Provident/greenwoods help

[decz2004]

Im not really fussed about the my credit file to be honest as it's terrible anyway :/ , I just want to be able to pay them what i can afford by standing order or another method where it doesn't envolve them coming to the house anymore as i seriously can't handle it just now! I don't want to talk face to face or on the phone and have asked them to contact me in writing but they are not listening! The agent came to the door again about half an hour ago and its horrible i feel i need to hide!

[teaboy2]

Ok time to call the police - Tell them (the police) you have given greenwood formal legal notification not to call you and not to send their collector round without prior appointment. Tell them they have failed to honour your request by still constantly coming to your property with out an appointment and therefore are committing under common law a tort of trespass and they are still harassing you with by phone with both verbal calls and text message despite your request under the administration of justice act and protection of harassment act, as such they are committing a criminal offence for which the police have a duty to investigate.

 

Provide the police with copies of all written correspondence and evidence of texts and calls (if on mobile they'll show on the incoming call list).

 

They will then give you a incident number, once you have that hand a letter to the collector and send one to greenwood stating the following:

 

Formal Notice of Criminal Investigation/Proceedings

 

Dear Dicks

 

Following my previous letters to you requesting that you communicate in writing only and that your field agents shall not come onto my property without prior making appointment to which i have given my agreement too (which i have not). You have failed to adhere to my formal legal request under common law (Tort of Trespass) and under the Administration of justice Act and Protection against Harassment Act (harassment via telecommunication including text). As such you have now committed a criminal offense for which i must inform you that the police have been informed (Incident Number ######). If you continue such course of criminal activity against myself i will have no choice but to take further legal action against Greenwoods, the police upon completion of any investigation, may also decide to issue criminal proceedings against you. END LETTER

 

Off course Decz, it is upto you if you do the above or not, but it is exactly what i would do.

[decz2004]

Hi i sent that letter teaboy expect i left out the bit about the police but really wish i did phone them now as she phoned my mobile 26 times today!

and she text me saying she will be here tommorow at school time

 

I am in a right state now i have no one else to take and collect my kids from school!

 

I will keep the calls logged in my phoned and i've kept the texts if i need to provide proof to anyone!

 

I Still haven't heard anything from the manager so they are obviously ignoring all my letters!!

 

Will i phone the police when she comes and will they take it seriously i'm scared they take her side??

 

Also my mum had a heart attack on thursday and is really ill in hospital so i can't turn my mobile off in case my dad calls

i think i'll need to maybe get a new sim card,

 

Since i last posted she has been at the door another 5 times it really is becoming to much now

[Tingy]

This is absolutely disgusting. You must get in touch with the police and not only get an incident number off them in order that you can send the letter suggested earlier, but also ask them to visit the person who is harassing you for the moeny to tell her to back off as she is committing a crime. She might actually get the message if she gets a visit from the police.

[decz2004]

Hi Tingy thanks for your reply i will contact the police tomorrow i'll also show them the texts and that she called 26 times between 5.41pm and 6.32pm! I actually feel sick with all the worry with it and feel i have to hide in my own house plus it's affecting my children now as i'm scared to let them out incase she speaks to them they are only little and don't understand , I haven't had a problem with provident i sent them the exact same letters and they wrote back to me accepting the token payments and their agent hasn't came to the door or contacted me once since then! But greenwoods are completely ignoring me.

[Tingy]

Good for you, once you've contacted the police you can reest a bit easier. Remember to ask them to speak to her directly AND to give you a crime reference number so you can follow it up with Greenwoods as being investigated as a criminal offence - if they're really nice, they might even write the letter for you telling them to stop harassing you.

[dx100uk]

why are you frightened of this woman... they have not legal powers to do anything at all.

 

answer the door, tell her you are making token payments directly to the co a/c and tell her not to call again please

 

you say you have a mobile phone...well use the video camera and FILM her at the door when you tell her this..

