The credit card issuer MBNA finds itself yet again on the receiving end of a judge's sharp tongue. Not that such remarks will give them the slightest feeling of shame. Such companies carry on regardless. They have a nice business model based on slick selling backed by precious little customer care. This latest episode is about a man taking them to court or more correctly the outfit that MBNA sold the debt to. (Debts get passed around like a tray of biscuits!). Namely Link Financial. If you google Link Financial you will get a pretty good sense that they are at the bottom of the heap when it comes to debt collecting integrity.
In court Keith Harrison argued that, contrary to the explicit requirements of the Consumer Credit Regulations 1983, the bank had failed to send him the necessary terms and conditions for his card, either when he applied for the card or when it was issued to him by post. MBNA said it would have done so. But the bank could not prove to the court that this had occurred.
"I find that neither with the application pack nor with the card was the claimant sent the MBNA terms and conditions," said the judge. "It is perfectly clear that the legislature regards it as desirable that such documents should be provided. It seems to me that a total failure to supply the required documents will prima facie call for some reaction from the court," he added.
It is amazing that organisations such as MBNA can carry on with such sloppy record keeping. They have a poor view of consumer laws. They think there is very little on the side of the consumer and everything on their side. One wonders what on earth it will take for MBNA to shape up.
Showing posts with label debt collection agencies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debt collection agencies. Show all posts
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Personal insolvencies at record high
I have a problem with some of the aspects of personal debt. Many credit and loan arrangements were sold with PPI or Payment Protection Insurance. In a lot of cases these policies are worthless or do not meet the needs of customers. With rising unemployment, financial companies are keen to cut their losses. By that I mean getting rid of loans they have no further use for. They sell them on to so-called Debt Collection Agencies who are really nothing of the kind. They are mainly chancers seeking to make a quick buck from loans the original lender has seen fit to dispose of, often blithely forgetting about PPI. Sort of financial scavengers, the vultures of the loan industry.
Most people want to repay their debts. Most people do not like being in debt for longer than necessary. However, this new "industry" is keen on debt. It's all a bit like a fish farm for passed on debts. Loads of companies all fishing in a pond. If one fails to get a bite, they sell a debt onto another, possibly one with a net instead of a rod.
These companies care little for contracts, for PPI arrangements, or just simply obeying the law. They seem to prefer bamboozle and bravado. The House of Commons was debating loan sharks. I think they need to clean up the whole industry. Financial contracts can't just be "sold" without any legal niceties in place. The current arrangement implies that the law takes second place. We need some changes. I happened to find this site about debt buying companies. Virtually all appear to be rogues. And it's a succesful business for the debt chasers!
Friday, November 12, 2010
Banks' debt collectors and their scams and scares
Andrew MacKinlay is a tough cookie not given to mincing his words. He's the Labour MP for Thurrock and I hazzard a guess he's got a sizeable personal vote. He's a very good Commons performer.
On the 22nd April 2009 he spoke in the House of Commons about the methods that banks and other lenders use to get money back from defaulting loans. Whilst it's perfectable OK to pursue debtors it must be done legally and in accordance with trading standards. The trouble is banks and others think they can scam and scare and carry on like Wild West characters.
He started that night by saying,"The purpose of this debate is to draw the House’s attention to the abysmal state of debt collection methodology and the spirit governing it in the UK and the wholly inadequate safeguards for good and innocent people who are endeavouring to pay debt or who dispute it. It is a matter of fact that the debt collection industry relies on a combination of fear and ignorance to make a profit, and that is despicable." The rest of his speech makes for sombre reading.
MacKinlay has done us a service by speaking up. However, that was a year and a half ago. If the Coalition Government is pushing fairness, let them deal with the legalised crooks described so admirably in this debate. One bit jumps out at me.
QUOTE: The radio programme to which I referred also demonstrated the courage of a Mr. John Cooper, who took on the communications company 3, which I have already mentioned. He had purchased, some time ago, phones for his daughters, but they did not work in his area. He cancelled his direct debit. It would appear that that alleged debt was sold to a company called HFO Services, which persisted, menacingly, in trying to get him to cough up some money, to the extent that his daughter was fearful that its representatives would seize property in the home. I heard on the radio—I think that the Minister will have done so, too—a recording of a telephone conversation in which a representative from HFO Services, speaking from a call centre in Asia, said: “Despite leaving several messages on your answer machine and despite trying to get in touch with you, you have failed to respond back. Now if I don’t receive your call today I would go ahead and forward the”— there followed an indistinct word— “to Northampton County Court so that there would be a county court judgement issued against you. And it might be also the court appointed bailiffs. If you want to save yourself some legal hassles please call me back.” That is completely and utterly contrary to the codes. Of course, the company was exposed by the BBC. In a feeble statement, the outfit called HFO Services said: “HFO views any alleged breach of the OFT guidelines or applicable legislation as a matter of the utmost seriousness.”
It would say that, wouldn’t it? That does not impress me. It tried to give an excuse and pretended that it would have an investigation. I have to say that the director of that company knows what is going on in his call centre. If he does not, he should, and anyway, he is culpable."
Strong stuff. But how long are we going to allow these businesses to get away with flagrant breaches of the law, of codes of practice and other guidelines? We need action now.
On the 22nd April 2009 he spoke in the House of Commons about the methods that banks and other lenders use to get money back from defaulting loans. Whilst it's perfectable OK to pursue debtors it must be done legally and in accordance with trading standards. The trouble is banks and others think they can scam and scare and carry on like Wild West characters.
He started that night by saying,"The purpose of this debate is to draw the House’s attention to the abysmal state of debt collection methodology and the spirit governing it in the UK and the wholly inadequate safeguards for good and innocent people who are endeavouring to pay debt or who dispute it. It is a matter of fact that the debt collection industry relies on a combination of fear and ignorance to make a profit, and that is despicable." The rest of his speech makes for sombre reading.
MacKinlay has done us a service by speaking up. However, that was a year and a half ago. If the Coalition Government is pushing fairness, let them deal with the legalised crooks described so admirably in this debate. One bit jumps out at me.
QUOTE: The radio programme to which I referred also demonstrated the courage of a Mr. John Cooper, who took on the communications company 3, which I have already mentioned. He had purchased, some time ago, phones for his daughters, but they did not work in his area. He cancelled his direct debit. It would appear that that alleged debt was sold to a company called HFO Services, which persisted, menacingly, in trying to get him to cough up some money, to the extent that his daughter was fearful that its representatives would seize property in the home. I heard on the radio—I think that the Minister will have done so, too—a recording of a telephone conversation in which a representative from HFO Services, speaking from a call centre in Asia, said: “Despite leaving several messages on your answer machine and despite trying to get in touch with you, you have failed to respond back. Now if I don’t receive your call today I would go ahead and forward the”— there followed an indistinct word— “to Northampton County Court so that there would be a county court judgement issued against you. And it might be also the court appointed bailiffs. If you want to save yourself some legal hassles please call me back.” That is completely and utterly contrary to the codes. Of course, the company was exposed by the BBC. In a feeble statement, the outfit called HFO Services said: “HFO views any alleged breach of the OFT guidelines or applicable legislation as a matter of the utmost seriousness.”
It would say that, wouldn’t it? That does not impress me. It tried to give an excuse and pretended that it would have an investigation. I have to say that the director of that company knows what is going on in his call centre. If he does not, he should, and anyway, he is culpable."
Strong stuff. But how long are we going to allow these businesses to get away with flagrant breaches of the law, of codes of practice and other guidelines? We need action now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
