UK debt being Chased in Australia

[Taormina]

Do we have to remove the "? I googled it, but cant find what you mean.

[WA_Newman]

Erinamanda,

 

A foreign debt is not covered by the Australian UCCC and should not be listed with a debt collection agency such as Veda here in Oz. However, there are several rogue debt collection agencies that have listed them with Veda in the past in an attempt to pressure debtors into paying.

 

Whether a debt is enforceable or not, the debt still exists. Debt collection agencies know that they have very little likelihood of collecting an unenforeable debt, so they try to apply pressure by damaging, or threatening to damage, a debtor's credit rating.

 

My best advice is to sign up for the Veda service that gives you a copy of your credit file and notifies you of changes to it. This way you will find out immediately if a default or writ is issued against you. For a default, contact Veda and explain that it is an alleged foreign debt that is unenforeable in Oz and should not be listed. For a writ, file notice of intention to defend and forward the receipt to Veda who should remove the entry from you file until such time as a judgement is entered against you (which will be never).

 

A creative person may contact Telstra and switch their number to an unlisted one then rent a foreign mail box and write to the International debt collection agency with your "new" details stating that you understand from your contacts in Oz that you are looking for them. Get the foreign mail box providor to send the letter for added authenticity. Anywhere in South America or Central Africa should do the trick.

[skippycreditdownunder]

hey just back from hols.... NEWSFLASH:- FOS can now consider compaints of those who have been served already... how many of us is that now? was it a batch of five or ten?? i heard that 5 more had been put through just this week too.... from a not too discreete court employee.... also heard that the court are starting to ask a few saliuent questions.....

 

Fos also charge pioneer to investigate our complaint which is probably why they want out... spoke to top banana at fos last week they have pie and beer firmly in their sights.

 

We are waiting (and waiting) for our pre trial date not sure how serious the indian ball jockey is about our case or whether it is just more bluff and blunder....

 

So pls all complain to fos to get a few bills going back to perth for a change, if you need help i can send you examples...

 

plea: those needing to employ legal rep can we stick together and hire the same guys... one knowledge bank, one learning curve etc.... shows a united front too....

 

to all old and new welcome... skippy is back on trhe case...

 

and KRJ where was my xmas kiss phonecall?? the day when you were calling all our clan i sat with my phone fully charged all eager to finally talk to the man himself.... never did my phone ring????? ive told you before i will do a deal on certain terms, one being you'll no not getting a cent out of me....

 

hopefully this post will get me my pre trial date ordered and we will finally get to meet.... and pls don't drag this on i want an early victory.... ffs put up or shut up

 

to any new "victims" hang in there the fat girl is in make up...

 

watch what you say on here too guys.... dopey, ball jockey, shebaa the sheik sheep and others are reading this for sure.....

 

PFF

[skippycreditdownunder]

I've not lodged a dispute with the FOS yet, happy to do so though. I'll dig around for some details on how to do it.

 

What did you complain about specifically (there's so much to choose from!)

just tell fos the whole story... they will ask if they need more info....

[skippycreditdownunder]

Hi dodgydebt

 

WA newman has kindly provided me with the details of a legal team. I'll be following that up shortly. I'm also commencing a complaint against them with ASIC.

 

Regarding the Veda default - that was removed a while ago when I threatened them with a complaint to ASIC.

 

I now only have the writ on my Veda credit report. My understanding with this is that once I disputed the debt (which I did immediately), they can not pursue me (let alone summons me) for the debt until the dispute is resolved. So that's something else to complain about.

 

I'm actually having a bit of fun with this now. I know that they can't touch me regarding the debt and I also know that the debt is a case of fraud on what I thought was a cancelled card. It's therefore quite amusing to see how far they will go and how incompetent they are. Especially the Financial director.

 

your experience is similar to mine with this guy, knows little, no legal knowledge of his field, poorly written emails etc....

 

not the same calibre as the scandal by the same name many moons ago....

 

Asic is the way for us all to go in together to complain. they have the most teeth i believe.... need to consider a joint submission i reckon

 

pd what is dATE of writ or which month if you dont want to say, have you been served yet?? and in which court??? perth??

