I want to sue a DCA for Harassment re: incorrect demands for money since Nov 2010!

[Catlady12]

Just signed up to see if anyone could give me advice on possibility of taking this DCA to court for harassment.

 

This saga is a long one and the DCA and its client have continually ignored what I have had to say

and have constantly replied with an incredible amount of non-sensical garble / evasive tactics.

 

I will try to summarise this as shortly as possible - but for anyone willing to read - a brew / sandwich may be needed.

 

Here goes.....

 

I received a service funded via the DCA's client from 2009 - 2011.

I should only have been liable to make a contribution towards to the costs, subject to means testing.

I know for a fact, that I am not liable for what they have calculated / demanded ( I will go into calculations further below ).

The harassment seems to be two pronged and in two parts.

 

Firstly,

the client had been unable to work out my liability since 2009 - Oct 2010.

On 26/10/2010, it was agreed that a fresh applicaton / calculation would be required subject to a new means testing.

On 05/11/2010 + 22/11/2010 the DCA chased me, (for the 1st time ever)

demanding money on behalf of their client for amounts that relate to the previous applications incorrect calculations, that had been agreed / instructed to be closed.

 

On 24/11/2010 the client once again worked out an incorrect liability, ( £6024.00 more than the liability requested in their first application which I disputed / disagreed with. )

 

For reasons yet unknown,

from 25/11/2010 the DCA chased me for a different amount, (£466.00 less than their clients calculation / demand, and £5558.00 more than their clients first calculation.)

 

My solicitor and I both appealed to the client, that the whole point of the new application was because we did not agree with the previous amount / calculations,

so why are they now working out I owe more?

 

The client caused more confusion and continuously delayed the application by making repeated /ambiguous requests for information, which at times baffled even my solicitor.

 

As well as my solicitor and I appealing to the client, I phoned the DCA in Feb/ Mar 2011 disputing amounts requested.

 

On 02/03/2011 a notice of intention to enforce DCA's version of the contribution order was received.

 

On 24/03/2011, I received via email from my solicitor, a letter from the client requesting repeated/contradicting documents.

 

On 25/03/2011 I sent in all requested documents accompanied by a slightly insulting email directed to both my solicitor and the DCA's client,

with regards to their inability to complete this application correctly.

 

I heard nothing from the DCA, their client, or my solicitor, and presumed everyone had accepted the maladministration, and put the matter to bed.

 

On 02/04/2012, I became aware that the DCA had sent a letter to an incorrect address,

yet again chasing me for an alleged liability, this time 33% of what the client is insisting I was liable for in 2010/2011.

( On 01/03/2011, my solicitor advised the DCA's client of my change of address details, and the client acknowledged this and put the miscommunication with their DCA to a computer error )

 

The client insists that the money now being requested in 2012 is according to their calculations made on 24/11/2010, and is correct.

 

They have continously ignored my query, as to why every single letter their DCA sent in 2010 + 2011 was incoherent to their version of events,

and to date insist that their contribution worked out on 24/11/2010 is what was instructed / demanded by the DCA.

 

Below is a self-explanatory quote from my email of 20/04/2012 to the DCA explaining the miscalculation.

I have since provided the DCA with copies of my statements to show this evidence too.

 

 

Your client is stating they conducted means assessment on these 2 forms alone, because I did not provide documents that were required/asked for.

In statement 4, your client explains their working out of my gross income at £28200.00.

Your client has copies of my bank/savings statements prior to their letter dated 31/12/2010.

 

My Current Account balance as of 25/10/2010 (date application received at court) was £1295.10 - your client had statements that covered this date.

 

My Savings Account balance as of 25/10/2010 was £4512.56 - your client had statements that covered this date.

 

Rental income from my flat = £850 per month - potentially/should be £10200.00 per annum.

 

This potentially totalled £16007.66 for the year to 25/10/2010 - 25/10/2011.

 

That is it - that is all the money I had - I have tried and tried to get an explanation as to why they think I have got an income,

and why they have worked out my income at £28200.00 when all I could have possibly had in my hands for the year 25/10/2010 - 25/10/2011 is a maximum of £16007.66,

and that's before any allowances are taken into consideration.

There is no more money coming in from anywhere, except for more loans / support / charity from friends and family.

Your client has taken into consideration some allowances, which total up to £9445.68 for the year 25/10/2010-25/10/2011.

 

£16007.66 less allowances of £9445.68 makes a gross income of £6561.98 not £28200.00

- yet neither figure is taking into account loans, credit cards and a considerable amount owed to the managing agents of **my flat address that i rent out** , well in to its thousands.

 

 

I know I do not owe this money and this is harassment.

