SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[m55dlc]

I know I may be going off on a tangent here, but:

 

Complainant: Ofcom own-initiative investigation

Investigation against: Persons or organisations causing annoyance to consumers through the making of silent or abandoned calls

Case opened : 22 June 2006

Issue: Persistent misuse of electronic communications network(s) or service(s)

Relevant instrument: Sections 128 to 131 of the Communications Act 2003

Update note – 30 January 2007

Ofcom has today imposed financial penalties on four companies under section 130 of the Communications Act 2003 (the “Act”). Penalty notices have been issued to Bracken Bay Kitchens Ltd, Space Kitchens and Bedrooms Ltd, Toucan Residential Ltd (formerly IDT Direct Ltd) and Carphone Warehouse plc, for contravening section 128 of Act by making an excessive amount of silent or abandoned calls.

Silent calls can occur when automated calling systems used by call centres generate more calls than the available call centre agents can manage. When the person called answers the telephone and there is no agent available, the automated calling system abandons the call. This can result in the person called experiencing silence on the line when they answer the telephone.

Ofcom has imposed the following penalties:

Space Kitchens £45,000

Bracken Bay Kitchens £40,000

Carphone Warehouse £35,000

Toucan £32,500

The penalty notices have been issued following the four notifications of misuse of networks and services that Ofcom issued to these companies on 3 November 2006 (the “Notifications”). In the Notifications, Ofcom set out its findings that there were reasonable grounds to believe that each of these companies has engaged in persistent misuse of an electronic communications network or electronic communication services in a way that causes annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety to consumers. This conduct contravenes section 128(5)(a) and section 128(6)(a) of the Act.

Ofcom's investigation found that some or all of these four companies had:

• Repeatedly exceeded the 3% limit for abandoned calls. Between April and July 2006 all four companies' abandoned call rates regularly exceeded 3% and in some cases were higher than 20%;
  
• Failed to include a recorded information message to prevent abandoned calls from being silent calls, during some or all of the period under investigation;
  
• Engaged in other forms of conduct which Ofcom considers contribute to the persistent misuse as set out in Ofcom Guidelines and specified in the notification issued to each company.

The companies were given until 6 December 2006 to make representations in relation to the matters set out in the Notifications. Ofcom has now considered representations by each of the companies and has decided to issue a financial penalty in each case.

The maximum financial penalty Ofcom can impose under section 130 of the Act is £50,000 per notification. In each of these four cases, Ofcom has imposed a penalty taking into account Ofcom's statement of general policy for determining penalties* and specifically considering:

• the steps taken by that company to bring the misuse to an end and ensure compliance;
  
• the representations made by that company; and
  
• the nature of the persistent misuse and the degree of unnecessary inconvenience, annoyance and anxiety that company's conduct caused consumers to suffer as a result of abandoned calls made by automated calling systems.

Further details of Ofcom's consideration of the representations and factors to determine the penalties are included in the section 130 notices issued to each company, non confidential versions of which are being prepared and will be published on the Ofcom web site shortly.

*For Ofcom penalty guidelines see: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/accoun/pg/

End of update note

[m55dlc]

Here's chapter and verse for s128 of the Communications Act 2003:

 

128. Notification of misuse of networks and services

(1) Where OFCOM determine that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person has persistently misused an electronic communications network or electronic communications services, they may give that person a notification under this section.

(2) A notification under this section is one which –

(a) sets out the determination made by OFCOM;

(b) specifies the use that OFCOM consider constitutes persistent misuse; and

© specifies the period during which the person notified has an opportunity of making representations about the matters notified.

(3) That period must not be less than the following –

(a) in an urgent case, seven days; and

(b) in any other case, one month.

(4) A case is an urgent case for the purposes of subsection (3) if OFCOM consider –

(a) that the misuse in question is continuing; and

(b) that the harm it causes makes it necessary for it to be stopped as soon as possible.

(5) For the purposes of this Chapter a person misuses an electronic communications network or electronic communications service if –

(a) the effect or likely effect of his use of the network or service is to cause another person unnecessarily to suffer annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety; or

(b) he uses the network or service to engage in conduct the effect or likely effect of which is to cause another person unnecessarily to suffer annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety.

(6) For the purposes of this Chapter the cases in which a person is to be treated as persistently misusing a network or service include any case in which his misuse is repeated on a sufficient number of occasions for it to be clear that the misuse represents –

(a) a pattern of behaviour or practice; or

(b) recklessness as to whether persons suffer annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety.