[pdkelly]

Hi Skippy. I was served on the 18th Dec. You then have 21 days to file a notice of Intention to Defend, however, according to my solicitor the time is not computed between 24th Dec to 15th Jan due to the holidays. Balls Legal, as expected, ignored the law and filed a Judgement in Default against me on the 13th Jan - two hours before the Solicitor tried to file my Intention to Defend.

So, my Solicitor has now faxed Balls and given them until the 22nd to set aside the Judgement voluntarily, otherwise they've been notified we'll be seeking costs.

I've also complained to the Ombudsman and subsequently received a letter dripping with sarcasm and factually incorrect in all ways from the Business Support and Compliance Manager at Pie and Beer.

In it she claims that Pie and Beer are no longer a member of FOS (not according to FOS!) and makes too many other incorrect claims to list. The thing is, I have emails from Dopey which directly contradict everything she has said. I just can't believe the things they put in writing.

My complaint with the Privacy Commissioner has now been escalated.

I've also lodged a complaint with ASIC and against Pie and Beer, Balls Legal and Dopey individually and they've been great. It's gone to a special team within ASIC for investigation.

I'll keep you all posted.

Edited January 21, 2010 by pdkelly

[greeno]

Hi Skippy. I was served on the 18th Dec.

 

pdkelly, did they provide you with all of the details and documentation of your alledged debt before they served you? I've been waiting 4-5 months so far and haven't got anything.

[pdkelly]

Hi Greeno. No, they did not. Despite my request for a copy of all documentation in my file (I specifically stipulated a copy of the original credit agreement, all screen notes, recordings, correspondence etc) all I received was a copy of the credit card statements. This is all they could manage even with the Privacy Commissioner after them.

Added to this, mine is a fraud case where a replacement credit card was sent to an address I had vacated in 2004. Dopey of Pie and Beer insisted the debt was incurred prior to me vacating the premises in 2004 but the statements support the debt was incurred in 2006 only.

Pie and Beer put in writing that they would commence a fraud investigation on receipt of statements but they defaulted on this undertaking as well.

Don't hold your breath!

[greeno]

Hi Greeno. No, they did not. Despite my request for a copy of all documentation in my file (I specifically stipulated a copy of the original credit agreement, all screen notes, recordings, correspondence etc) all I received was a copy of the credit card statements.

 

 

How does that work then? If they've not provided you with the documentation, how can they even think of taking you to court? Won't the court just throw it out as they've not followed the procedures?

 

I know this is P&B etc, but surely they must THINK they have a chance or are they just trying to 'scare' you into submission/acceptance of the debt?

[Bodgit]

Hi Guy's,

 

don't give Pie and Beer any credit for normal thinking. They are out to try and frighten as many people as possible into paying some money. They do not have any legal right to chase and follow up in Aus and are hoping to get judgements by default. If they ever get anywhere near a court they will be ruined as it will set the precendence that we are all looking for.

 

the best they can hope for is that hey try and get some money from people prior to being fined by ASIC, the PC and then sued by us all for wrongful logement of defaults etc.

 

I do believe that on my last contact with ASIC the special team has been investigating pie and beer for the last two months. should be just about time they start to take some action. they have a copy of my application form that they tried to insist was a credit agreement. Also the legal aid gurus have send the ASIC team the letter from balls legal that stated that they knew they couldn't chase under the credit code of australia but then stated that they thought they still had a right to chase.

 

I do believe that pretty soon Pie and beer will be struck off the companies list and prosecuted by ASIC. there are too many complaints now that they have to do something.

 

Heads and chins up we will prevail guy's. Go the PFF

 

Bodgit

[greeno]

So other than WA_Newman, has anyone actually 'beaten' them yet? Do we KNOW that their legal case is built on sand? I'm starting to get worried again. Lots of complaints against them, but very little in the way of movement and they're still stomping ahead with their case.

[Bodgit]

Their case's are based on nothing. They do not have any original contracts, mostly only application forms, which do not even meet the requirements of the UK CCA never mind the Aus code.

 

As itterated on numerous occasions the only way they can take action is in a UK court of law. the Aussie codes and acts cannot apply. The CCA of UK states that only the courts of england and wales can enfoce any action on these alleged debts, unless you have a CCj against you.

 

It is all bullsh!t from Pie and beer. they are trying to get judgements by default, when people do not file a defence.

