Response to SB Letter

[spacecadet5767]

UPDATE: Hi guys. This is getting ridiculous.

 

RW are starting to take the proverbial.

 

Constant landline calls, constant mobile calls, and when missed or declined a never ending mountain of voicemails!!!!

 

Do I just have to put up with it?

 

What happened to their so called investigation into my SB claim?

 

Doesn't chasing an SB debt when the alleged debtor has informed the alleged creditor in writing that said alleged debt is SB constitute harassment?

 

It's bad enough when I have to deal with this myself but when I'm not the one picking up the phone I am concerned for my partner or worse children.

 

Advise please?

[Seminole]

Speak to your landline provider and report the nuisance calls. Even if the number is witheld they should be able to deal with it. If you're with BT, they have a choose to refuse service.

 

If your mobile is Android, try the Extreme Call Blocker app. I'm not sure about Iphones.

 

Send RW the telephone harassment letter from the library and reference their 'investigation'.

 

Report RW to the Information Commissioner, your local Trading Standards and the OFT.

 

Finally (and I don't know anyone who's done this), I wonder if you could get an injunction to stop the harassment.

[DonkeyB]

Keep copies of the messages and a detailed log of the calls, for reporting to TS and the OFT.

[citizenB]

Speak to your landline provider and report the nuisance calls. Even if the number is witheld they should be able to deal with it. If you're with BT, they have a choose to refuse service.

 

If your mobile is Android, try the Extreme Call Blocker app. I'm not sure about Iphones.

 

Send RW the telephone harassment letter from the library and reference their 'investigation'.

 

Report RW to the Information Commissioner, your local Trading Standards and the OFT.

 

Finally (and I don't know anyone who's done this), I wonder if you could get an injunction to stop the harassment.

 

 

Yes, I am sure that this could be done. I will ask others on the ST.

 

Are RW members of CSA ? If so, then they are in breach of those guidelines as well. See attached.

 

Stat barred debt[1].pdf

 

 

Whilst the OFT accepts that the debt still exists, the OFT considers that it can be unfair to pursue the debt in the circumstances set out in their Debt Collection Guidance (section 2.13 and 2.14a and b), and it is the methods in which the debt is attempted to be collected that can cause concern to the OFT.

 

In essence, providing you work within legislation and guidance, collection of statute barred accounts is a legitimate activity. However, if your debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt becauseit is statute barred, these accounts should be closed and your records updated appropriately.This will reduce the number of accounts that could be placed back out for collection or sale, which in turn could lead to complaint and create further issues for the industry in this area.

 

 

IMHO, it would appear that RW are breaching OFT guidelines in that they have obviously embarked on a campaign of intimidation and harassment and they should be the subject of a complaint to the CSA (if they are members), the OFT and also one to RW's Head office.

 

You should keep a record of all the calls.

 

Harrison v Link started off as a court claim against Link for an injunction to force Link to stop harassing Mr Harrison. The Judge was quite scathing in his condemnation of the way in which Link Hounded Mr Harrison on the telephone.

[citizenB]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362603/Judge-writes-customers-20-000-credit-card-debt-hearing-hounded-repay-money.html

 

 

'Tortured on the telephone' over loan of £20,000: Judgeattacks credit card firm and axes debt'

 

[spacecadet5767]

Thanks guys. I will start making a log of every call and voicemail.

 

Also, I'll send RW the telephone harassment letter referencing the SB.

 

See what happens after that and take it from there.

 

Appreciate it as always.

[Bazooka Boo]

And do not forget that you can report this to your local police station.

 

This is a criminal offence, NOT a civil matter.

[citizenB]

Thanks guys. I will start making a log of every call and voicemail.

 

Also, I'll send RW the telephone harassment letter referencing the SB.

 

See what happens after that and take it from there.

 

Appreciate it as always.

 

I would also point out to RW what the Judge said in the Harrison v Link with regards to this type of telephone torture.

[spacecadet5767]

Ok, so I found the following template letters.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?420-Letter-to-use-if-a-DCA-still-try-to-collect-after-Statute-Barred

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?493-Harassment-by-telephone-response-letter

 

Firstly are these the right letters? And secondly should I send the first one or the second or even both?

 

Thanks.

[Bazooka Boo]

Send them the harassment letter along with this one http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?420-Letter-to-use-if-a-DCA-still-try-to-collect-after-Statute-Barred

 

If you don't want to waste good money on recorded delivery, then obtain proof of posting from the PO counter, which is free.

[spacecadet5767]

Thanks Bazooka Boo.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

RWs 'parent' Hoist Portfolio is a member of CSA.

[spacecadet5767]

UPDATE: Sent the 'I reiterate SB' letter along with a 'telephone harassment' paragraph included to RW.

 

Also sent a letter from my wife, after she got one from SnottyCall demanding payment and threatening a home visit. I told them it's SB and we do NOT accept home visits!!!

 

Sound good?

 

Thanks.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

YEP Fine!!!

[spacecadet5767]

Thanks Brigadier.

[spacecadet5767]

UPDATE: Received a response from RW. In it they say only a court can decide if something is SB, and even if I could prove SB doesn't mean the debt disappears.

 

In any event, they go on to say that they dispute my SB claim, as according to them the account was opened Aug 2008 and defaulted Sep 2008 (the exact dates are 5 weeks apart).

 

They have said that my phone number has been removed from the account but dispute any harassment claim.

 

Where to from here? I don't recognise any account from that time period, not to mention that an account of 5 weeks in age smells fishy!

 

Any help appreciated.

 

PS My CRA is clean and has been for nearly 6 months.

[DonkeyB]

But which account? You have three accounts here...

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

This is peculiar and something smells, if the default entry has been removed from CRA files the default date was more than 6 years ago therefore the last payment date was up to 5 month prior to the default.

 

Their comment and the dates stated would certainly appear to be nonsense.

 

So shall we rock the boat!!?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

But which account? You have three accounts here...

 

Beat me to it DB!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The statement that an account was opened and defaulted in 5 weeks is implausible imo.

 

Please clarify original creditor and type f account sc.

[spacecadet5767]

Ok let me try and clear things up.

 

I've dealt with one of Lowell's claims and they have admitted SB and closed the account.

 

I've sent the 'unequivocal proof' letter to Crapquest after they said there was a £1 payment. The 'proof' was rubbish and you advised holding out till 3 July in any event.

 

This is another SB account from RW this time. The one above that I detailed numerous calls and texts etc. I sent the SB reiteration and included the harassment bit.

 

Sorry if it's confusing but I'm dealing with multiple DCA's chasing multiple accounts.

 

Not to mention dealing with my partners story on another thread (where you're being extremely helpful Brigadier! )

 

Any information needed just ask.

 

It feels like just when I think I'm making headway another DCA appears!!!!!

 

[spacecadet5767]

PS RW's letter states Cabot are the client. Aren't they a DCA?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Cabot are a debt purchaser mainly and more often farm out accounts to 3r party DCAs for management/collection.

 

What we need to know before going forward is the name of the original creditor.

[spacecadet5767]

No idea. There is no reference to an original creditor anywhere on the letter.

[DonkeyB]

They are fibbing anyway. SB is a matter of fact, not a court issue.