(7) For the purpose of determining whether misuse on a number of different occasions constitutes persistent misuse for the purposes of this Chapter, each of the following is immaterial –

(a) that the misuse was in relation to a network on some occasions and in relation to a service on others;

(b) that different networks or services were involved on different occasions; and

© that the persons who were or were likely to suffer annoyance inconvenience or anxiety were different on different occasions.

(8) If he considers that appropriate alternative means of dealing with it exists, the Secretary of State may by order provide that a use of a description specified in the order is not to be treated for the purposes of this Chapter as a misuse of an electronic communications network or electronic communications service

[Peterbard]

Is it really really worth keeping the same 'phone number for THIS?!

hi

 

Sorry not a typo just lazyness i am afraid. I bow to your knowledge on this,i wonder if you could point me to the secton of the act that covers this type of haressment,just for my edification.

 

 

Regards

Peter

[Movingon]

hi

 

Sorry not a typo just lazyness i am afraid. I bow to your knowledge on this,i wonder if you could point me to the secton of the act that covers this type of haressment,just for my edification.

 

Regards

Peter

 

Yes of course Peter; it's s.1 & 2 which I've quoted below:

 

1. - (1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct-

• (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

• (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

 

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows-

• (a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

• (b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

• © that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

Offence of harassment.

2. - (1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.

 

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.

 

(3) In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after paragraph (m) there is inserted-

"(n) an offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (harassment).".

[Peterbard]

Hi

Thanks for that

I wonder if you could give me the link to the act as mine seems to have been corrupted.

I think it is a quite importannt point this and i would like to perhaps create a letter using the legistlation. Unfortunaltley the only definitions regarding this act that i can find are the ones involving work ,sex abuse and stalking.

I would like to see some case law or something in the act that we could directly relate to inaploriate behaviour whilst chasing a civil debt.

 

Best

Regards

 

Petr

[Movingon]

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

[Peterbard]

HI

Thanks for that. I still have a problem in that i cannot see any definitions within this act that would apply to inapropriate collection methods,it all seems to be centred around work,sexual,stalking etc.

Is ther case law i can look at.

 

Many Thanks

Peter

[noomill060]

The OFT have guidelines for debt collectors- maybe these could used if DCA was acting in breach of them?

[tamadus]

HI

Thanks for that. I still have a problem in that i cannot see any definitions within this act that would apply to inapropriate collection methods,it all seems to be centred around work,sexual,stalking etc.

Is ther case law i can look at.

 

Many Thanks

Peter

 

Peter,

 

Somewhere in their millions of useless leaflets the OFT / FSO actual state that the continual use of phone calls may commit an offence under this act.

 

Their guidelines actually state one call a day is permissible although I'm inclined to think that a reasonable person would find 1 call every day a bit over the top.

[m55dlc]

I've just had a row with someone from the Halifax / BoS call centre over a Sainsburys card and she stated they are 'allowed' to call 5 times a day! When pushed she got shirty and hung up.

[tamadus]

I've just had a row with someone from the Halifax / BoS call centre over a Sainsburys card and she stated they are 'allowed' to call 5 times a day! When pushed she got shirty and hung up.

 

Sounds like they need to read the rules.

 

Thats almost as good as LTSB phoning me at 7pm on a Sunday and when I asked why he said it's because they work on a Sunday. This of course was the India call centre. I put him firmly in his place and hung up and blow me down he rang back within 5 minutes

[noomill060]

Question-

 

I applied for a Barclaycard as a student in 1985, used it for a couple of years, payed off the balance, never used again and forgot all about it.

 

In 1999 a Barclaycard application form dropped through the front door, I filled it in and had another card with a "Welcome back to Barclaycard" letter delivered within a week.

 

I have since done a CCA request on two occasions with two DCAs, neither of which have been able to provide a true, executed copy of the original agreement.

 

I'm almost certain that the mail shot application form wasnt a proper CCA form, merely a teaser to get me to express an interest, as I remember the suprise when the card arrived without any further form filling and with a far larger credit limit than you would expect for a new customer (£1400)

 

Whats the betting the reason they cant comply with my CCA requests is that my 1985 Barclaycard agreement is still in force, but that it has disappeared in the mists of time in the interveneing 22 years?

[noomill060]

In other words- can one person have two agreements for one credit card?

