QUERY: Using more than one debt collector at a time

[Eversir]

A request for help to those more knowledgeable in this area:

 

It's widely believed that instructing more than one debt collection agency at a time is not OK. Indeed, the Citizens Advice Bureau website states the following:

 

 

What counts as harassment by a creditor

 

If the creditor tries to do any of the following things to try and get you to pay back the money you owe, this could be considered harassment. They include:

 

• ...
  

 

• using more than one debt collector at a time to chase you for payment
  

 

• ...
  

 

Source: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/debt_w/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/harassment_by_creditors.htm

 

 

Citizen's Advice do not cite where this advice comes from (e.g. relevant legislation). Despite best efforts, I have not been able to find it.

 

 

Does this claim have any actual basis in law? If so, please provide details of where it may be found. Thank you!

Edited February 6, 2015 by Eversir
Formatting

[Sidewinder]

So far as I recall that came from the OFT Code of Practice relating to debt collection. Not sure whether the code has been re-issued now that licencing falls under the FCA, but I am sure that using two DCAs would still be considered unfair practice

[Eversir]

OK, OFT code of practice came into force so long as the business or debt collection agency has a credit licence.

 

In other words, the organisation must engage with the recovery of debt arising from consumer credit agreements, at least some of the time. If they never have to engage with it, they don't have to follow it.

 

So for example, a DCA working on behalf of a utility company to recover debt would have been obliged to follow the OFT guidelines - so long as that DCA satisfied the above. The utility company itself however, would not have been obliged to follow the OFT guidelines - although as the instructing company it would be responsible for the DCA's actions.

 

In the OFT Guidance for Debt Collection (Published 2003, updated 2011) it states the following:

 

Physical/psychological harassment

 

3.6 Putting undue pressure on debtors or relevant third parties(for example, appointed representatives) is considered to be oppressive and an unfair or improper practice.

 

3.7 Examples of unfair or improper practices are as follows:

 

1. contacting debtors at unreasonable times and/or at unreasonable intervals
   
2. pressurising debtors to raise funds by selling their property or by taking on further borrowing (including extending their existing borrowing)
   
3. multiple businesses* seeking to recover the same debt at the same time, resulting in repetitive and/or frequent contact with the debtor (or his representative) by different parties
    
   
   * 'Multiple businesses' in this context could be a number of different debt recovery businesses instructed by a creditor to pursue the same debt or may include the creditor itself and others acting on its behalf in pursuit of the same debt.
   

Source: http://www.prmsltd.co.uk/app/download/5784482171/OFT664Rev2012.pdf

 

The problem I have now, is establishing whether:

 

a) This advice is still current

b) If so, who now regulates it

c) If not, what (if any) alternative provisions exist with current legislation / regulation

 

Further clarification would be greatly appreciated, if anybody is able to do so.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Eversir
Put FCA instead of OFT

[dx100uk]

think its even mentioned in conc now

 

 

however, over the years there have been various 'guidelines' published

 

 

but at the end of the day they are not 'laws'

 

 

so it goes on.

 

 

dx

[Eversir]

The applicable CONC rule, if it exists, would be something at least - but I cannot find one.

 

Lots of other stuff from the OFT guidance seems to have made it into CONC, but nothing specifically regarding multiple DCAs sadly!

 

Happy to be proved wrong if anybody can find it

[BankFodder]

You may have to use CPUT . The new amendment regs 2014 allow a consumer to take direct action in the County Courts - http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freshfields.com%2FuploadedFiles%2FSiteWide%2FKnowledge%2F00805_BS_MBD_COM_Consumer_Law_V1.pdf&ei=Qb_VVMCGGsP3avnegKgF&usg=AFQjCNH2uYZHAU4crEaZWBwcmzcuItNnlA&sig2=RCTF0Zvywr-EyhOd4Ys6VQ&bvm=bv.85464276,d.d2s&cad=rja

[BankFodder]

Correction:

Actually the new CPUT rights will not apply because the relate to the way that the product has been sold initially and not to aggressive practices after that which have had no influence over the consumer's decision to purchase.

[Eversir]

Correction:

Actually the new CPUT rights will not apply because the relate to the way that the product has been sold initially and not to aggressive practices after that which have had no influence over the consumer's decision to purchase.

 

Would there be any scope to argue that these rules could apply in the event a trader is using aggressive practices to facilitate payment? At what point would a unit of gas or electricity become "sold"? At point of use or when a bill is generated? Or preceding all of that altogether, when the contract for supply is agreed?

[dx100uk]

so obv its linked too:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?436401-nPower-Mismanaged-account-Failure-to-provide-info-Harassment-et-al&p=4685519#post4685519

 

 

dx