 

simples then you tell her if she come back, the police have asked you to call them out,

because of possible harrassment and demanding money with menace - which is what her visits and calsl amount too..

 

dx

[teaboy2]

As i said previously, and as Tingy says above, its time to call the police. Once they see the amounts of calls and the state your in because of them, especially as a mother to young children, and she's threatening to come round at school time which is completely unreasonable, they will have to take action.

 

Also i found out that provident and greenwoods are one and the same.

 

Name & Registered Office:

GREENWOOD PERSONAL CREDIT LIMITED

NO. 1

GODWIN STREET

BRADFORD

WEST YORKSHIRE

UNITED KINGDOM

BD1 2SU

Company No. 00125150

 

 

Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 04/11/1912

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

6522 - Other credit granting

Accounting Reference Date: 31/12

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/12/2009 (FULL)

Next Accounts Due: 30/09/2011

Last Return Made Up To: 30/09/2010

Next Return Due: 28/10/2011

Last Members List: 30/09/2010

Previous Names: Date of change Previous Name 12/07/1994 PRESTON REGENT SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED 16/04/1991 YORKSHIRE MUTUAL TRADING COMPANY LIMITED(THE)

 

 

Name & Registered Office:

PROVIDENT PERSONAL CREDIT LIMITED

NO. 1

GODWIN STREET

BRADFORD

WEST YORKSHIRE

UNITED KINGDOM

BD1 2SU

Company No. 00146091

 

 

Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 20/02/1917

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

6522 - Other credit granting

Accounting Reference Date: 31/12

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/12/2009 (FULL)

Next Accounts Due: 30/09/2011

Last Return Made Up To: 30/09/2010

Next Return Due: 28/10/2011

Last Members List: 30/09/2010

Previous Names: Date of change Previous Name 13/11/1991 JOHN BLUNDELL LIMITED

So i suggest you send copies of all letters sent to greenwoods as an email attachement to customerrelations@provident.co.uk In the email itself state you are aware that greenwoods are part of their group, and you therefore expect provident to handle your complaint, because as a result of greenwoods ignoring your communication and committing a criminal act of harassment 26 calls between 5pm - 6pm 25/04/2011 on a bank holiday by their collection agent who has also ignored the letters given to her, that you no longer have any trust in greenwoods and demand compensation by means of account being closed at zero balance within 7 days or you will. Also state that you after those 7 days you withhold the right to take legal action without further notice.

 

Lets see what response you get them. Oh and if the collector does show up call the police, do not get physical with her, and if possible have a neighbor or friend their to as a witness (and moral support) just in case she does turn up. Also do as DX says too with the camera on your phone.

[Happyhippy1959]

Decz, Great advice from the guy's on here. I have upwards of £40k debts own house (neg equity) and I have had to struggle to keep house and secured debt when ex left me high and dry. That was in 2009, most of my creditors accept the situation in that i can only afford a £1.00 at the moment until the wee ones leave school.

 

Priority debts come first... whether your on benefits or change of circumstances like myself. Had sleepless nights till I found this site,,, the guy's here are terrific and give good impartial advice and help with any pond life of a DCA who try's to think they are the LAW and above the LAW. In fact now, I relish them putting there head above the parapet as I then hit them with a CCA and SAR and find to my horror that in most cases they have not a leg to stand on or have charged me extortionate and illegal interest and charges.

[teaboy2]

Any update Decz?

[ArtisanUK]

oh and just to clarify

 

they have NO LEGAL POWERS and will go nowhere near a court, with the interest rates they charge, they'll be crucified by the judge.

Would they?