 

Could my 1999 application simply have been processed as a request for a replacement card under my 1985 agreement, rather than a completely new arrangement, as my old card would have expired around 1987? I had moved many times in the intervening years.

[joneshousehold]

• Repeatedly exceeded the 3% limit for abandoned calls. Between April and July 2006 all four companies' abandoned call rates regularly exceeded 3% and in some cases were higher than 20%;
  
• Failed to include a recorded information message to prevent abandoned calls from being silent calls, during some or all of the period under investigation;
  
• Engaged in other forms of conduct which Ofcom considers contribute to the persistent misuse as set out in Ofcom Guidelines and specified in the notification issued to each company.

 

Oh my oh my, this is just wonderful M55. Not at all off topic for me. You see the list of telephone calls I have received from Capital One has 26% of the calls are dead when I answer and I don't get any recorded message. I only know it's them as I check 1471 to see who called and when.

 

This is the same list that I have sent to Trading Standards, OFT and the Ombudsman. I may have to send it to OFCOM as well I think.

 

I knew there was a good reason for recording all those calls and Capital One clearly thought I wouldn't do anything about it!

[Richard Spud]

FOR THE ATTENTION OF: Zubo , SteveH2508 and others.

 

Please feel free to disseminate any information that I intimate on this site, although I suggest that my understandings and opinions should be corroborated and not relied upon (I apologise for the disclaimer).

 

I should explain that my status places me in a delicate position, however I believe that it is in the interest of Consumer Protection and, indeed, in the wider Public Interest , that I contribute to these discussions as appropriately as I am able to do so within particular confines.

 

A Well Wisher.

[Richard Spud]

OFT DEBT COLLECTION GUIDANCE

 

I am not sure if these publications have been accessed or referred to in previous threads regarding this subject matter, nevertheless, I have posted the relevant links below to the OFT website PDF downloads. I hope the links work OK, if not type in the URL into your browser.

 

OFT 664 FINAL DEBT COLLECTION GUIDANCE – UPDATED DECEMBER 2006

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

 

CLARIFICATION OF OFT 664 DEBT COLLECTION GUIDANCE

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_credit/debtclarification.pdf

 

OFT 880 COMPLIANCE REVIEW OF DEBT COLLECTION GUIDANCE

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft880.pdf

 

GUIDE TO CONSUMER CREDIT LICENSING – NOTE “UNFAIR PRACTICES”

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/credit_licences/oft329.pdf

 

Hope this helps.

 

A Well Wisher.

[noomill060]

Thank you Richard, Im sure we all appreciate that some CAG members have postions which could be compromised, were they to be identified.

 

It is good to know that we arent fighting the entire British Establishment.

 

Your snippets of info are all valued weapons.

 

( Yikes! You'd think we were trying overthrow the govt rather than simply seeking a little justice!)

 

Thanks again.

[noomill060]

Any thoughts on whether an credit card agreement from 1985 would still be in force after 12 years inactivity?

[noomill060]

Myself, I cant see any reason why not. Why would a company want delete a customer who may be able to be enticed back to the fold. Its easier to keep an old customer than persuade a new one.

[ShootMePlz]

Any thoughts on whether an credit card agreement from 1985 would still be in force after 12 years inactivity?

 

 

Were you receiving statments on the old card for the 12 year period?

[joneshousehold]

Richard Spud, thanks for those links. I found the last one the most intersting and recommend everyone to give it a read.

 

I was particularly interested in

Page 6 - business name. Creditors must use the name on the licence and not some other name. Haven't we had some postings about various providers using a parent company's licence. Unless the name is the same as the parent company this may be an important issue

Page 7 - heading Consumer Credit Agreements - not sticking to s61 and use of unexecuted agreements

Page 8 - failings when in breach of contract

Page 10 - improper tying-in of insurance

 

Quite a few of the misdeneanours of our friends I think

[zubo]

Peter,

 

Somewhere in their millions of useless leaflets the OFT / FSO actual state that the continual use of phone calls may commit an offence under this act.

 

Their guidelines actually state one call a day is permissible although I'm inclined to think that a reasonable person would find 1 call every day a bit over the top.