 

That is why they have tried to claim default judgement on pdkelly so quickly. They know they have a limited window to gain some extra cash.

 

They tried to pull the wool over my eyes but in the end lost out. All the threats will not stand up in a court of law.

 

The fact that thy are contradicting themselves in each letter / email they write is a particularly good point. They do not have a clue. They know that the Aus codes can't apply yet they state one thing, do another and don't provide proof of debt to anyone and all this in writing.... they are really dumb sh!ts.

 

Even if it went to court I do believe the judge would take one look and send them packing. They have to comply with one law or the other, not make them up as they go along.

 

Bodgit..

[pdkelly]

I agree wholeheartedly Bodgit. My approach is to repeatedly request information / updates politely via email with delivery and read tracking on. I am then forwarding correspondence on to ASIC / PC / FOS as appropriate. I've also requested information on their Internal Complaints Process so you get to the "right" people (Humorously enough the Manger of Internal Complaints also moonlights as the Business Support and Compliance Manager and the Executive Assistant -she's obviously stretched in her roles as she does nothing well!) You'd be astounded what P&B will put in writing! They are virtually fighting my case for me!

[skippycreditdownunder]

Hi Skippy. I was served on the 18th Dec. You then have 21 days to file a notice of Intention to Defend, however, according to my solicitor the time is not computed between 24th Dec to 15th Jan due to the holidays. Balls Legal, as expected, ignored the law and filed a Judgement in Default against me on the 13th Jan - two hours before the Solicitor tried to file my Intention to Defend.

So, my Solicitor has now faxed Balls and given them until the 22nd to set aside the Judgement voluntarily, otherwise they've been notified we'll be seeking costs.

I've also complained to the Ombudsman and subsequently received a letter dripping with sarcasm and factually incorrect in all ways from the Business Support and Compliance Manager at Pie and Beer.

In it she claims that Pie and Beer are no longer a member of FOS (not according to FOS!) and makes too many other incorrect claims to list. The thing is, I have emails from Dopey which directly contradict everything she has said. I just can't believe the things they put in writing.

My complaint with the Privacy Commissioner has now been escalated.

I've also lodged a complaint with ASIC and against Pie and Beer, Balls Legal and Dopey individually and they've been great. It's gone to a special team within ASIC for investigation.

I'll keep you all posted.

yes dopey and she baa are quite special ive dealt with both

 

are u using same lawyer as WA Newman and myself?

 

Fos are p'd off with pie and beer, spoke to cousel at fos yesterday...

 

if u want to talk tactics sometime pm me your number i can fill you in on the story so far with these clowns...

[skippycreditdownunder]

How does that work then? If they've not provided you with the documentation, how can they even think of taking you to court? Won't the court just throw it out as they've not followed the procedures?

 

I know this is P&B etc, but surely they must THINK they have a chance or are they just trying to 'scare' you into submission/acceptance of the debt?

yes all bluff and blunder. i'm doubtful whether they actually intend to run with any of these cases....

[greeno]

I got a reply from Balls the other day, which is why I'm more concerned. They're saying that the accounts they're talking about were sold to P&B and they're contractually obligated not to disclose the contract for the sale of the debt. They also say that by the virtue of the ACCC, I now have a contract with P&B under s166 of the code (which I'm looking up now)

 

They also said that they've talked to the Privacy Commissioner and think they're acting correctly and that the WA Complaints Committee aren't aware of any advice given which said that Balls or P&B are acting improperly.

 

Sure, I can see that most of this is crap, designed to freak me out into accepting a debt which isn't mine, but damn, I'm certainly second guessing our bravado at the moment.

 

I'll stay true to the cause, I'll contact WA_Newman's legal team tomorrow and see what they recommend.

[greeno]

They also say that by the virtue of the ACCC, I now have a contract with P&B under s166 of the code (which I'm looking up now)

 

I wish I went to law school, maybe then I'd know if I should feel better or worse now:

 

166

 

Assignment by credit provider

(1) If the rights of a credit provider under a credit contract, mortgage or guarantee are assigned or pass by law to another person, this Code from then on applies to that other person and does not impose any further obligation on the credit provider.

