Quick Quid D/D issue and DPA breach **

[vjohn82]

Hi all,

 

Just thought I would post this one up... my wife took out a QQ payday loan (car went tits up and it couldn't wait)

 

We rolled over one payment because of something else wrong with car... same happened this month (notice a theme here?)

 

I cancelled the DD for the £50 interest payment... they will have to wait I thought? Nope... they decided to present the payment anyway on 31/07/09 for £50. I called my bank... had it returned and cancelled.

 

On 05/08/09 I have two payments come out... one for £24.81 and the other for £37.19.

 

I have written this for them to mull over

 

Complaint regarding Direct Debit Authorisation

Dear Sir/Madam

 

There are two payments which left my bank account on 05/08/09; one for £24.81 and the other for £37.19. They are both for QuickQuid but I never gave my authority for these direct debits. In fact there is no signed paperwork anywhere of me ever agreeing you take out money for these two amounts.

 

The loan contract states:

 

“We will give you a notice if you or we make any changes to the debit arrangements under this Loan Agreement ("Advance Notice"). If you have elected to pay by Direct Debit, you and we agree that the period of Advance Notice that we will provide to you is 3 Business Days.”

 

No notice was provided regarding the change in the direct debit arrangement so I therefore consider this a “fundamental” breach of contract in which I believe there is a case for the contract being terminated with immediate effect. Please let me know how you wish to remedy this breach in the form of compensation for the losses due to be incurred by your actions (my bank currently charges £21 for an unplanned overdraft fee and £15 for each direct debit that is returned.) I have also had to spend my material time researching my rights in drafting this letter and seeking legal advice from a number of sources. If I decided to take legal action over this dispute I shall also sue for quantifiable losses and litigant in person costs. Therefore please advise on how you wish to proceed with this formal complaint.

 

I am writing to the Financial Ombudsman about this flagrant disregard for the proper financial procedures governing Direct Debit and possible fraud under section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 as a priority because I consider this breach of contract to be completely unacceptable behaviour by a professional financial company. I will also seek direction from the Credit Services Association to assess your suitability to hold a Consumer Credit Licence as I do not believe you are operating your business fairly or with any consumer interests.

 

I trust I have provided all of the information you require to respond to this complaint and I look forward to receiving your response and a copy of your complaints procedure which you have to provide to me in accordance with the Office of Fair Trading Guidance.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Any thoughts?

 

[robjam1969]

Looks good to me. I suspect QQ will not be interested as being American they have their own view on consumer rights. If you still owe them money keep an eye on your bank as they won't think twice about taking more.

 

Best of luck.

[vjohn82]

Looks good to me. I suspect QQ will not be interested as being American they have their own view on consumer rights. If you still owe them money keep an eye on your bank as they won't think twice about taking more.

 

Best of luck.

 

Fortunately for me I live in Britain ;-)

[robjam1969]

Agree completely mate!

 

When I had a run in with them their phone monkey told me my debt would appear in my local paper, she put the phone down on me when I started laughing.

[T2upNorth]

I take it "by a professional financial company" was totally tongue in cheek!

Robjam1969 makes a very valid point - they will try anything they can to empty your account - take that very seriously because they act in the knowledge that, despite your protection under UK law, they are unlikely to suffer any pain from FOS or the other regulators.

Keep a close eye on your bank account. Look for DD's being set up. If they have your card details seriously consider setting up a simple parachute account and immediately transfer everything it. Even if you "lose" your card some banks will honour a debit request.

Sorry to sound so negative - these people do not abide by any law except their own.

[postggj]

after my run in with payday loan companies a few years ago,

i ended up with a new bank account number

every friday at 530 in the morning i went to withdraw my wages and they had all been taken and not by dd

 

by a debit card transaction

 

most payday loan companies use a continiouse debit card authorisation to collect, even if you cancel the card it will be forced through the payment.

 

contact your bank and not only cancell the card , put a stop on it

 

my own opinion would be to ask the bank for another account number or you might start to get hit by bank charges as they can set up dd again

 

ime talking from personel experience on this

[vjohn82]

I take it "by a professional financial company" was totally tongue in cheek!

 

If you have ever seen my thread on the online conversations with Muck Hall then you will know I am very tongue in cheek on these matters

 

I will sort out a new account number for the missus and keep you all updated on the outcome.

 

Out of curiousity... do they mess up your credit file too?

 

Cheers

[postggj]

its very rare for these payday loan companies to deal with your credit files

[vjohn82]

Ok I have wrote in to officially complain to the organisation; I said:

 

 

 

I have written to Quick Quid as two direct debits came out of my account which were not authorised to leave. Any amendments to a direct need to be authorised and require 3 business days notice as per the loan agreement. Money which has left my account has been subject to a £21 return fee and two direct debits left the account for differeing amounts. This is tantamount to fraud and is a "fundamental" breach of contract. I have sought advice from the FSA and they have stated the formal complaint is the best way in which to approach this dispute.