Peter

 

I am afraid I am a squirrel - I came across this gem in otherwise useless OFT rubbish and stored it for later reference - I even recorded the source - unusual for me, see if this helps you and anyone else out there who wants to use these bits:

 

errr I just noticed Richard's post which quite clearly contins probably the below plus much more... ah well

 

from: http://www.bdl.org.uk/images/03_ew_harassment.pdf

 

Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act also provides for certain other offences in respect of the

harassment of debtors, and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 provides for an

offence in respect of sending letters which convey a threat or false information with intent to cause

distress or anxiety.

 

“S40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

(1) A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract he-

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency, or the manner or occasion of making any such demand,

or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

F

A

C

T

S

H

E

E

T

N

O

3

(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

© falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character, or purporting to have some official character which he know it has not.

(2) A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of sub-section (1) (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such actions as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.”

 

Both the Office of Fair Trading and trade associations (run by the credit industry) have produced guidance on what activities may be considered harassment and should therefore be avoided by creditors. The following list is taken from the new Debt Collection Guidance for holders of consumer credit licences.

Creditors are warned by the Office of Fair Trading under the Debt Collection Guidance that the following practices are "considered unfair":

 

Letters that look like court claims •

•

•

•

•

•

Not making it clear who the company is or what their role is

Unhelpful legal language

Not giving balance statements about the debt when asked

Contacting you at unreasonable times even when asked not to

Asking you to contact them on premium rate phone numbers.

“THOSE CONTACTING DEBTORS MUST NOT BE DECEITFUL BY MISREPRESENTING THEIR AUTHORITY AND/OR THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITION.”

This includes:

•

•

•

•

•

•

Claiming to work for the court or be a bailiff

Implying action can be taken that is not legally possible such as implying they could take your property

Using a business name or logo that implies they are a government body

Implying that court action has been taken against you when it hasn’t

Implying not paying your debt is a criminal offence

Threatening to take court action in England if you live in Scotland or the other way round.

“PUTTING PRESSURE ON DEBTORS OR THIRD PARTIES IS CONSIDERED TO BE OPPRESSIVE.”

This includes:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Contacting you too frequently

Pressurising you to sell property or take out more debt

Using more than one collection company at the same time or not telling you when your debt has been passed to another company

Pressurising you to pay in full or in large instalments you cannot afford

Making threatening gestures or statements

Ignoring disputes about whether you owe the money

Trying to embarrass you in public or threatening to tell a third party about your debts such as a neighbour or your family.

“DEALINGS WITH DEBTORS ARE NOT TO BE DECEITFUL AND/OR UNFAIR.”

Examples include:

Sending letters addressed to “the occupier” or discussing the debt with someone without knowing if they are you

•

•

•

•

Refusing to deal with an adviser acting on your behalf

Not accepting reasonable offers or passing on payments you make

Refusing to freeze action if you dispute the debt.

“CHARGES SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED UNFAIRLY”.

Examples include:

Claiming collection costs when the original credit agreement didn’t allow this to happen and making you think you are legally liable for the costs

•

•

•

Not putting the specific amounts that can be added for collection costs in the original credit agreement

Adding unreasonable charges.

“THOSE VISITING DEBTORS MUST NOT ACT IN AN UNCLEAR OR THREATENING MANNER.”

Collectors should explain the reason for any visit and give you notice of the time and date they will call

•

•

•

•

They shouldn’t visit if they know you are ill or vulnerable and if they find you are unwell or distressed they should leave

They should not come in if you do not want them to and should leave when you ask them to

They shouldn’t visit you at work or somewhere like a hospital.

Harassment

2

HOW TO DEAL WITH HARASSMENT BY YOUR CREDITORS

• The first step is to write to a creditor and outline your concerns about the company’s behaviour. Inform them that you are familiar with the terms of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act and ask that the creditor takes steps to avoid similar occurrences in the future. Tell your creditors how you would prefer to be contacted and ask that they confirm their agreement to this. A letter at this stage may avoid the need to take further action against the company.

• Tell them you are aware of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance and that you will consider making a complaint about their behaviour under the guidance.

• It is usually difficult to persuade the police to prosecute in cases of harassment unless a more serious offence such as violence, fraud or blackmail is also involved. Normally complaints should be made to the trading standards/consumer protection department at your local council. They should investigate whether an offence has been committed and whether prosecution is appropriate. The penalty is a fine of up to £5,000 in the Magistrates Court. Also a conviction is likely to provide evidence that the creditor is no longer a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold a consumer credit licence.