(2) The debtor, mortgagor or guarantor has and may exercise the same rights in respect of the credit contract, mortgage or guarantee against the assignee as the debtor, mortgagor or guarantor has against the credit provider.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply while the credit provider continues to receive payments from the debtor, or would continue to do so if the debtor complied with the credit contract.

[skippycreditdownunder]

I got a reply from Balls the other day, which is why I'm more concerned. They're saying that the accounts they're talking about were sold to P&B and they're contractually obligated not to disclose the contract for the sale of the debt. They also say that by the virtue of the ACCC, I now have a contract with P&B under s166 of the code (which I'm looking up now)

 

They also said that they've talked to the Privacy Commissioner and think they're acting correctly and that the WA Complaints Committee aren't aware of any advice given which said that Balls or P&B are acting improperly.

 

Sure, I can see that most of this is crap, designed to freak me out into accepting a debt which isn't mine, but damn, I'm certainly second guessing our bravado at the moment.

 

I'll stay true to the cause, I'll contact WA_Newman's legal team tomorrow and see what they recommend.

Greeno the indian ball jockey is talking about s166 of the uccc. a code which they have conceeded to bodgit's lawyer does NOT APPLY TO THESE DEBTS.

 

they are hoping to divide and conquer but its not working. they can't string an consistent argument together....

 

NOTE TO ALL:-- once served, file a notice to defend and then send the recipt you get back off to veda who will take the writ off your credit file by law within 5 days. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!!

 

these f*ckin idiots are really starting to wind me up now

[skippycreditdownunder]

I wish I went to law school, maybe then I'd know if I should feel better or worse now:

 

166

 

Assignment by credit provider

(1) If the rights of a credit provider under a credit contract, mortgage or guarantee are assigned or pass by law to another person, this Code from then on applies to that other person and does not impose any further obligation on the credit provider.

(2) The debtor, mortgagor or guarantor has and may exercise the same rights in respect of the credit contract, mortgage or guarantee against the assignee as the debtor, mortgagor or guarantor has against the credit provider.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply while the credit provider continues to receive payments from the debtor, or would continue to do so if the debtor complied with the credit contract.

This is the aussie uccc. your uk agreement is bound by the cca 1974, it can't be pursued in an australian court....

[skippycreditdownunder]

I agree wholeheartedly Bodgit. My approach is to repeatedly request information / updates politely via email with delivery and read tracking on. I am then forwarding correspondence on to ASIC / PC / FOS as appropriate. I've also requested information on their Internal Complaints Process so you get to the "right" people (Humorously enough the Manger of Internal Complaints also moonlights as the Business Support and Compliance Manager and the Executive Assistant -she's obviously stretched in her roles as she does nothing well!) You'd be astounded what P&B will put in writing! They are virtually fighting my case for me!

 

the one and the same 3 role shee- baa graduated from a perth university 3 years ago with an arts degree, just google her name.... despite obviously been quite dumb. or at least too dumb to get a proper job thats why she's become KRJ's be-atch at pie and spit in my beer.

 

for a 24 year old graduate to start working for these clowns must mean she is stupid or hard up or desparate.

 

none of them can write a half decent letter to save their lives

[greeno]

This is the aussie uccc. your uk agreement is bound by the cca 1974, it can't be pursued in an australian court....

 

Even if they've "purchased the debt"? This is the bit that got me worried as I can't find anything that covers it.

[skippycreditdownunder]

Even if they've "purchased the debt"? This is the bit that got me worried as I can't find anything that covers it.

they have potentially bought the debt and so they need to prove the debt was legally assigned. we believe it wasn't and despite being nearly 20 strong now the PFF have not seen any proof of assignment. the only way a debt from the uk can be assigned is under the property act 1925, not the uccc as they claim.

 

if theyve got you worried they have you where they want you. Read section 141 of the consumer credit act 1974. they do NOT have jurisdiction to do anything about this debt in australia

 

They might have purchased the debt but it's still bound by uk laws.

 

read back over earlier posts and dont pay one cent. pm me if you want to talk about it

 

havr you complained to fos?

[WA_Newman]

Hi guys,

 

It would appear that our friends at Pie & Beer have been busy recently.

