And so it begins...

[Angry Cat]

Re: And so it begins...

I got a letter this morning from Link, I can't be bothered to type it all out because I'm time limited due to the birth of our Son William on Sunday, but I'll jot down some of the big scary writing...

Something about "THIS DEBT IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY", and how they were "going to look at my credit file to see how this debt is to be repaid"... call them on 08 blah , blah...

So still nothing of any seriousness.

From Link Financial Outsourcing Limited, I presume?

Many have had the same! (another cock eyed mass mailing strategy)

They cannot collect, so they threaten to trash ones credit file.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: And so it begins...

Just continue to ignore them - congrats on your recent addition to the family

[Quantitatively]

Re: And so it begins...

.... Also if you do a SAR you'll be admitting to the debt; a cca (s.78) won't be.

How does requesting an SAR mean you admit the debt?

I thought that a Subject Access Request could be done just be supplying your address and that you don't need to add any account numbers - or do they get rejected as being too vague

[asm76]

Re: And so it begins...

My credit file is already trashed, so I'm not too worried about that lol

[Angry Cat]

Re: And so it begins...

IMO, requesting information under section 7 of the DPA could not be construed as admittance of a debt.
Well, not more than making a s77-79 CCA request.

Of course, one has to make it clear that both are statutory payments only and;
keep copies for future evidence.

[Paul.]

Re: And so it begins...

ok my take on this is as follows

As the fee earner on the Harrison v Link Financial Limited case , it was clear that the Court took the view that the fact Mr H had explained his situation clearly to MBNA and Link, and they had ignored it, and continued to call was the catalyst for the unfair relationship

The Courts have since harrison given the view that there will not be harrassment if the matter is ignored and calls not answered, in fact HHJ Chambers was critical of stopping paying without engaging the creditor in correspondence as to why you stopped.

A paper trail is very important in these cases, you need to be able to produce calll records date and time of calls etc if you are gonna run a unfair relationship argument

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: And so it begins...

ok my take on this is as follows

As the fee earner on the Harrison v Link Financial Limited case , it was clear that the Court took the view that the fact Mr H had explained his situation clearly to MBNA and Link, and they had ignored it, and continued to call was the catalyst for the unfair relationship

The Courts have since harrison given the view that there will not be harrassment if the matter is ignored and calls not answered, in fact HHJ Chambers was critical of stopping paying without engaging the creditor in correspondence as to why you stopped.

A paper trail is very important in these cases, you need to be able to produce calll records date and time of calls etc if you are gonna run a unfair relationship argument

Hi Paul

So in your view would it constitute an unfair relationship if you make the creditor a payment proposal in line with what you can afford (providing a statement of affairs or common financial statement detailing your income and other creditors and their pro rata payment), continued dialogue with the creditor repeating your offer, only for the creditor to continually reject this offer but continue to pursue 'collection activities', including but not limited to:

Constant phone calls/letter demanding payment in full
Threats of court action/bankruptsy
Threats of 'home visits'

SnV

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: And so it begins...

would it constitute an unfair relationship if you make the creditor a payment proposal in line with what you can afford (providing a statement of affairs or common financial statement detailing your income and other creditors and their pro rata payment), continued dialogue with the creditor repeating your offer,

Based on the age-old principle of "non do quod non habeo"?

only for the creditor to continually reject this offer but continue to pursue 'collection activities', including but not limited to:

• Constant phone calls/letter demanding payment in full
• Threats of court action/bankruptcy
• Threats of 'home visits'

As some or all of those may be considered to be harassment of a debtor, the relationship might not merely be unfair but such aggressive antics could contravene CPUTR 2008.

How much is allegedly owed and which ruffians are trying to collect it?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: And so it begins...

How does requesting an SAR mean you admit the debt?

I thought that a Subject Access Request could be done just be supplying your address and that you don't need to add any account numbers - or do they get rejected as being too vague

Sorry I meant it "can" be more harmful; ie why would you SAR a firm
You don't have a debt with? You'd just ignore em, right?

