Carousel Of Doom

[Mr Worried]

That is a genuine HMRC number. The switchboard is probably similar – 585000.

 

Called the number just ringing out?

[Sidewinder]

A quick search for Call Spoofing or caller ID Spoofing suggests several ways in which calls can be re-routed to re-program the Caller ID with a number of your choice. It can be done by local software or a web-based service for example.

 

OFT might well be interested, and an enquiry to both them and Ofcom is an absolute must. It is certainly a misleading practice, and if BCW do not own the number that is being shown on the end-user's equipment, this would appear to be a serious breach of the rules relating to CLID services and possibly even offences under the Communications Act where the purpose of disguising CLID is to cause annoyance, anxiety or distress.

 

Be interesting to know who answers a call if you were to phone the number that BCW are using.

[DonkeyB]

Apparently 0845 302 1443 is an equally useless alternative.

[Mr Worried]

Apparently 0845 302 1443 is an equally useless alternative.

 

I tried that one too ? I will try again then if no answer I will drop a line to the HMRC ref my case then at least they have comms opposed to a phone call.

[Wooks001]

If you have an ongoing case just call the regular number or your local HMRC office.

Should they be trying to contact you then it will be on their system, and why.

[Mr Worried]

If you have an ongoing case just call the regular number or your local HMRC office.

Should they be trying to contact you then it will be on their system, and why.

 

 

I got through after 17 mins 9 secs on an 0845 number.. went through details only to be told, they know nothing of the person that called and that I was speaking with a control centre which is one of many around the country. The chap said no update had been made to the system and that he could not assist me further.

 

Just going to await there re-call.

 

Cheers All

[Homer67]

We know they are almost certainly NOT using local agents –*the calls are NOT coming from the local area. So what are they doing?

 

They have to be calling from an exchange with that prefix to send that Cli, which means they are calling from that exchange area.

 

This clarifies it a bit, they will have agents who log onto their call taking system via an IP phone which is a bit like Skype, this agent is sat in his front room with a laptop and the IP phone plugged into his PC.

 

When he calls out it will give a local Cli (as that is the exchange he is calling from) which they will have pointing to a SIP trunk that goes into their general call queue if anyone calls the Cli number back.

 

This way the can have agents all across the country and reduce their premises costs, the reason they get the ones in your local area to call you first is exactly as given above - you are far more likely to answer or call back to a local number.

Spoofing is not the same and is illegal.

[rdm2006]

We have moorcroft and advantis advertising for home workers in this area - it may be people working from home as said above.

[Queens_king]

Could this number be Skype. I have a German Skype number but live in UK

[Homer67]

Skype is not the same as a call taking agent logging onto to an online CTAK system, Skype is sent out from the Skype network and will present no Cli as such as it presents a number registered in your profile. Not usually a problem on Skype as you have a picture of the person speaking to you to prove who they are.

[Mr Worried]

Hi All

 

Capquest recently made contact saying to get in touch as they have purchased the alleged debt from xxx although its been in dispute for 3 yr, they also suggest we send them £10.00 and they will give us the info they now have?

 

Lowells. well this bunch are just as rude s they always have been, siting that they now own an alleged debt? no dpa for them either.

 

Are dca's doing the rounds again?

 

Mr

[renegadeimp]

Just tell them the debt is in dispute for years. Dont provide more info even if they ask for it. It is up to them to contact the previous owner (s) and find out.

[Mr Worried]

Hi All

 

Why oh why does this happen ? chased these 3 yr ago then all went quiet now there back offering 75% reductions or similar reduced offers on accounts they still havenot produced cca for? have I missed something since I have been away?

 

Mr strange things happen.

[alisindebt]

I wrote of ten thousand quid these jokers asked for - see my thread on here. Biggest bunch of idiots I have dealt with. They had no paperwork to back up their claim.

 

Do they have valid paperwork for the claim against you?

 

It is up to them to prove you owe, not for you to prove you don't.

 

If somebody turned up to your door, dressed badly, smelling of fish, looking like they sleep on the street, you would tell them to take a running jump, why would you take the same person seriously if they wrote to you on nicely prepared company headed paper?

[Mr Worried]

Ha Ha alisindebt

 

I don't take these academics seriously at all and never have done. I just wanted a quickie update as I have been offline for a while, but I have the info I requested earlier due to my half hr jaunt around the forum. seems all is fine with my account 'in dispute ' from 2009.