I know I should report the DCA's client to the relevant ombudsman but am not sure if I should do this before or after suing them in court

I know I should report them to OFT and all other relevant bodies, but am not sure if this should be done before or after trying to sue them?

My solicitor seems unwilling to report them to the relevant bodies on my behalf, or take them to court. I have asked to them to try and find me a solicitor on my behalf, who will look into this with a view of taking it on as a no win no fee basis - to no avail - any suggestions?

 

I have exhausted the DCA's and their Clients complaint procedure, as both have said they will not look into this dispute any more,and want my proposal for a payment arrangement. My proposal is exactly £NIL, as my solicitor and I both agree i am not liable for any amounts requested.

 

Has anyone experienced similar and succeded in suing a DCA?

 

All thoughts and recommendations appreciated.

[unclebulgaria67]

No experience of this, but I would ask the question as to how deep your pockets are, if you have to pay their costs.

 

Not something you should embark on, without understanding the financial consequences.

 

What research have you done in regard to similar court claims that have been made ?

[Catlady12]

Thanks for your post.

My pockets are all but empty.

I can't find any history of comparable cases.

I understand that if a solicitor takes this on, on a no win no fee basis, I could take out an insurance policy to cover any costs due should I loose the battle.

I know I have a case for sure - but do not what the likelihood is a solicitor would take this on. The client is a government departmnt, and I'm sure they will escalate this to a Higher Court.

[dx100uk]

please name and shamw and aLSO clue us in to WHAT this debt actually is [card/account/loan/renting]

 

as you seems to be paying far toomuch lip service to a dca tha has no legal powers

and neither should they be a party to your personal finances either

 

they have NO legal powers.

 

dx

[unclebulgaria67]

Thanks for your post.

My pockets are all but empty.

I can't find any history of comparable cases.

I understand that if a solicitor takes this on, on a no win no fee basis, I could take out an insurance policy to cover any costs due should I loose the battle.

I know I have a case for sure - but do not what the likelihood is a solicitor would take this on. The client is a government departmnt, and I'm sure they will escalate this to a Higher Court.

 

I think you would probably be best to see there are any legal professionals who would be willing to have a look at the merits of the case on a pro-bono basis.

 

http://www.barprobono.org.uk/

 

Can't see any no win no fee solicitors even wanting to look at this for you. In regard to Insurance, don't you have to provide the Insurers with details of the legal case and what the chances of success are, before they agree to provide Insurance ?

[url=http://www.barprobono.org.uk/][/url]

[Catlady12]

oooh go on then, the client is the Legal services commission (LSC) and the fictional liability is for legal aid. The DCA is Rossendales. Both boast to be proud to be efficient professionals on their websites.

 

Just to be clear I had no job / was not in receipt of benefits of any kind. My calculations/dispute to the LSC's calculations sent on 20/04/2012 is true and proper.

 

I quote from an email to Rossendales on 16/05/2012:

"Since April 2012, LSC Liverpool have had at least two senior case workers working on this case, LSC Complaints Handling Team have had at least two workers looking over this case and Rossendales have had at least one person looking at this case. Common sense is definitely uncommon amongst these people. I have been telling the truth non stop throughout this case since 2010, yet none of you could be bothered since 2010 to date, too simply check the balance on my savings, and realise that you are chasing for monies that I never had. Yet since 05/11/2010 you all have not listened to the truth I have been speaking, instead expecting / demanding the impossible of me.

 

As I have mentioned many times before, what if I was not a literate person, or a person subject to mental health issues. Dealing with apparatchiks like yourselves would certainly send someone over he edge.

 

Again, as I have mentioned many times before you and your client's organisation has failed, quite unreasonably, to deal with this matter appropriately, since 05/11/2010 at the very least. Indeed you and your client have simply ignored what me or my solicitor has had to say regarding all matters and procedures. You have simply cock-surely badgered me for payment of alleged outstanding contribution orders in a pack-mentality fashion. You have been so spuriously pointing fingers, when you're own hands are not even clean! I'm not perfect, and I don't live to be, but I do not disturb / harm / distress / swindle or deceive anybody.

 

I am taking this opportunity to reserve my position against both you and your client regarding all possible remedies available to me, in particular to pursue a claim against damages / harassment.

Under the circumstances, please confirm that each and every amount, since 2010 to date, requested by your client and yourselves, was incorrect."

[Catlady12]

I think you would probably be best to see there are any legal professionals who would be willing to have a look at the merits of the case on a pro-bono basis.

 

 

Can't see any no win no fee solicitors even wanting to look at this for you. In regard to Insurance, don't you have to provide the Insurers with details of the legal case and what the chances of success are, before they agree to provide Insurance ?

[/url]

 

Thanks for this Unc.

As you can see my dispute is with LSC.