 

I'll volunteer to make the cross - you can sell the tickets. 8-)

[decz2004]

Hi yes sorry not been on the last few days, I called the police on Tuesday after the agent arrived again and it was a lovely lady officer who was very sympathetic i showed her the texts and all the calls that i received and explained everything that has been going on and about the agent coming to the door all the time and that i felt this was harassment and she agreed she basically told me what you all have that she has no right to come to the door!! I got a little sheet of paper with an incident number and a number to call if she were to come again i don't know if she contacted them or anything as i haven't heard anything back! I then sent an email to the email address giving above about everything thats been going on and the harrasment from the agent and that i had to get the police involved and i received a letter on thursday saying my details have been passed to a senior customer relations officer as they have taken my comments very seriously and they will contact me again soon! I will let you all know what i receive next, Thanks

[teaboy2]

Well am pleased to see that the agent seems to have finally stopped harassing you.

 

Funny how they are now responding to your letters when they know the police have been informed, after ignoring all your previous communication for them to stop. Definitely keep us updated.

[PaulW922]

It should do as you will have then formally informed the collector that their actions in attempting to collect is a tort of trespass, and they texts and phones call's to you are deemed as harassment and therefore also unlawful.

 

If not let us know, as a more direct approach maybe called for

 

Hmm.. don't forget then when you take out a 'doorstep' loan you give consent for them to call and collect. I am not sure that you could then revoke that whilst the contract remains in force. Tell me I'm wrong by all means but I am not sure I am..

[teaboy2]

Hmm.. don't forget then when you take out a 'doorstep' loan you give consent for them to call and collect. I am not sure that you could then revoke that whilst the contract remains in force. Tell me I'm wrong by all means but I am not sure I am..

 

Yes you can revoke, as under common law only the postman and a person(s) asking directions is allowed on your property. So basically once you revoke permission it doesn't matter whats in the contract about it, as law takes precedence over a term of contract therefore making that term void whilst the rest of the contract would still be unaffected, which is why some contract have a term in them stating "that if a term is void in law the rest of the contract is unaffected", or something similar along those lines.

[PaulW922]

I agree that under Common law there is an implied consent that people can come and knock on your door etc unless you make it clear that they can't - however- the agent is not coming onto the property using the implied consent under common law - they are coming onto their customer's property because the customer has given them consent as part of a legally binding contract. So withdrawing the common law consent would not have the desired effect as the agent isn't using it in the first place. Of course the agent cannot harass the customer or act unreasonably.

 

Given the position that decz2004 is in then this is probably a bit of a side issue (although I am sure it is quite stressful). I would be interested to hear what Provident has to say if and when they get back.

 

I am not 100% on this one and I don't dispute what you (Teaboy2) say about implied rights - I just question whether it is relevant in the case of a loan contract that is based around doorstep collection and will inevitably have a specific clause in it about authority to call and collect. Common law is generally superseded by either statute law or a binding civil contract.

[teaboy2]

I see your point, though the following makes it clear that any license given to them can be revoked

 

"There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and, if you do so, you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance."

 

I agree that in the terms and conditions their maybe a clause (Expressed Permission) allowing a collector to visit the property, but such a term is based on license under common law, which can be revoked at any time by the property holder if abused by the trespasser and if the agreement has a flaw in it and it can be revoked if given by a contract. Plus when you take in to consideration the harassment then you would have to ask, does the Decz have the right to revoke license in order to protect herself from such harassment? I would say yes.

 

The fact the police agrees as well (Confirming they had no right to come to her door), confirms what i believe, that decz does have the right to revoke license regardless of terms in a contract. Such term can be made void without affecting the rest of the terms of the contract.

 

Also, as they have harassed Decz, then they could well be in breach of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Part V, which is the statute law that police use when summoned to remove trespassers, if the trespasser then refuses to leave they are committing a criminal offense.

 

I agree its iffy as to when or how you can revoke license, but under contract it can be revoked (a CCA is a Contract), yet if part of an agreement (Non Contractual) it can only be revoked if the agreement is flawed. But as soon as the person with permission to come on to the property abuses (harasses, assaults etc) the land owner, then the license is revoked regardless.

[PaulW922]

That's interesting. Do you know if that has been tested (in a case like this)?

[teaboy2]

Well in most cases these matters are not settled in the high court, but in the lower courts, though people have been convicted for trespass under Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Part V.