 

The law is very clear on assignment. For an assignment to be recognised by the court it must comply with various regulations. The two main one's for our purposes are firstly, that the assignee must notify the debtor that the debt has been assigned, who it has been assigned to, and the date of assignment. This letter must be by the hand of the assignor. In other words, the credit card company must write to you to tell you of the assignment, the date it was assigned and who it was assigned to.

 

Secondly, all of the rights and responsibilities of the original contract are assigned in whole. In effect, this mean Pie & Beer are Barclayshark etc. What it also means is that IF the debt was legally assigned, the original terms and conditions are also assigned. The original terms and conditions clearly state that the CCA 1974 applies. The CCA 1974 clearly states that all actions are heard in the county court of England & Wales.

 

In the UK certain claims can be heard in the High Court. However, the CCA 1974 clearly states that any actions taken in the High Court where the contracts are covered by the CCA 1974 must be transferred to the county court of England & Wales. In summary, not even the High Court can hear actions where the contract is covered by the CCA 1974.

 

The acts quoted are the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Law of Property Act 1925, and the Property Act (WA).

 

The section of the Property Act (WA) that concerns itself with assignment is a copy of the UK Law of Property.

 

In summary, the two parties to a contract have agree jurisdicition for actions in the case of dispute. If one party assignes their rights under the contract to another the contract doesn't change, and neither does the jurisdiction unless agreed by both parties. Any first year legal student would know this.

 

If you read Balls' letters they always contain the words, "we think" not "we know". I could "think" the world is flat, but it doesn't make the world flat. However, I know that Mr S**gh will be investigated by the Legal Practices Board in WA, and that Pie & Beer are currently under investigation by ASIC.

 

Moving onto a lighter note, anyone in need of a good laugh should read Pie & Beer's website. Especially the bit on compilance with NPP

 

So all you have do is write to Pie & Beer and ask them nicely and they will send you all of the information they have on you. Don't get too excited, they have very little. Mostly it is scans of some statements just before Barclayshark gave up and possibly a scan of your original application.

 

Not all employees of Pie & Beer mindlessly follow their leaders.

[WA_Newman]

I take it by now we have all filed a complaint with FOS which costs Pie & Beer each time.

 

We should all have complained to ASIC who regulate all companies and especially credit providers.

 

We should all have complained to the Privacy Commissioner about breaches to the Privacy Act.

 

A big "thank you" goes out to all members of the PFF for bringing this to our attention so that we have the knowledge to fight back.

 

I would now like to thank someone who is an undercover member of the PFF. Information has been passed on from an insider who wishes to remain annonymous.

 

From Pie & Beer's website:

 

"Other Federal legislation that impacts on P****** Credit’s privacy practices is the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (the 'TPA') and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the 'Corporations Law').

Under the TPA a company must not engage in conduct which is misleading or deceptive. In the context of privacy, this means that P****** Credit and its employees must comply with P****** Credit’s Privacy Policy. If P****** Credit or its employees fail to comply with the Policy then a claim of misleading and deceptive conduct may be brought under the TPA."

 

Here is an extract from P****** Credit's Privacy Policy:

 

"We will allow you to access the personal information we keep about you provided you satisfy us of your identity. To satisfy us of your identity you may need to provide us with appropriate documentation such as a drivers licence or passport."

 

You heard it here first. Pie & Beer will allow you to access the personal information they keep about you (which is a legal requirement under NPP6). If they don't comply with your legitimate request they are in breach of their publically available Privacy Policy. By their own admission, Pie & Beer would be in breach of the Trade Practices Act for misleading and deceptive conduct.

 

For enforcement of TPA see

www.accc.gov.au or your local lawyer.

 

This is what happens when you p**s off an employee.

 

Happy Days!

[skippycreditdownunder]

well interesting times. ive just had a call from someone at pie and beer. making offers.... either genuine or to identify me on here im not sure but im not shy, im happy to come out of the closet.....

 

offering to wipe the debt on two accounts if i go quietly... now now there's something to consider... by go quietly i mean withdraw from fos....

 

not sure which way to go... seems a bit of a win win either way to me and a lose lose to pioneer

 

option 1) i take their so kind and generous offer.... WIN!!

 

option 2) Fos bends them over and makes them bleed..... WIN!!!!

 

can we take a vote on which way you'd go i'm split....

Edited January 22, 2010 by skippycreditdownunder
spelling