Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k custs

[PAWS]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Well, here is one letter that is decidedly ‘iffy’ Do not know if it qualifies but…:confused2:



Note the solicitor. Well according to her LinkedIn profile she actually worked as the Legal Director for First National Bank at the time this letter was written. I can find no record of Davis & co but guess who is at the address now.? Link Financial!
Do not know how to search old court records and I am afraid there is no other paperwork available except a receipt showing the £2k + was paid. Cheque was sent to Davis & co but too long ago to find out who the check was made payable to. No record of a CCJ then.

[andrew1]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Now where have I heard of Nicola Chard before....mmmm? Maybe check her out on the Law society site...

[PAWS]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Oh she is registered as a solicitor but I found this http://www.theguardian.com/money/2002/jul/20/creditanddebt.jobsandmoney.
Nasty!

[PAWS]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

I have tried to find out who was at that address in 2002 -2003.It may have been a steel firm but there is no record of a Davis & co ever having an office anywhere in the area. I feel like popping off an email to our friend Nicola and pointing out that she forgot to mention her time at Davis & co on her LinkedIn CV! I did try to get some info from the local council but I think the lady I spoke to would have been more receptive if I had asked to take her 17 year old son out for the night.:nono:
Not sure where I should go with it now –naturally I want blood as there is a very sad back story to this particular letter.

BTW..
Quote from the Guardian 26^th June. Clegg: Wonga bosses must look at their consciences over fake law firm letters.
In what fantasy world does he live in? Does he not know to have a conscience the employees of firms like Wonga would have to be human first?
I have been trying to get him to take some interest in the awful mire of Debt Collection and he did not want to get involved. I did think he was a bit of a woozy when I saw him crying after the local elections but I thought hey; maybe he might help. But no, he is afraid he would get shouted at or sent to bed with a red leg. Git.
Well Mr. Clegg –it is you who needs to look to your conscience and after June next year you will have plenty of time to do it. Plenty to cry about too.:Cry:

[EXC]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Lloyds defends recovery letters naming ‘SCM Solicitors’

''The growing scandal of organisations employing non-existent ‘law firms’ to pressure debtors has taken a new turn today, with the giant Lloyds Banking Group the latest to come under scrutiny.

Meanwhile, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is preparing guidance for in-house lawyers, to ensure they do not give the impression that external law firms are involved in customer transactions where this is not the case.

The Gazette has been alerted to Lloyds’ use of the name ‘SCM Solicitors’, formerly Sechiari, Clark and Mitchell, in letters demanding repayment of debts. The firm, registered at the SRA under number 62032, was dissolved on 30 June 2011.

SCM Solicitors is now part of the group’s in-house litigation department. The bank maintains that letters issued by the department make it clear that SCM solicitors is part of Lloyds Banking Group.


Every letter bears the name of a solicitor within the department who takes responsibility for that letter, confirms the solicitor is authorised and regulated by the SRA, and gives that solicitor’s registration number.


In a statement, Lloyds said: ‘Letters to our customers identify the qualified solicitor of record and make clear that SCM solicitors forms part of Lloyds Banking Group’s in-house litigation department.’

The statement does however leave open the question of why Lloyds would use a different name unless its intention were to at least imply that it had involved an external firm in the debt recovery procedure.

Responding to a request for comment on Lloyds and SCM, Richard Collins, executive director of the SRA, said: ‘We can confirm that we are currently looking into a number of complaints on this theme which have given us cause for concern. We will shortly be issuing guidance for in-house solicitors on our existing requirement that publicity must not be misleading.

‘This will make it clear that they cannot use forms of words that give the impression that they are an independent law firm and not employed solicitors.’

The issue came to the fore last week when payday lender Wonga was found to have sent letters to customers to indebted customers appearing to come from law firms that do not exist.

The affair has continued to gain political traction, after The Law Society asked the Metropolitan Police to consider whether any offences, such as blackmail or those under the Solicitors Act, have been committed by Wonga in sending fake legal letters to customers in arrears.

Shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry today tweeted that she has written to City regulator the Financial Conduct Authority supporting Chancery Lane’s intervention.

‘Have written to FCA backing @TheLawSociety call for sight of Wonga investigation. Bogus solicitor letters could be fraud,’ she said.
Yesterday the Student Loans Company suspended the use of letters headed with the name of a debt recovery firm that turned out to be its own trading name.

