DCAs Passing Dispured Accounts to Third Parties Against Consumer Laws?

[entseo]

Hi there,


I wonder if you could help me on a point of consumer credit law.

I had always thought that, when a credit account is in dispute, then the debt purchasing company which owned the account was not allowed to pursue the money further, under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Also, the debt purchasing company was not allowed to:

• Demand any payment on the alleged account;
• Add any further interest or charges to the account;
• Pass this alleged account to any third party;
• Register any information in respect of the alleged account with any of the credit reference agencies;
• Issue a default notice related to the account.

Yet my experience has been that, once an account is in dispute (and it is usually because of the DCA’s inability to produce a copy of the original credit agreement in response to my Subject Access Request) that debt purchasing company simply sells the account on to another debt purchasing company (which is against the terms of the third condition bullet-pointed above) and the whole process is repeated again. Surely this is against the law.

Let me give you a specific example of this. I had an old account at Lloyds TSB which fell into arrears and Lloyds TSB sold it to Allied International Credit. I wrote to AIC and asked for a SAR (enclosing my £10 fee) but they were unable to supply me with any original documentation. They merely sold it on to Apex Credit Management. Again I applied to Apex for a SAR (again paying £10) and of course there was no documentation so Apex then sold it on to Cabot Financial. Again I paid my £10 to Cabot and Cabot simply sold it on to Marlin Capital. And so on....

The same thing has happened on more than one such account.


I am sick and tired of sending off £10 every time I request a SAR, especially when I know that no such document can be found. Also, why are the DCAs allowed to get away with passing the account to a third party when it seems that it is against the law for them to do so? They ALL do it!

In fact they all seem to break the law all of the time, and the FCA does nothing about it.

Or am I incorrect in my understanding of the law? Please advise.

Best regards,

Entseo.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: DCAs Passing Dispured Accounts to Third Parties Against Consumer Laws?

Hi there,

I wonder if you could help me on a point of consumer credit law.

I had always thought that, when a credit account is in dispute, then the debt purchasing company which owned the account was not allowed to pursue the money further, under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Also, the debt purchasing company was not allowed to:

• Demand any payment on the alleged account;
• Add any further interest or charges to the account;
• Pass this alleged account to any third party;
• Register any information in respect of the alleged account with any of the credit reference agencies;
• Issue a default notice related to the account.

I'm afraid your understanding of the above is a little outdated. In fact, the McGuffick judgment established all the opposite: http://legalbeagles.info/phillip-mcg...#ixzz3j5IVfeFU

The Court therefore decided that the following activities would not constitute enforcement:

• reporting or threatening to report information about the conduct of a credit agreement to a credit reference agency
• passing on, or threatening to pass on, personal data in respect of a credit agreement
• demanding payment from a debtor
• issuing a default notice
• threatening legal action
• bringing legal proceedings.

Yet my experience has been that, once an account is in dispute (and it is usually because of the DCA’s inability to produce a copy of the original credit agreement in response to my Subject Access Request)

Although a copy of the agreement should also be supplied as part of the data provided for a SAR, you would send a CCA request under ss.77-79 of the CCA rather than a SAR request under the DPA if the purpose is to obtain a copy of the credit agreement for the purpose of assessing the enforceability of the account which is presumably what you have in mind. The SAR would be to get all statements and historical data on the account.

that debt purchasing company simply sells the account on to another debt purchasing company (which is against the terms of the third condition bullet-pointed above) and the whole process is repeated again. Surely this is against the law.

It's not against the law and case law has decided otherwise as noted above.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: DCAs Passing Dispured Accounts to Third Parties Against Consumer Laws?

Let me give you a specific example of this. I had an old account at Lloyds TSB which fell into arrears and Lloyds TSB sold it to Allied International Credit. I wrote to AIC and asked for a SAR (enclosing my £10 fee) but they were unable to supply me with any original documentation. They merely sold it on to Apex Credit Management. Again I applied to Apex for a SAR (again paying £10) and of course there was no documentation so Apex then sold it on to Cabot Financial. Again I paid my £10 to Cabot and Cabot simply sold it on to Marlin Capital. And so on....

I'm glad you finally posted your question on here so you can stop wasting your money by sending SARs to debt purchasers who buy the accounts without any paperwork.

A SAR should always go to the original creditor (Lloyds in this case) because they are the only ones who would have all the statements, the debt purchasers would only have data from the time the account was assigned to them.

You can, however, send a ss.77-79 CCA request to the current account owner (Marlin who are the same company as Cabot) and they would have a duty to pass on the request to Lloyds. Having said that, the CCA request only applies to loans, cards and HP agreements. If the account in question was a current account overdraft, there would be no credit agreement as such, however, Lloyds would still have to respond to a SAR by sending you statements. :thumb:

The same thing has happened on more than one such account.

I am sick and tired of sending off £10 every time I request a SAR, especially when I know that no such document can be found. Also, why are the DCAs allowed to get away with passing the account to a third party when it seems that it is against the law for them to do so? They ALL do it!

