - it is everyone's right to request the CCA at any time.

[stardust_john]

Its obvious this site does not promote debt avoidance, it promotes our right to be treat within consumer law as dictated within that. The dcas know how to collect accounts within these laws and choose often as in my personal experience to ignore all requests and letters. Its your problem if you feel so troubled that you have to ask does cag endorse debt avoidance and I question your purpose. Yes there will always be some posters who will try it on as in all walks of life, (no post referenced to in my statement) if you feel someone has done or stated something inapropriate you can post the moderators.

Destress:)

[stardust_john]

ps. Is it just me or does anyone start humming the tune to Howards way whenever the see the dca name above:D

[sutherland]

I'm not sure who CAG actually is, but unless it's run by Alan Sugar he/she/we probably don't endorse telling a pack of lies.

 

I might also add that I was advised to request CCAs by National Debtline after I discussed my Calder case with them. Does that mean they are encouraging debt avoidance too?

 

I'm convinced that financial institutions that abide by the law have a much easier time recovering debts than the rest of us. Huggles, can you explain how requesting a CCA creates a problem for any creditor that has obeyed the law?

 

Do you endorse law breaking on their part or not?

[pt2537]

Ah, yes. That's what it's all about isn't it?

 

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I have already seen one person on a thread this evening post up a copy of a letter that he sent to a DCA that was, as could be evinced from his previous posts on the subject, a pack of lies, after they didn't respond to a CCA request. Do you support this? And saying, "well, it's what DCAs do" is, I'm afraid, not a good enough answer.

 

Did any of the people that responded to this thread ask when he obtained the card - ie, whether he's actually eligible for a copy of the paperwork? Well, no. Because (and this is universal policy on this part of CAG) "send CCA" is the universally-parroted response to any thread started, regardless of whether the poster has already clearly categorically stated that they owe the debt.

 

Now, once and for all: Does CAG endorse debt avoidance or not?

 

Ah a good debate, i do like this,

 

ok, well, lets look at the facts

 

the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was a plainly enacted statute which was passed to offer protection to the Debtors, it was felt that the Money Lenders Act was not sufficient to offer the level of protection which society craved and required

 

So, once passed, the legislation made it quite clear of the consequences of non compliance with the Act and the Court of Appeal and House of Lords in the cases of, inter alia,

 

London North Securities Ltd & Mr and Mrs. Meadows [2005] EWCA Civ 956,

 

Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul),

 

Dimond v. Lovell - [2000] Q.B. 216,

 

Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

 

McGinn and Grange Wood securities [2002] EWCA Civ 522

 

Wilson v Robertson’s (London) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1425 (Ch),

 

 

all held that it is not the question of had the money, spent the money and now pay it back, no, it is the case of whether you like it or not, if the lender fails to comply with the Act and the regulations made under the Act it is denied any room to manoeuvre and it stands to lose the money, and that is parliaments will and it is expressed by Francis Bennion, the man who wrote the act on his website

 

 

now i will not go into the Ratio of the cases at this stage but all i can say is,

 

 

you are entitled to use the law of this land to defend your self, the law does not deal with morals, there is no such thing as a moral offence so whether you like it or not, call it debt avoidance if you like but, as a matter of fact, there is nothing wrong with using the law to defend your self and that is all a person is doing by asking for their credit agreement

 

 

they are asking the company to support their claims for money with substantive facts

[UnitedFront]

I am relatively new here so don't really feel that I have the right to poke my nose in here but I am going to anyway.

 

I have been dealing with DCA's for a number of family members and have come up against their low-life, deceitful, bullying and illegal behaviour first hand and I can tell anyone out right that it is not very nice

And so yes, when you have been banging your head against a brick wall trying your very hardest to repay money by offering a reasonable monthly payment and had it refused by these parasites at every turn it is a welcome break from threats to throw a cca request at them and make them take you seriously!

 

These companies rely on the law to do their business BUT the law also protects the consumer and states clearly that certain paperwork must be available and must be of a certain standard - otherwise debts are not enforceable! This is what the law states and so to attempt to chastise people for carrying out their statutory right is, in my personal opinion, very very wrong.