 

Please note as the account is in dispute you must cease collection activity until the complaint is resolved. This is non-negotiable and the guidance can be found from the Office of Fair Trading who legislate on such matters. Please refer this to your legal team if you do not understand the implications of continuing collection activity.

 

I have sent in a formal complaint to your organisation and writing is the only form of communication I will enter into with your company on this matter.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

The wrote back:

 

 

We received your email regarding your loan balance and your situation has been noted. Your account is been forwarded to a manager for review you will be contacted regarding this issue.

 

Collection procedures will continue until an acceptable payment arrangement is made.

 

I wrote back to them:

 

Please refer to the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance; because I have placed this account in "formal/legal dispute" collections acitivity must cease until a resolution has been found.

They replied with this:

 

I have reviewed your loan history, and the two direct debits you are referring to is a redeposit of a direct debit that was submitted on 31 July 2009 and dishonored by your bank on 03 August 2009. These transactions were authorized by you when you sign the contract at 01:03 AM on 24 June 2009.

According to Section DEBIT AUTHORISATION of your loan contract:

 

“If a debit is returned unpaid or dishonored for any reason when it is first presented by QuickQuid for payment, QuickQuid may re-present the debit for payment to Your Bank Account or your Debit Card by presenting two separate debits for the total amount that is payable by you. QuickQuid may do this on more than one occasion.”

 

Your signed loan contract authorises QuickQuid to access your bank account or debit card in order to collect on outstanding balances.

 

As of 10 August 2009 your account has a default balance of £62,00 due immediately.

 

Please be advised that collection procedures will continue until an acceptable payment arrangement is made.

I replied to them:

 

Dear Curtis T,

 

You wrote this...

 

"“If a debit is returned unpaid or dishonored for any reason when it is first presented by QuickQuid for payment, QuickQuid may re-present the debit for payment to Your Bank Account or your Debit Card by presenting two separate debits for the total amount that is payable by you. QuickQuid may do this on more than one occasion.""

 

However you forgot to mention the last part of that statement which reads:

 

"If we are required to do so under any applicable law or other legal requirement, we will provide you with advance notice before we re-present for payment a previously returned or dishonoured debit."

 

Under the Direct Debit Guarantee, and as part of the agreement signed, it was made clear that any "adjustment" to a direct debit required "3 business days notice" in order to be compliant with the contract.

 

Therefore the account is in "legal dispute" and I look forward to reading, by posted letter, how you wish to resolve the matter.

 

Yours faithfully,

[vjohn82]

I think I'm in the right with this... but any help with it appreciated. I have dealt with hundreds of creditors in the past but this is my first experience with a Payday loan company and especially a company who believes they can take money from your account as and when they choose.

[loobyloo35]

Just a thought, but have you logged onto your account online and changed the bank details?

 

I did this as I defaulted on a loan with them and they have NEVER taken any money via DD on my account.

[vjohn82]

Just a thought, but have you logged onto your account online and changed the bank details?

 

I did this as I defaulted on a loan with them and they have NEVER taken any money via DD on my account.

 

Change them to what exactly? lol... I need the Queen's bank details I think!

[loobyloo35]

Change them to what exactly? lol... I need the Queen's bank details I think!

 

I just altered a few digits lol so that the details didnt match with my details they had.

 

I also changed my mobile number and havent heard from them

[vjohn82]

Quickquid are recording information on my wife's credit file under the name CASHNETUSA.

 

They are not a UK registered company (according to Companies House) and do not appear to have a consumer credit licence or DPA licence.

 

They are registered under the name CASHEURONETUK LLC on the DPA register (Z9919587).

 

Looks like grounds for removing the default from the credit file. Anyone else agree?

[cerberusalert]

A complaint to the ico is in order.

[vjohn82]

Indeed... I'll be looking into it and updating this thread as I go along.

[vjohn82]

No you are not compliant. You filed default on my wifes account without first sending a default notice under s.87 of the Act.

 

Epic fail, as my students would say.

[cerberusalert]

Plus, most of our debt collection is handled by local UK debt collections agencies, that are members of the CSA (Credit Services Association).

[patrickq1]

The FSA has backed earlier guidance issued by the OFT and confirmed that, in its view, ‘read and understood’ terms in consumer contracts are unfair. The FSA said that including a contractual term or a tick box on a website asking a consumer to confirm that they had read and understood the contract would be unfair and in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. Companies should not reject customer complaints because they had ticked a box saying that they had read and understood the contract. The FSA said:

“A declaration requiring consumers to agree that they have read and understood a contract is, in our view, unfair. This is because the statement may not be true and may not reflect what has actually happened. Consumers may not have either read or understood the contract and so are not in a position to declare that they have in fact done so. In this instance, the declaration is effectively meaningless and does not reflect the circumstances in which the particular consumer signs their contract.

The law requires consumers to be given an opportunity to examine all the terms in a contract.

A declaration of this nature could be used by a firm to claim that it gave customers an opportunity to read a contract when it did not actually do so. The firm could argue that because a consumer has signed to say that they have read and understood a contract, this means the firm has fulfilled its obligation to allow the consumer to examine all the terms. This may not in fact be true. Therefore the use of a declaration in this way is unfair.