See above, if the CCA request applies to the accounts in question then you should send the debt purchasers a CCA request which costs just £1 as opposed to £10. :thumb

You'll find the CCA request template letter here, and I'd suggest sending the 'in-depth' version rather than the first one: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...y-of-Agreement

Ignore the 2007 date on the post, it has been updated. :grin:

In fact they all seem to break the law all of the time, and the FCA does nothing about it.

Or am I incorrect in my understanding of the law? Please advise.

I'm afraid your understanding of the law wasn't entirely accurate, hope the above clarifies things for you. :thumb:

[entseo]

Re: DCAs Passing Dispured Accounts to Third Parties Against Consumer Laws?

So the DCAs could go on passing round all accounts forever and ever. And the fact that the account is still being referred to means that the statute of limitations of six years could never be invoked. Surely that is crazy.

[Kati]

Re: DCAs Passing Dispured Accounts to Third Parties Against Consumer Laws?

The 6yrs will only restart if you acknowledge (or pay anything towards) the debt in writing OR stop if a court claim is issued before it ends unfortunately your SAR's could have restarted the SB clock (depending on the wording) is there any way you can post up a redacted copy of what you've been sending for the Beagles to look at?

[Berniethebolt]

Re: DCAs Passing Dispured Accounts to Third Parties Against Consumer Laws?

Many people have a false idea of what an account being in dispute actually means. An account is only in dispute if there is a query as to the identity of the debtor or the possibility of fraud. being unable to produce an agreement for any credit account may make it unenforceable but not in dispute as defined by the FCA

[Berniethebolt]

Re: DCAs Passing Dispured Accounts to Third Parties Against Consumer Laws?

The other thing to be wary of is that especially now with a lot of consolidation in the credit industry many companies have many different names. Apex are now part of Cabot . Lowell own fredricksons international , PRA own several different DCA's so while you may think that the account is being sold on it is often just being passed from desk to desk or office to office . The only certain way of knowing if an account has been sold is when you receive a letter saying it has being sold , not just saying it has been passed to .
So for example Lloyds may pass a debt to wescot to collect but still own it, then when they realise they can not collect they sell it to lowell who try and collect but then pass it to Red (who they own) who then pass it to freds but all that time it is still owned by Lowell

[entseo]

Re: DCAs Passing Dispured Accounts to Third Parties Against Consumer Laws?

Isn't this just more of a reason to abolish the debt purchasing industry altogether? I can think of no other industry which is allowed to get away with behaving in this manner. The effects on individuals by these profiteering spivs can be overwhelming, sometimes leading to suicide. Debt purchasing companies do nothing to enhance the world: simply by existing they make the world a nastier place. Their abolition is surely something worth fighting for.

Is there nothing that can be done to prevent them getting away with the things they are increasingly getting away with?

IMHO the fate of HFO/Roxburghe/Turnbull Rutherford should be the fate of all the others. I cannot see any difference in the working practices of any of them: they all break the law on a regular basis.

In a civilised society they would not exist. What can we do?

[PAWS]

Re: DCAs Passing Dispured Accounts to Third Parties Against Consumer Laws?

This has been a gripe of mine for a very long time. The original lender will often turn down an offer from the debtor to settle the account for 50p in the pound preferring to sell it as part of a job lot to a DCA for as little as 4p in the pound. Losing money is OK so long as the debtor is still in the proverbial! It is extra frustrating when the OL is one of the banks bailed out by the taxpayer.
As we all know the DCA will then pursue the entire sum originally owed and with some vigour.
It used to be called Usury but now apparently it is known as business and when the government themselves sold on the student loans to Erudio (a bastard child of Arrow Global) I realised that nothing will ever be done to stop this despicable practice –won’t stop me continuing to complain though!

[FlamingParrot]

Re: DCAs Passing Dispured Accounts to Third Parties Against Consumer Laws?

The 6yrs will only restart if you acknowledge (or pay anything towards) the debt in writing OR stop if a court claim is issued before it ends unfortunately your SAR's could have restarted the SB clock (depending on the wording) is there any way you can post up a redacted copy of what you've been sending for the Beagles to look at?

A standard SAR letter is a request under the DPA for all data about you so it shouldn't be the case if one of the many standard templates was used. ray: ray: ray:

Isn't this just more of a reason to abolish the debt purchasing industry altogether? I can think of no other industry which is allowed to get away with behaving in this manner.

It would be nice but it's not going to happen any time soon. :flypig:

The effects on individuals by these profiteering spivs can be overwhelming, sometimes leading to suicide. Debt purchasing companies do nothing to enhance the world: simply by existing they make the world a nastier place. Their abolition is surely something worth fighting for.

Is there nothing that can be done to prevent them getting away with the things they are increasingly getting away with?

Sites like this and similar ones do go a long way towards addressing this side of things, by informing people of their rights. :grin: :grin:

IMHO the fate of HFO/Roxburghe/Turnbull Rutherford should be the fate of all the others. I cannot see any difference in the working practices of any of them: they all break the law on a regular basis.

In a civilised society they would not exist. What can we do?

Keep posting here...