Is pro bono not a scheme linked / funded by the LSC? I will be asking the duty solicitor to consider referring my case to them, but i'm sure my request will be ignored / avoided.

[unclebulgaria67]

Thanks for this Unc.

As you can see my dispute is with LSC.

Is pro bono not a scheme linked / funded by the LSC? I will be asking the duty solicitor to consider referring my case to them, but i'm sure my request will be ignored / avoided.

 

No pro-bono is not connected. As far as I know they are barristers or other legal professionals who will take on cases for free, if they feel that they are in the publics interest. They do so, in cases where they think there is an issue, that deserves to be addressed. May be worth speaking to someone on the pro-bono helpline to see whether anyone is willing to take a look at your case, to see if they can help.

[Catlady12]

Thanks unclebulgaria - will be firing off an email to my solicitor today to see if they will introduce the case to them. If not I will contact them myself next week.

[andydd]

Hi.

 

In all honesty, its prob not worth the bother. You could put yourself at risk of substantial costs should you lose.

 

The Ferguson v British Gas is a landmark case where an individual took on British Gas and won, (although i believe it was settled at a late stage)

 

Here is some interesting reading.

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1664204/British-Gas-loses-harassment-court-ruling.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1140905/Sue-Judge-backs-woman-took-British-Gas.html

 

and the court case..

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html

 

Andy

[Catlady12]

Thanks for them links Andy.

I was aware of the case you have sent links too and is a good read. I accept I would be taking a risk, but have read you can get insurance to cover your back if the case is good enough.The truth is the truth. I will try to get pro bono onside via my solicitor and possibly discuss insurance with them.

 

 

 

I quote from an email to Rossendales:

"May I remind you, all your correspondences from 23/12/2010 - 02/03/2011 was for £7970.00 and whenever I called your office after 21st Jan 2011 you were still chasing me for £7970.00. Your client denies knowledge of ever sending out requests that you chased me for in 2010 + 2011.

 

You state: "Again on 07 March you responded to one of the letters; however our telephone agents response was to advise you to make payments."

 

Why was your telephone agent asking me to pay £7970.00 when your client states £2812.00 is what was due as of 21st Jan 2011.

Why did it take you until March 2012 to advise me of a figure of £2812.00, especially if it was as instantaneously simple to work out on the 21st Jan 2011 as described by your client? How is it that your client never thought it necessary to advise me that I don't owe the amount of money the DCA is incorrectly demanding? How is it that your client never thought it necessary to advise me that £2812.00 is due? How is it that your letter of 02nd March wanted an immediate payment of £7970.00 and no option of contributions?

Even if your client's working out on the 24th November 2010 was correct, you have harassed me for incorrect amounts of money constantly throughout 2010 + 2011.

BUT, your client's working out on the 24/11/2010 is indeed incorrect / false / wrong / distorted / fabricated / imprecise / incorrect / spurious / untrue / unsound / fictitious....etc. however you want to dress it up."

 

 

 

[Catlady12]

I asked their FOI dept to clarify why they did not send me a full file ( i.e. no instruction of £7970.00 ) and this is the reply.....

I can confirm that the file sent to you is complete with the exceptions of the two specific items detailed in our covering letter which will be following shortly. The instructions from the LSC to Rossendales in all cases are provided by an automatic data feed from the LSCs MAAT system which is currently uploaded on a daily basis to Rossendale’s case management system. Please note though in 2010 when your case was first sent, this was not always the case. The daily data feed contains new instructions and amendments on all cases processed in MAAT the previous day. The extracts of the relevant data feeds relating to your case are included on the print out from Rossendales case management system, though for cases in 2010 not all data received in the instruction file has been recorded as a note. The method of uploading and recording these data extracts has changed during the lifetime of your case and therefore the updated data file received on 22nd March 2012 is more informative than that from 2010.

The notes on the Rossendales log for November 3rd, 4th and 5th show information received by Rossendales in the data feed, uploaded into their case management system and the standard letter generated by Rossendales as a result of these actions. On November 26th 2010 Rossendales received new figures from the data feed following a reassessment.

In addition to the data feed, Rossendales receive instructions from the LSC in response to case specific queries. These are usually sent by email, which in most cases have not been provided as the emails are not retained. The results of these queries are however recorded on Rossendales system, for example on 14th February 2011 a query was sent to the LSC by Rossendales, our response was returned on 28th February 2011 and uploaded/actioned on 1st March 2011 and these entries can all be seen on the Rossendales log.

You have asked for “explanations/calculations/justifications/evidence for raising all letters sent to me by Rossendales in 2010 and 2011”.