It is preferable for ‘have read and understood declarations’ instead to give a clear warning to consumers that they should read and understand terms before signing them and that consumers should ask questions if they do not understand any terms”

The FSA thought that it was fair to ask consumers to make declarations relating to matters which were within their own knowledge, such as personal information including age, gender and address.

The OFT has already issued guidance which makes it clear that asking consumers to declare that they have read and understood an agreement is unfair.

“Declarations that the consumer has read and/or understood the agreement give rise to special concerns. The Regulations implement an EU Directive saying that terms must be clear and intelligible and that consumers must have a proper opportunity to read all of them (see Part IV). Including a declaration of this kind effectively requires consumers to say these conditions have been met, whether they have or not. This tends to defeat the purpose of the Directive, and as such is open to serious objection.

In practice consumers often do not read, and rarely understand fully, any but the shortest and simplest contracts. It might be better if they tried to do so, but that does not justify requiring them to say they have done so whether they have or not. The purpose of declarations of this kind is clearly to bind consumers to wording regardless of whether they have any real awareness of it. Such statements are thus open to the same objections as provisions binding consumers to terms they have not seen at all.

Much more likely to be acceptable is a clear and prominent warning that the consumer should read and understand the terms before signing them.”

Click here to read the FSA’s statement

Click here to read the OFT’s guidance

__________________

[patrickq1]

Data protection: Commission requests UK to strengthen powers of national data protection authority, as required by EU law

The European Commission has requested the UK to strengthen the powers of its data protection authority so that it complies with the EU's Data Protection Directive. The Commission request takes the form of a reasoned opinion – the second stage under EU infringement procedures. In the UK, national data rules are curtailed in several ways, leaving the standard of protection lower than required under EU rules. The UK now has two months to inform the Commission of measures taken to ensure full compliance with the EU Data Protection Directive.

"Data protection authorities have the crucial and delicate task of protecting the fundamental right to privacy. EU rules require that the work of data protection authorities must not be unbalanced by the slightest hint of legal ambiguity. I will enforce this vigorously," said Vice-President Viviane Reding, Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. "I urge the UK to change its rules swiftly so that the data protection authority is able to perform its duties with absolute clarity about the rules. Having a watchdog with insufficient powers is like keeping your guard dog tied up in the basement."

The case concerns the implementation of the EU’s 1995 Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) both in UK law (the Data Protection Act of 1998) and its application by UK courts. The Commission has worked with UK authorities to resolve a number of issues, but several remain, notably limitations of the Information Commissioner's Office's powers:

 

• it cannot monitor whether third countries' data protection is adequate. These assessments should come before international transfers of personal information;
  
• It can neither perform random checks on people using or processing personal data, nor enforce penalties following the checks.
  

Furthermore, courts in the UK can refuse the right to have personal data rectified or erased. The right to compensation for moral damage when personal information is used inappropriately is also restricted.

These powers and rights are protected under the EU Data Protection Directive and must also apply in the UK. As expressed in today’s reasoned opinion, the Commission wants the UK to remedy these and other shortcomings.

Next steps

For more information about the three-stage infringement process, see IP/10/798.

Background

For current statistics on infringements in general, see:

Application of EU law - Infringements of EU law

For more information

Justice and Home Affairs Newsroom:

Justice and Home Affairs - Newsroom

Homepage of Viviane Reding, Vice-President and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship:

Vice-President Viviane Reding - European Commission - Viviane Reding

[vjohn82]

You know it makes sense!

[patrickq1]

I Will Find The New Act Thats Coming Out Before The End Of This Year Under The Discrimination Act ,guilt By Association ...

[vjohn82]

I Will Find The New Act Thats Coming Out Before The End Of This Year Under The Discrimination Act ,guilt By Association ...

 

The force is strong with this one!

[patrickq1]

United Kingdom

July 13 2010

 

There has been considerable speculation recently about whether and when the new Government would implement the Equality Act 2010.

The Government Equalities Office (“GEO”) has now confirmed that the first wave of implementation will take place in October, as originally planned, following the publication of the first commencement order in Parliament on 5 July. This will, according to a press statement issued by the GEO, “pave the way for implementation of landmark provisions to protect disabled people from discrimination and tackle the gender pay gap”.

The main provisions of the Act will come into force on 1 October 2010. These will include, among other provisions:

 

• standardised definitions of prohibited conduct embracing direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation across the nine separate protected characteristics or equality strands (sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or believe, age, marriage and civil partnership, gender reassignment and pregnancy and maternity);
  
• in relation to disability discrimination, in addition to clarifying the operation of the duty to make reasonable adjustments, the introduction of two new types of discrimination: (i) discrimination arising from disability (which replaces the rather limited disability-related discrimination provision); and (ii) indirect discrimination.
  
• confirms the case law position that discrimination can be brought on grounds of association and perception.
  

The GEO has not so far confirmed whether and when the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 permitting positive action and providing for private sector gender pay reporting obligations will come into force.

[vjohn82]

They're refusing to deal with me now... how compliant!