NCO Europe KEEP calling!

[give_me_it_back]

[loverboy]

let me explain,

A company like NCO are employed/contracted to the creditor thus giving them legal authority and recognition to act on thier behalf.

If there is no record/evidence of the debt then obviously it can not be pursued, that is common sense.

You see in my view, the problem with the majority of people on this site, so far seems to be that you all have a irrational sense of injustice. Nothing in this world or indeed law is free, if you borrow someones money, have a service or contract with some one for one of the previous then it is an exchange of promises (quid pro quo) . You have to honour your promise as they have yours, that is how fundementally the law of contract works. Exchange of promise for promise, agreement for agreement. If you fail to carry out your obligation then you are in breach of contract and indeed fall foul of common law.

In fact such companies as NCO are trying to avoid taking litigation against persons who breach thier contracts by trying to work away forward. Do you seriously believe people should just be able to say, oh well I cant afford to carry out my promise, I should not have to pay, you are harrasing me by asking me to do so??

where would these leave the economic market, insurance prices??

[ODC]

Well said SL

 

As said above, educate yourself before you start spouting garbage

I dont know where you are studying law. If a person feels distressed then that is all the proof a court needs.

[noomill060]

"let me explain,

A company like NCO are employed/contracted to the creditor thus giving them legal authority and recognition to act on thier behalf.

If there is no record/evidence of the debt then obviously it can not be pursued, that is common sense."

 

In which case, NCO's lack of common sense is going to cost them an awful lot of money.

[noomill060]

In many cases, DCAs act outside the law and the OFT's guidelines.

 

This site is all about forcing these companies, which give the impression of being above the law, to act within it, or pay the price.

 

If anyone here wished to run away from their debts, the simplest way is bankrupcy and a two fingered salute.

[noomill060]

**first year student, second term syndrome**

 

You'll soon learn that life is far more complex than you could possibly imagine.

[noomill060]

"In fact such companies as NCO are trying to avoid taking litigation against persons who breach thier contracts by trying to work away forward. "

 

Another way of looking at it would be that they know they have no chance of winning in court, but see harrassment as a way to make their commission.

 

In the end, all a DCA can do is ask for any money that is owed. There are reams of laws which the DCA must stay within.

 

If the debtor cannot pay, continually asking and asking again is harrassment, in which case allowing a court to decide is the sensible option.

 

However, if a debtor makes an honest offer to repay at least something on a regular basis, there is not a damn thing a DCA can do, but accept.

 

Within the law that is. When they step outside the law, the DCA deserves all it gets. Same as any proven criminal.

[noomill060]

Tort? We're not talking civil matters here.

[noomill060]

Simple and without hope?

 

Have you seen the amount of unlawful charges that users of this site have forced banks to return?

[noomill060]

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

 

Of course Section 3 created a civil tort of harassment.

[noomill060]

None of us here pretend to be in any way legally qualified (apart from those of us who are) Nor do many of us intend to become so.

 

This is a joint effort to force banks and other agencies to act within the law by making people aware that they are not powerless and that acting together we can.

 

If you just intend to scoff and belittle, work your socks off and qualify so you can do so professionally.

 

If not, maybe you could lend us a hand?

 

If not, bog off, troll.

[noomill060]

But for God's sake sort your spelling and grammar out first. You've no chance at present.

[noomill060]

Debate? This is a self help forum.

 

Good luck in your career.

[noomill060]

"says you lol, nor do us??"

 

Eh?

 

Good luck with your English.

[noomill060]

If you want a debate try this thread- you'll love it!

 

Loan Company Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[Movingon]

I'm confused; why is noomill talking to itself?

[loverboy]

hey thats a good one thanks, and thanks for your goodluck wish, same to you, thought everyone hated me

Right off il say loan company must evidence the agreement, il go there thanks

[Janet-M]

I'm confused; why is noomill talking to itself?

because some posts have been removed .I could of given a different answer but thought I better be on best behaviour

[noomill060]

[noomill060]

The 88 pages of that thread I sent him to should keep loverboy quiet for a bit.

[give_me_it_back]

He might need some help with the long words, noomill...

[Movingon]

Absolutely not... but if you google the number you're bound to find out who they are - then you can write to them simply to tell them never to call your number again. Maybe then they'll write to you and tell you what on earth they want... LOL. But do you really want to know?

[tim2718281]

dont be so silly, acts of pariliment are not open to interpretation,

 

Wrong.

 

Tim

[Movingon]

Wrong.

 

Tim

 

LOL Absolutely Tim - what does he think Lawyers and Judges spend their ENTIRE LIVES doing?!

[tim2718281]

Add to this the test of harrasment is an objective one, s1(2) the defendant or accussed will only be guilty if its shown that a a resonable person in possesion of the same information would think the conduct amounted to harrasment.

 

I suspect that a reasonable person *would* decide that a dozen phone calls a day would amount to harrassment. And a dozen calls a week, and likely a dozen calls a month.

 

Actually, I suspect that a reasonable person might decide that three or more calls is harrassment.

 

After all, *one* call asking the person to call NCO seems reaonable - subject to TPS legislation - and mayby two - but what can possibly be the purpose of more than that except to harrass? The reasonable person would expect NCO to explain their reason for the calls, and so far they have declined to do so.

 

And whether or not the legal defence you mentioned is applicable to debt-collectors, it's obviously not available to NCO in this case, as NCO will not state a reason why they are making the calls.

 

I suggest the person sue NCO for £1000 compensation, with a further £5 per call.

 

Tim