• If Trading Standards will not act it may be worth contacting the Office of Fair Trading directly. The address is at the end of the factsheet. The OFT does not usually take up individual complaints but their Debt Collection Enforcement Team collects information that can be used to take action against creditors who can lose their consumer credit licence.

• The creditor may be a member of a trade association with a code of practice. You could find out if your creditor is a member of a trade association and write to them with your complaint. A code of practice is not legally enforceable but the association may take some action against their members. Details of the main trade associations are at the end of the factsheet under “Useful Addresses”.

OTHER OPTIONS

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Another alternative is for you to pursue your own prosecution in the Magistrates Court. This could involve considerable cost so you need to obtain proper legal advice first.

BT have a new service called "Choose to Refuse" which might help if you are getting a lot of calls from an unpleasant creditor. You have to key in a pin number after a call. The caller will then get an automated message if you don’t wish to take their call when they ring. The cost of the service is £8.00 per quarter.

If you receive a telephone service from another provider, contact them and ask if they have a similar service.

You could refer to the Malicious Communications Act 1988. This deals with the sending of letters or articles for the purpose of causing “distress or anxiety”. A person found guilty can be fined in the Magistrates Court. To prosecute successfully, the letter or article sent would have to convey:-

A message which is indecent or grossly offensive

A threat; or

Information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender.

The Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 Section 4a makes it a criminal offence to cause “Harassment, alarm or distress” with intent by using “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”. This can only be an offence if it happens in a public place not in your own home. The police would need to be contacted and prosecute for this offence.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 makes it a criminal offence to harass people and put “people in fear of violence”. Harassment

3

The harassment must happen on at least 2 separate occasions. The police would have to agree to prosecute for this offence.

•

USEFUL ADDRESSES

The Finance & Leasing Association (FLA)

2nd Floor, Imperial House

15-19 Kingsway

London WC2B 6UN

Tel No: 020 7836 6511

www.fla.org.uk

The Consumer Credit Trade Association (CCTA)

Suite 8, The Wool Exchange

10 Hustlergate

Bradford

BD1 1RE

Tel: 01274 390 380

CCTA (Consumer Credit Trade Association)CCTA (Consumer Credit Trade Association)

Credit Services Association Ltd (CSA)

(For Debt Collection Agencies)

Wingrove House

2nd Floor East

Ponteland Road

Newcastle upon Tyne

NE5 3DP

Tel: 0191 286 5656

welcome to the csa group

Consumer Credit Association (CCAUK)

Queens House

Queens Road

Chester CH1 3BQ

Tel No: 01244 312 044

Promoting business and consumer relations in the credit industry – Consumer Credit Association – United Kingdom

Mail Order Traders’ Association (MOTA)

7 Floor

100 Old Hall Street

Liverpool

L3 9TD

Tel: 0151 227 9456

(No website)

Office of Fair Trading

Fleetbank House

2 – 6 Salisbury Square

London

EC4Y 8JX

Tel No: 08457 224 499

The Office of Fair Trading: making markets work well for consumers

If your complaint is against a solicitors firm acting for a creditor, a complaint can be made to:

Consumer Complaints Service

The Law Society

Victoria Court

8 Dormer Place

Leamington Spa CV32 5AE

Tel No: 0845 608 6565

The Law Society - Home

Remember: you can always contact us for advice about any difficulty you have in dealing with your debts.

Freephone: 0808 808 4000

Website: National Debtline, for FREE CONFIDENTIAL and INDEPENDENT ADVICE call 0808 808 4000

© Copyright National Debtline 1994 (updated December 2004)

Whilst we endeavour to keep our factsheets as up to date as possible, National Debtline cannot be held responsible for changes in legislation or for developments in caselaw since this edition of the factsheet was issued.

Harassment

Z

[Guest Battleaxe]

Oh my..Thank you Richard Spud for the post. I have taken several hours to go through these documents and I can see where these guidlines have not been adhered to by two banks (parent companies in the States) and on certain DCA, which hides behind several other names. it certainly strengthens our position when we complain to the relevant authorities and to the insitutions concerned. I am going to enclose a copy of the guidlines to these naughty banks and remind them of their obligations.

Judge Blomfeld will also be given a copy of the guidelines with the relevant passages tag and flagged on our court date in May.