 

I will forward another reminder to them and sit tight again,

 

Thank you

 

Mr

[citizenB]

Simply advise that the account is still in dispute as they have failed to comply with an s78 request made on DATE !

[renegadeimp]

make sure you get all your info together. Lowells can get litigous, even on very obvious lemon debts like this. 75% discount means your debt is 100% unenforceable.

[Mr Worried]

Morning All, just as I thought.

 

Thank you

 

Mr

[alisindebt]

If the account is in dispute with the OC, then it should never be chased by a DCA, as it is against the law to do so. This is how I got CapQuest (see my thread on here).

 

I did not know this rule initially and forked out 105 quid to CapQuest before realising that I didn't need to pay them anything.

 

They had a "collections manager" called Anne MySpace who was desperate to collect from me. She even put in writing that I was fraudulently having letters and cheques signed in the UK by another person when I was abroad. She then wrote saying I was in the UK. I was actually writing from Taiwan, where I have lived for 7 years.

 

Even today they have refused to refund my 105 quid despite being forced to close the account once I pointed out the prior dispute with the DCA. The dispute, by the way, was that I had the CCJ from the OC set aside. And Anne McShane is typical of the sort of low life these companies employ.

 

As far as Lowells are concerned, see my thread on here. They wrote of over 10 grand they claimed I owed then because they could not produce any paperwork to support their claim.

 

My experience with DCA s is give them enough type and they will hang themselves.

Edited September 13, 2013 by alisindebt
Spelling errors

[renegadeimp]

Not against the law. It's against guidance. Guidance is just that, and its not statutory.

 

However, should they breach OFT guidance, then it can be complained about and a mark will be made against them when it comes time to renew their credit licence.

[alisindebt]

OK, I hear what you say, but it's a bit rich for them to collect from me on a set aside CCJ, because at that time I did not know the law.

 

It was not at all pleasant being accused of fraudulently having letters and cheques signed on my behalf in the UK.

 

But if the law allows collection agencies to ask for money against a set aside CCJ and if the law allows them to accuse me, falsely, of having people sign cheques and letters for me in the UK, then I suppose I was naive.

 

I do apologise for my earlier posts questioning this behaviour, I thought I was in the right.

 

Strangely, they wrote off the debt. Isn't this a bit strange if I was the wrong and they were in the right?

Actually, I wrote off all my debts to 5 banks, also received full refunds of PPI, accounting to around 15K pounds. About 20 years ago, I also managed to write off about 35K pounds of similar debt.

 

My credit file is now 100% clean.

 

Was I right, or were they right?

 

You decide.

Edited September 14, 2013 by alisindebt
Spelling errors

[Mr Worried]

Hi All.

 

if an alleged debt was put into dispute a few year ago and the DCA at the time that were issuing threatograms petered off,

then come back from under the big bad stone issuing this n that,

then ignored

 

WHY do they insist on re wording threatograms and get in house solicitors to act on their behalf?

 

 

Their letters begin with...

 

 

Your account has been escalated to the legal department..................

 

 

You have ignored previous attempts of offers to repay your debt, and we will now initiate court proceedings....................

 

 

FINAL MESSAGE FROM THE LEGAL TEAM.....................( red caps of course )

 

 

From Hamptons Legal...After several attempts blah blah, Red Debt have instructed us to collect the debt............

 

Now back in 2009 all of my alleged debts etc were put into dispute

and I still get 5/8 calls a day from who ever, but never answer the phone ( got two numbers )

 

now the above culprits are all aware of the situation yet still pursue the Carousel Of Doom,

WHY?

 

all of the above companies have offered me one off payment plans too?

 

so why do they still threaten court etc.

 

 

Mr

[renegadeimp]

They hope you give in and pay. Simple as that.

[Conniff]

If you are getting 5/8 per day and have been for a number of years, you should answer them all so the calling number is recorded. You can then ask your phone company for an itemised bill and take the harrassment to court.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents

[Mr Worried]

Hi Conniff......I am aware of this but don't want the hassle, its so much easier to ignore. Ta

If you are getting 5/8 per day and have been for a number of years, you should answer them all so the calling number is recorded. You can then ask your phone company for an itemised bill and take the harrassment to court.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents