Tweet
Credit Card Company's Right of Set Off when Debt Has Been Sold
I have a situation which is driving me a little loco!
Had a CC with Barclayshark and they sold it to a third party DCA. The assignee introduced themselves on numerous occasions and not really feeling like entertaining them, a CCA was posted along with the necessary £1. Whilst waiting for them to respond/comply, a nice little SAR was sent to BC so all charges and PPI could be taken into account as no way did the amount demanded represent the true amount owed.
So SAR (eventually) turned up and amounts wrongfully added were totted up, appropriate interest added and the "hey you thieves, give me my money back" letter was despatched. Letter ping pong ensued and settlement reached BUT the cheeky numchucks have declared that they have "off set" to the third party the amount owed DESPITE me telling them otherwise that they CANNOT do that but they insist THEY CAN!
Now..... Advice was solicited from the FOS as after all in the Ombudsman News Issue 40 they state they can't do that, and the first person spoken to referred me to the FSA. Spoke to the FSA who said that they don't regulate because it is a "credit card" and it relates to "charges", and is not a bank account and is something the OFT would be able to help me with as it falls under the CCA Act! If it was PPI, then that's a different matter entirely! WTF!
Ok, so not to be deterred in my fight, a call was made to the OFT and when finally got through to an actual person was told they can't give me that kind of advice and gave me a complaint number and said they would also send it onto TS in case they could help but said I should speak to FoS again and find out where they got their information from that they printed in issue 40 of their newsletter!
So back to the FoS and I asked them "well where did you get your authority from on which to base your claim as to the ordinary Joe, the way your statement reads, it would imply that it is applicable no matter whether it is a bank account or a credit card account as the fact remains the assignee is NOT a part of the SAME organisation as the assignor!". Their response.... put it in writing and they will forward it to their Press Office! Again, WTF!!
So after the long background history lesson, my question is does anyone know where the OFT in their infinite wisdom may have gleaned knowledge to make the statement they did? I know they did this a good couple of years ago and things change at an ever rapid pace and if this is the case that BC CAN do this, where do we find the source of that authority? Is there any case law or regulation to back up my stance that they CANNOT do this or one that one that givIes them a big fat "YAY, we CAN"!
Thoughts?
Titan
Had a CC with Barclayshark and they sold it to a third party DCA. The assignee introduced themselves on numerous occasions and not really feeling like entertaining them, a CCA was posted along with the necessary £1. Whilst waiting for them to respond/comply, a nice little SAR was sent to BC so all charges and PPI could be taken into account as no way did the amount demanded represent the true amount owed.
So SAR (eventually) turned up and amounts wrongfully added were totted up, appropriate interest added and the "hey you thieves, give me my money back" letter was despatched. Letter ping pong ensued and settlement reached BUT the cheeky numchucks have declared that they have "off set" to the third party the amount owed DESPITE me telling them otherwise that they CANNOT do that but they insist THEY CAN!
Now..... Advice was solicited from the FOS as after all in the Ombudsman News Issue 40 they state they can't do that, and the first person spoken to referred me to the FSA. Spoke to the FSA who said that they don't regulate because it is a "credit card" and it relates to "charges", and is not a bank account and is something the OFT would be able to help me with as it falls under the CCA Act! If it was PPI, then that's a different matter entirely! WTF!
Ok, so not to be deterred in my fight, a call was made to the OFT and when finally got through to an actual person was told they can't give me that kind of advice and gave me a complaint number and said they would also send it onto TS in case they could help but said I should speak to FoS again and find out where they got their information from that they printed in issue 40 of their newsletter!
So back to the FoS and I asked them "well where did you get your authority from on which to base your claim as to the ordinary Joe, the way your statement reads, it would imply that it is applicable no matter whether it is a bank account or a credit card account as the fact remains the assignee is NOT a part of the SAME organisation as the assignor!". Their response.... put it in writing and they will forward it to their Press Office! Again, WTF!!
So after the long background history lesson, my question is does anyone know where the OFT in their infinite wisdom may have gleaned knowledge to make the statement they did? I know they did this a good couple of years ago and things change at an ever rapid pace and if this is the case that BC CAN do this, where do we find the source of that authority? Is there any case law or regulation to back up my stance that they CANNOT do this or one that one that givIes them a big fat "YAY, we CAN"!
Thoughts?
Titan
Comment