These laws are there to protect and serve both creditors and debtors/consumers and it is wrong to expect that only one side has the right to this protection. At the end of the day if all parties concerned act within the law then there will be no problem!

 

And I reiterate my personal opinion that most people only end up at sites like this because they are desperate for help after being illegally harassed by DCA's and the like!! Is it ok to illegally harass someone but not for that person to respond with a cca request which is inside the law?

[stardust_john]

United front, your right. Its the persistant calls and letters a person deals with to get this far and go on the internet for advice. A dca low life turns up years later saying this and that and informing us we have no rights to know what they ar on about, just pay up. Someone like me pays a minimal ammount for over ten years just because they say so, untill a friend says do you actually owe this and I reply stupidly I cant remember. Easily solved with a cca request, but the dcas dont want it to go that far because 'some' accounts turn out to be either statute barred or no cca. There is nothing wrong with a confirmed debtor paying a minimal agreed ammount and then the dca pushes and pushes untill they need putting in thier place: back of the que after gas. leccy and food and of course rent.

[UnitedFront]

Exactly! I am completely 100% convinced that 99% of the people on this forum would not be here if the procedure went something like this:

 

DCA: Mr XXXXX You owe XXXXX for such and such, here are the details and paperwork etc can you pay?

Consumer: No, unfortunately I cant afford to pay it all atm, but here is an income/expenditure sheet and I can afford to pay XXXXX each month and as you can see from this sheet, this is about all I can afford.

DCA: No problem at all, as long as you keep paying we will contact you in 6 months just to see if anything has changed. If your circumstances do change, let us know please.

 

But it rarely does, in my experience! They refuse all reasonable offers, make threats that are clearly illegal and bully people to pay more than they can! And then when they finally agree a payment, they continuously ring up to try and squeeze more out of the poor sod trying desperately to feed his family and keep a roof over their heads!!

 

I personally think a DCA that acted as I have laid out above would have far more success than the bullying tactics we all know about!!

[stardust_john]

Hear hear:D

[huggles]

I agree that some DCAs behave terribly, I have and continue to be a victim of this myself. I hopped on here today because I have today recieved an AOE for a debt upon which I'm already paying an AOE! I have every sympathy for the many people who have been lied to and harassed.....

 

Knowing your rights is one thing, I have greatly benefitted from this site! But endorsing people who are trying to avoid a debt which they freely admit they ran up knowing they are obliged to repay it weakens the position of the CAG and consumers generally. Doing this allows the DCAs who are behaving badly to respond to criticism and questions and legitimate concerns raised by people like me, and from the government, OFT, FOS, ICO by saying "look, these people have not been treated unfairly they just want to avoid their debts, if anything you should give US more rights". The government might decide to make things more difficult for people with real problems if they perceive that people are abusing the system. I will get tarred with that brush too. Does that make sense?

 

Sorry to hijack your thread with this can of worms, Canbrilla, I don't know you and for all I know you intend to repay in full but it is something I have seen on here before (and I won't reply any more, this isn't the place)

[Percival Wigglesbottom]

I bet you blame car dealers for road rage incidents and sellers of kitchen utensils for knife crimes too ?

[pt2537]

:lol:

 

I bet you blame car dealers for road rage incidents and sellers of kitchen utensils for knife crimes too ?

[canbrilla]

In requesting a CCA I'm not trying to avoid paying a debt, but I need to be sure that the DCA which says it's their right to collect on the debt does, in fact, have the necessary paperwork and are legally entitled to collect. It's my right to do this and I will continue to request CCAs where necessary.

 

I'm willing to pay and have been doing so for a while, albeit reduced payments.

 

I don't condone debt avoidance!

 

canbrilla

[sutherland]

Another point is that if you are being pursued by several creditors and they are threatening legal action it is good to know which of them could actually succeed. At least then you can deal with them in order of enforcability.

[robinalexander]

I need to be sure that the DCA which says it's their right to collect on the debt does, in fact, have the necessary paperwork and are legally entitled to collect.

In that case then, if you genuinely just need to know that it's their right to collect it, you need to request a copy of the Notice of Assignment not the CCA.