Update 15.59: BBC Radio 4 Money Box presenter Paul Lewis has this afternoon retweeted the Gazette story to his 75,000 followers. He also reports that 'NatWest/RBS are phasing out use of Triton Services debt collectors and Green & Co solicitors - both part of RBS but appearing to be separate'.

A spokesperson for RBS confirmed to the Gazette that Triton is being phased out, adding that Green & Co has not been used for new customer cases since 2012.''

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice...042018.article

[meellis]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

As I have said on the other thread covering SCM it has to be remembered that none of these letters were for free they all had a cost added to the unfortunate debtors account. Don't believe, as they seem to want, that it is all about intimidation. I wonder if there is a timeline between the inception of some of these companies and rules concerning fair charges for default notices and other correspondence, you could probably charge more for getting another company involved.

[MissFM]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Lloyds defends recovery letters naming ‘SCM Solicitors’

''The growing scandal of organisations employing non-existent ‘law firms’ to pressure debtors has taken a new turn today, with the giant Lloyds Banking Group the latest to come under scrutiny.

Meanwhile, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is preparing guidance for in-house lawyers, to ensure they do not give the impression that external law firms are involved in customer transactions where this is not the case.

The Gazette has been alerted to Lloyds’ use of the name ‘SCM Solicitors’, formerly Sechiari, Clark and Mitchell, in letters demanding repayment of debts. The firm, registered at the SRA under number 62032, was dissolved on 30 June 2011.

SCM Solicitors is now part of the group’s in-house litigation department. The bank maintains that letters issued by the department make it clear that SCM solicitors is part of Lloyds Banking Group.


Every letter bears the name of a solicitor within the department who takes responsibility for that letter, confirms the solicitor is authorised and regulated by the SRA, and gives that solicitor’s registration number.


In a statement, Lloyds said: ‘Letters to our customers identify the qualified solicitor of record and make clear that SCM solicitors forms part of Lloyds Banking Group’s in-house litigation department.’

The statement does however leave open the question of why Lloyds would use a different name unless its intention were to at least imply that it had involved an external firm in the debt recovery procedure.

Responding to a request for comment on Lloyds and SCM, Richard Collins, executive director of the SRA, said: ‘We can confirm that we are currently looking into a number of complaints on this theme which have given us cause for concern. We will shortly be issuing guidance for in-house solicitors on our existing requirement that publicity must not be misleading.

‘This will make it clear that they cannot use forms of words that give the impression that they are an independent law firm and not employed solicitors.’

The issue came to the fore last week when payday lender Wonga was found to have sent letters to customers to indebted customers appearing to come from law firms that do not exist.

The affair has continued to gain political traction, after The Law Society asked the Metropolitan Police to consider whether any offences, such as blackmail or those under the Solicitors Act, have been committed by Wonga in sending fake legal letters to customers in arrears.

Shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry today tweeted that she has written to City regulator the Financial Conduct Authority supporting Chancery Lane’s intervention.

‘Have written to FCA backing @TheLawSociety call for sight of Wonga investigation. Bogus solicitor letters could be fraud,’ she said.
Yesterday the Student Loans Company suspended the use of letters headed with the name of a debt recovery firm that turned out to be its own trading name.

Update 15.59: BBC Radio 4 Money Box presenter Paul Lewis has this afternoon retweeted the Gazette story to his 75,000 followers. He also reports that 'NatWest/RBS are phasing out use of Triton Services debt collectors and Green & Co solicitors - both part of RBS but appearing to be separate'.

A spokesperson for RBS confirmed to the Gazette that Triton is being phased out, adding that Green & Co has not been used for new customer cases since 2012.''

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice...042018.article

Well that's alright then.

What about the ones who aren't even solicitors at all but fronting as if they are, in house or out?

[andrew1]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Let me take you on a journey through to my old pals in West Malling - Cabot Financial (Europe)Ltd.

They have an in-house solicitor firm called Morgans Solicitors with their unfortunately named solicitor Piers Morgan and his buddy Dean (a.k.a. Frank) Saunders.

I hate to admit or suggest this, but Cabot actually got it right. So we can use this as a template to make comparison with.

Each of Morgans solicitors has a practicing certificate and registered with the Law Society.