[Guest Battleaxe]

You have been a wise little squirrel Zubo

[Richard Spud]

CONSUMER CREDIT LICENCES – AUTHORISED TRADING NAMES

 

It may be helpful if I explain my understanding that it is an offence for a holder of a Consumer Credit Licence (CCL) to carry on business activities which require a CCL in order to do so in a name other than as specified in a current CCL. I believe that s.39 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) provides:

 

(1) A person who engages in any activities for which a licence is

required when heis not a licensee under a licence covering those activities commits an offence.

 

(2) A licensee under a standard licence who carries on business under

a name not specified in the licence commits an offence.

 

(3) A person who fails to give the Director a licensee notice under

section 36 within the period required commits an offence.

 

I understand that the offences stipulated under s.39(1)(2) or (3) of the CCA 1974 are referred to in Schedule 1 of the CCA 1974 and said offences are triable either way, that is summarily (in the Magistrates Court when papers must be filed with the Court within 6 months of the offence) or as an indictable offence (in the Crown Court when there is no time limit for prosecution).

 

I believe that County Council Trading Standards Departments would be the appropriate authorities to refer any evidence of the above offences.

 

For example; “Noddy Town Bank Ltd” may be the holder of a CCL for all categories (including “Z” canvassing off trade premises) but may choose to pursue debtor customers by using a wholly owned subsidiary company of “Noddy Town Bank Ltd” which is a separate incorporated company in the UK registered as “Big Ears Collection Services Ltd”. This would appear to provide some anonymity for the collection procedures utilised by staff employed at “Noddy Town Bank Ltd” as the wholly owned subsidiary company (“Big Ears Collection Services Ltd”) might not declare any income or expenditure in its public accounts and which, therefore, might serve solely as a front for the in-house collections of “Noddy Town Bank Ltd”.

 

To continue; I understand that “Big Ears Collection Services Ltd” would be required to hold a CCL in its own name it can, however, stipulate therein various trading names it intends to use e.g “Toy Town Collections”, “TTC”, “T. Town Recoveries” etc. However, I suggest that any abbreviation of “Big Ears Collection Services Ltd” would not be a licensed trading name under the CCL if, for instance, “Big Ears Collection Services Ltd” referred to itself in correspondences as: “Big Ears Collection Services” or maybe “B.E.C.S.” or even “B.E.C.S. Ltd” and these were not stipulated in the CCL. Obviously “Big Ear’s Collections” if not stipulated as a trading name would be quite a departure from the CCL licensee’s name.

 

Please forgive the rather cryptic example above, however, if I were an employee of a major bank working in the collections department and when the telephone on my desk rang I was aware that calls to that telephone were from customer debtors in response to correspondences in the name of “Big Ears Collection Services Ltd”, I might be encouraged by my employers to deny that I actually work for “Noddy Town Bank Ltd” and purport to be employed by “Big Ears Collection Services Ltd” (notwithstanding that it has no income or expenditure e.g. salary payments) so that the collection procedures utilised would not be attributable to “Noddy Town Bank Ltd”. In these fictitious circumstances of a telephone conversation, I might refer to “Big Ears Collection Services Ltd” as: “B.E.C.S.” so as to avoid the nature of my collection intentions or, indeed, I might make misrepresentations or deceptive statements in order to obtain the payment of monies from customer debtors.

 

In reality, personally I would not employee deceptive practices to obtain a pecuniary advantage as I would not wish to risk committing a criminal offence, as telephone conversations are often recorded and, I understand, electronically held recordings (digital not analogue) of telephone conversations could be required to be divulged to a Data Subject if a request to a Data Controller is made for Subject Access Rights under s.7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 which, I note, many contributors are very adept at doing.

 

I refer interested parties to the OFT publication linked below (if it has not already been accessed), and intimate my understanding that certain public information about Consumer Credit Licence holders can be accessed by a telephone search of the Public Register of Consumer Credit Licence details at the Consumer Credit Licensing Bureau – part of the Office of Fair Trading - on 020 7211 8608 (select option 1).

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/credit_licences/oft329.pdf

 

Hope this helps.

 

A Well Wisher.

 

DISCLAIMER

 

Any references to “Noddy Town Bank Ltd”, “Big Ears Collection Services Ltd”, “Toy Town Collections”, “TTC”, “T. Town Recoveries”, “Big Ears Collection Services”, “B.E.C.S.”, “B.E.C.S. Ltd” or “Big Ear’s Collections” are not intended to be attributed to any persons living or dead or any artificial persons incorporated or otherwise.

 

All information above is based on the honestly held understandings and opinions of the writer but which should be corroborated for accuracy and not relied upon.