[canbrilla]

That's true sutherland, I hadn't thought of it in that way.

[canbrilla]

robinalexander said that if I continued to pay Cahoot they would pass on payments to Robinson Way. Wrong! Payment went to Cahoot as normal and they credited it back to my account, so no-one's been paid, Cahoot could have forwarded the payment on but chose not to. Now waiting for response from Robinson Way, they've got until 5 August to provide CCA.

 

I've had no Notice of Assignment, so until Robinson Way come up with something which shows they are entitled to collect on this debt, they aren't getting a penny!

 

canbrilla

[pcah9]

Believe me, it may not seem like we follow the rules and that nobody cares about doing so, but a portion of us do treat people with respect. Again, I will reiterate, if you have a problem against the company, take it up with them, do not take it out on me.

MAY not seem like?

Are you seriously stating that the "DEBT COLLECTION" company you are employed by has NEVER acted once in contravention of a specific law.

Why is it when there is a problem the company will never answer in a straight forward manner,a computer generated load of c**p is usually the reply which 9 times out of 10 is another demand and has nothing to do with the points raised in your correspondence to them.

Why do your employers chase "debts" from people who do not owe anything,mistaken identity????

I suggest to you that that companies havent`t a clue when it comes to paperwork and as for telephone manner,well ha haha ha.

Look up the meaning of Chiton,it just about sums up [edited].

Edited August 3, 2008 by jonni2bad

[robinalexander]

Canbrilla, the vast majority (maybe 95%) of companies that we buy debt off in the DCA I work for, agree to a thing called CPD-Auto, which basically means that any cash paid directly to them, they will forward to us. If payments haven't been forwarded, you're in the minority.

 

Pcah9 (and for anyone else who wants to take a bite at me), I'd suggest to read this thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/153427-hello-everyone.html

 

I didn't start it, but answered all the questions when the OP decided not to.

[pcah9]

Take note....NO-WHERE in my posting have i bitten you.

I have asked questions about your employers which surprise surprise you failed to address.....i wonder why?

[robinalexander]

Because you're hijacking someone else's thread! By all means post it in the thread I linked you to and I'll answer it.

[pcah9]

Because you're hijacking someone else's thread! By all means post it in the thread I linked you to and I'll answer it.

Actually i think you may better get your facts correct or is that toooooo much for a debt collection employee.

I quoted a reply of yours in this thread and asked that you explain your reply and as you have not i take it you have no reply of any constructive nature much like your employers.

[pcah9]

robinalexander said that if I continued to pay Cahoot they would pass on payments to Robinson Way. Wrong! Payment went to Cahoot as normal and they credited it back to my account, so no-one's been paid, Cahoot could have forwarded the payment on but chose not to. Now waiting for response from Robinson Way, they've got until 5 August to provide CCA.

 

I've had no Notice of Assignment, so until Robinson Way come up with something which shows they are entitled to collect on this debt, they aren't getting a penny!

 

canbrilla

Canbrilla,

If you go through all the "letters" you have received in respect of this matter does just one of them actually state that robinson way have bought this debt and have ALL the relevant paperwork relating to the debt?

NO? Well you have every right to send them a CCA....and take what that dc employee has put in your thread with the largest pinch of salt you can find.

[robinalexander]

Okay, I'll entertain it...

 

Are you seriously stating that the "DEBT COLLECTION" company you are employed by has NEVER acted once in contravention of a specific law.

Nope, I know full well there's been times when I've seen things happen that shouldn't have.

 

Why is it when there is a problem the company will never answer in a straight forward manner,a computer generated load of c**p is usually the reply which 9 times out of 10 is another demand and has nothing to do with the points raised in your correspondence to them.

To quote a government document: "Some decisions are made by an automatic process (for example, one made by a computer system)." In other words, the 'responses' you get to your correspondence aren't directly linked to your letter at all, they're automatic letters that go out after x days or after a specific event has lapsed.

 

Why do your employers chase "debts" from people who do not owe anything,mistaken identity????

As answered in the other thread, I don't work in trace, I am debt collector, therefore I can't help you with that.

 

Better?