 

Though one case law is that off Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.

 

If your referring to another part of my earlier post, then though they maybe case law, i do not know off any of the top of my head other than the one above but then most debt matters where a counter claim for such trespass were made, have probably been settled in the lower courts. But i am certain that license can be revoked if made in contact or where an agreement is flawed.

[Tingy]

I believe you have every right to refuse them access to your property. They are committing tort of trespass in my opinion, especially as you have made it clear that you do not want them to call. The case quoted above is the normal case quoted to prove that common law only gives an implied right.

 

I would be thinking about reporting the company and the collector by name to Trading Standards.

 

I haven't read the whole thread, but I assume you have contacted the police and got a crime number.

[teaboy2]

Yes Decz has contacted the police and got a incident number Tingy. Also the police officer agreed that she has no right to be coming to her door.

[Happyhippy1959]

Would agree with Teaboy and Tingy, also if the agent breaches this the police have the right not only to charge him or her with harassment but also to impose on the bail conditions that this agent or even representatives of the agent stay say 100 metres from Decz property.. common law I believe in my limited knowledge take's precedent over contractual law and obligations. ?????

[PaulW922]

Would agree with Teaboy and Tingy, also if the agent breaches this the police have the right not only to charge him or her with harassment but also to impose on the bail conditions that this agent or even representatives of the agent stay say 100 metres from Decz property.. common law I believe in my limited knowledge take's precedent over contractual law and obligations. ?????

 

It doesn't necessarily, no. Provided a contract is lawful it can take precedence. Common law is a strange beast as it by and large is not written down and relies on customs and precedent. (A good example in the criminal field is murder which is a common law offence and manslaughter which is a statute offence) . I wouldn't reply on a police officer having a completely sound knowledge of this either, as it is a tricky area.

 

The police, in the event the agent were to be charged with a criminal offence and bailed (which let's be honest, isn't going to happen) could not impose such bail conditions on other agents of the company, although in theory as you suggest they could extend the requirement to other agents of the agent.

[teaboy2]

It doesn't necessarily, no. Provided a contract is lawful it can take precedence. Common law is a strange beast as it by and large is not written down and relies on customs and precedent. (A good example in the criminal field is murder which is a common law offence and manslaughter which is a statute offence) . I wouldn't reply on a police officer having a completely sound knowledge of this either, as it is a tricky area.

 

The police, in the event the agent were to be charged with a criminal offence and bailed (which let's be honest, isn't going to happen) could not impose such bail conditions on other agents of the company, although in theory as you suggest they could extend the requirement to other agents of the agent.

 

Yes, but in regards to having given license under contract for someone to come onto your property, then as it was given in a contract such license can be revoked. Same if made in an agreement (verbal, implied or non contractual written agreement) if such agreement was flawed.

 

"Trespass Defences

There are several defences to trespass to land; license, justification by law, necessity and jus tertii. License is express or implied permission, given by the possessor of land, to be on that land. These licenses are irrevocable unless there is a flaw in the agreement or it is given by a contract. Once revoked, a license-holder becomes a trespasser if they remain on the land. Justification by law refers to those situations in which there is statutory authority permitting a person to go onto land, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which allows the police to enter land for the purposes of carrying out an arrest. Jus tertii is where the defendant can prove that the land is not possessed by the claimant, but by a third party, as in Doe d Carter v Barnard. The exception to this defence is if the claimant is a tenant and the defendant a landlord who had no right to give the claimant his lease.Necessity is the situation in which it is vital to commit the trespass; in Esso Petroleum Co v Southport Corporation, the captain of a ship committed trespass by allowing oil to flood a shoreline. This was necessary to protect his ship and crew, however, and the defence of necessity was accepted."

[hallowitch]

I think that we are going to see a lot of aggressive collecting from provident agents as the agents are being financially penalised if the debtor cant pay not sure if greenwoods have the same policy as i believe they are the same company

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3174496