If you SAR them I think they'd have a damn good chance of convincing a judge that it's admittance of liability. A s.78 could be argued was done to check as you couldn't recall such an account....

Remember a SAR is a lot more data than a s.78 and people don't do s.7 DPA requests unless they are the person in question as you're specifically asking for all data held about you which is admitting you have sn account of some sort. A s.78 can be done to query acknowledgement by way of requesting sight of the purported document. If they were unsure it was you then they have the duty to ask you to prove your identity; all the while no acknowledgement has taken place....

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: And so it begins...

Based on the age-old principle of "non do quod non habeo"?

Thats an abuse of the OFT guidelines:

"unnecessary and unhelpful use of legal and technical language, for example, use of Latin phrases"

Speak english man!

Which ruffians are trying to collect it?

LOL almost all my creditors!

Hence my thoughts on above, which is establish communication, keep all correspondance that you've tried to be reasonable, and then let your creditors get up to their usual antics and then establish the unfair relationship argument in the (unlikely) event that things got to court.

I'm looking for another weapon in the armoury that can be used in addition to the CCA, OFT and BBA guidelines (bit lightweight cos lets face it they all ignore them at will and even on the rare occasions they get pulled up its generally a slap on the wrist).

If creditors developed the fear that by continuing the 'collection activity' that most debtors experience they could lose an unfair relationship test in the courts it may change things slightly.

Best

SnV

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: And so it begins...

I like your logic SnV

Interesting......

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: And so it begins...

Based on the age-old principle of "non do quod non habeo"? ["/QUOTE]
Thats an abuse of the OFT guidelines:

"unnecessary and unhelpful use of legal and technical language, for example, use of Latin phrases"

Speak english man!

As I am not a debt collector, I am not bound by OFT664.pdf; however, should you wish to use that expression to confuse a creditor, I am delighted to be able to tell you that it is an accurate translation of
"I cannot give (you) what I do not have."

I'm sure you would concur that it seems quite apt.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: And so it begins...

I like your logic SnV

Interesting......

Its a known fact that the banks and finance companies are deliberately picking their fights in court to build up a catalogue of 'cases' and 'precedents' which they can then use in further court action.

As consumers I think we need to be savvy and doing the same. Of course it is more difficult as galvanising consumers into the same collective action means raising awareness which of forums like this and consumer groups are trying to do.

The core leverage we have over the DCA 'industry' is their own greed and arrogance and the tactics they universally employ.

If we could encourage people to keep all correspondance and establish our own precedents in court regards harrassment and unfair relationships, and consequently get judgements similar to Harrisson v Link, where the debt is written off then it may change the way that these companies conduct their 'collection activities'.

I know Harrisson v Link was a lot more than just the conduct of firms in question but its just a thought.

If creditors thought that there was more than a reasonable chance of having debt written in court if their conduct was harrassment or unfair then they would think twice about sending out such correspondance.

I have personally taken on Amex and Newmans by allowing them enough rope to hang themselves with on the harrassment angle to the point where they refunded a four figure sum to my account to shut me up as I had too much evidence against them as to their conduct (this was also shortly after Amex had just received a slap from the OFT too).

But this is just my uneducated and non-legal view of the situation hence my question for those better placed for an opinion

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: And so it begins...

Its a known fact that the banks and finance companies are deliberately picking their fights in court to build up a catalogue of 'cases' and 'precedents' which they can then use in further court action.

County Court judgements do not form legal precedents, which is why the Lord Chancellor's Department deems it safe for Recorders or DJs to hear such cases.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: And so it begins...

County Court judgements do not form legal precedents, which is why the Lord Chancellor's Department deems it safe for Recorders or DJs to hear such cases.

Yes hence the 'sarcastic' use of 'quotes' around 'precedents'

Unfortunately doesn't stop them quoting such 'rulings' in their own correspondance.........