Not every letter or action taken by Rossendales will have been the direct result of receiving instructions from the LSC. Once the LSC has instructed Rossendales of the date contributions start and the value of that contribution we do not normally issue any further instructions as Rossendales have all the information they need to begin collecting the amounts detailed above. We have expectations that various types of standard letters will be sent advising defendants when payments are due or when payments are missed. Examples of these letters can be found on Rossendales logs for example on 20th January 2011 and 9th February 2011.

We sent our initial instructions in November 2010, which was for £402 per month which Rossendales know will be for a maximum of 6 months, or 5 months if the first 5 payments are made on time, or for an up front sum of £2010 (£402 x 5).

An amendment was uploaded on November 26th, which changed the amounts to £1406 per month. This was the result of the reassessment conducted on 24th November 2010 and relates to the Contribution Order issued on this date by the Court which also confirms this amount. Rossendales would know, as above, that the payments should be made for a maximum of 6 months, or a lump sum of £7030.

On 18th March 2011 we confirmed to Rossendales that your case had concluded and you were convicted. Rossendales therefore knew that they needed to await the date of conclusion and final defence costs before they could take further action.

An update on 22nd March 2012 confirmed to Rossendales the date the case concluded for calculation purposes, known as the Sentence/Order Date, which in your case is 21/01/12. The same data feed also confirmed the final defence costs in your matter. Sending these figures to Rossendales allows them to calculate if all 6 monthly payments are due and in your case they were not. Your case concluded before the 3rd months payment was due and Rossendales therefore set the debt to £2812 (2 months only due). Once they have the Sentence/Order Date, Rossendales are able to undertake this calculation without further instruction from the LSC and you can see the notes regarding the crystalisation process (see glossary attached to original response) on March 26th 2012.

At each stage of the case, where Rossendales know the figure they are required to collect we expect them to take all appropriate action to collect that figure.

I trust that the above helps to clarify the position.

[Catlady12]

still doesn't mention £7970.00??

[Catlady12]

noticed this article linked below:

 

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lsc-debt-collection-tactics-criticised

[britannicus]

Hi, Catlady, I've since heard from my solicitors. Essentially, they appear to be under the (mis)apprehension that the Order against me could possibly, perhaps, might be, sort of, well ...erm, right. Their letter is worded so vaguely (to me, at any rate), and they enclosed a letter from our pals at Rossendales which skates over the calculation issue and simply reiterates their demand for money. I've since read the appropriate Regulations myself (the 2009 version - they've been amended since so that enforcement costs can be added to the amount on the Order) and I've asked the LSC to consider my concerns under Regulation 29 of the 2009 Regs. I pointed out that I might be outside the time limits for appealing the calculation but that repaying the Order would cause me serious financial harship. (The hardship issue is not time-barred). I'm still waiting to hear from them. Also, as I'm completely disgusted with this whole issue, I've written to my local MP asking for assistance in dealing with the LSC which, in my opinion, should never have passed this matter to our pals at Rossendales. So far, all's quiet on the Western Front ...Britannicus

[Catlady12]

Hi britannicus - could you tell me where you got thei regulations from - re; time limit for appealing mis-calculation.

 

What I can't understand is: how can an income contribution order be valid if the calculations are false??

 

LSC and Rossendales both were sending / expecting different amounts from me in 2010 + 2011, whilst the solicitor and I were disputing the amounts. They have not even rent that I pay as an allowable expense, even thogh they have tenancy agreement, proof of payments etc in 2011.

 

One can only assume, their confusing / misleading forms and confusion tatics serves them very well in extorting fallacious amounts of money.

 

The duty solicitors have got paid and will not get paid to argue your liability, so it is understanble(?) they are not much help now(?)

 

I feel the option of complaining to the MP and P+H ombudsman will only result in more fob offs, and still leave people like us liable for fallacious amounts.

 

Was it LSC Liverpool that messed your case up?

 

Did you request your full file from their Freedom Of Info. department?

[britannicus]

Hi, Catlady, I'm not sure which LSC office has been involved with my case and I haven't, as yet, requested my file. I'm hoping that once my MP has written to them that things will start to move quickly and that I'll finally have an answer and, more importantly, Messrs Rossendales will leave me alone. I found the Regs at

[britannicus]

Hi, Catlady, I'm not sure which LSC office has been involved with my case and I haven't, as yet, requested my file. I'm hoping that once my MP has written to them that things will start to move quickly and that I'll finally have an answer and, more importantly, Messrs Rossendales will leave me alone. I found the Regs atlegulsation dot gov dot uk -- The Criminal Defence Service (Contribution Orders) Regulations 2009 -- Statutory Instrument (SI) 2009/3328.

[Catlady12]

that did not work LOL

could anyone advise me how to delete that.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

that did not work LOL

could anyone advise me how to delete that.

Post deleted

Brig. Site Team