The entry on the SRA register is that the solicitors are 'Employees' of Cabot

Morgans Solicitors is a 'trading style' of Cabots which has been included as such on Cabots CCA Licence on the OFT register (as was).

Cabot is a 'Recognised Body' at the SRA.

Their CCA Licence covers Debt Collection

Compare that with the likes of Swift Advances plc with their Swift Group Legal Services and they are as different as chalk and cheese.

Swift's CCA Licence does/did not include Debt Collection

Swift Group Legal Services were not on Swift Advances plc CCA Licence as a trading style (they are now since we told them about it, but not until Nov 2010)

Swift Advances plc are not a recognised body - neither is Swift Group Legal Services

The SRA Register shows Swift Group Legal Services as the 'Employer' and a department cannot be deemed an employer. Ask the Inland revenue...

A1

[Wombats]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Why are these institutions apparently exempt from the law? If this was done by you or I we'd be in court before we knew it.

They are producing 'Guidance.' Hmmmm.......... I know what is often cited about 'Guidance' and the fact it is not legislation so they don't have to abide by it.

What is enshrined in legislation is they're not allowed to do what they've done, but it would appear they still don't have to abide by it. Why are they above the law?

[Nibbler]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...care-customers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-tactic.html

http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...ensation-wonga

[Celestine]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

It is so good to finally see a bright light being shone on this distressing practice.

What has always concerned me is the sheer volume of the letters which have been generated. A real law firm would never send 30-40 pre-action letters in such circumstances....indeed I'm sure such conduct is not permitted.

[Amethyst]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

''The crucial difference is that Wonga sent letters from fake lawyers, whereas the individuals signing the letters from the banks are authorised and regulated by the SRA.''

SO what about letters signed with the company name?

Not sure on the dates that SCM were removed from SRA but if this is afterwards it would be wrong, if before it would be ok. EDIT : ''The firm, registered at the SRA under number 62032, was dissolved on 30 June 2011.'' So this letter would be okay- AFTER July 2011 it would not be ok.

In a statement, Lloyds said: "Letters to our customers identify the qualified solicitor of record and make clear that SCM Solicitors forms part of Lloyds Banking Group's in-house litigation department." It pointed out that every letter sent out bore the name of a solicitor within the department who took responsibility for that letter. The correspondence also confirms the solicitor is authorised and regulated by the SRA, and gives that solicitor's registration number.

eg.

[Amethyst]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

''The crucial difference is that Wonga sent letters from fake lawyers, whereas the individuals signing the letters from the banks are authorised and regulated by the SRA.''

SO what about letters signed with the company name?

DG Solicitors (who aren't solicitors) shouldn't sign letters as DG - neither Alan Burden nor Paul Kavanagh's initials are DG so DG is a company signature and that company does not exist.

So think that pee's on that argument.

[meellis]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

As for the number of letters, again its because they could charge for them, it was a money making scam as well as intimidation and as I keep on saying this needs to be remembered and highlighted. none of these letters were free.

[andrew1]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Could someone please just answer this question for me?

In the Guardian article posted by Nibbler http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...care-customers, it states:

"The practice is legal because the letters are signed by a lawyer who is individually regulated by the SRA."

In the Swift Group Legal Services scenario I have been posting about the solicitors rarely, if ever sign or identify who has written the letters, we just get a squiggle without any reference to a solicitors name even in their reference which often provides the initials of the writer.....

What difference EXACTLY does that make to this situation?

Does the letter have to be signed by an identifiable solicitor?

The solicitors are all registered and qualified solicitors in their own right and acting for their employer....but, the twist is that they do not act or write in a way that shows they are acting 'for their employer' they write like they are acting for 'their client',.

We have a made-up name, unlicenced as a trading style, Unrecognised as a Recognised body at the SRA, not a firm, but claiming to be 'solicitors acting for our client ' Swift Advances plc'.

It is however believed that the solicitors are actually in the employment of Swift Advances plc although registered on the SRA website as being empolyees of Swift Group Legal Services (the made -up trading style) which I have emails confirming from Swift that Swift Group Legal Services is a ' Department'.

As with all things Swift, the devil is in the detail and I am convinced they have set this up wrong and here we are splitting the words and sentences from different snippets to make the jigsaw work.

Given I have paid vast amounts of fees to Swift for their 'legal costs' at considerable rates per hour, if this is just a department of a company without legal right to do what they have done, not only have the unlawfully charged me these vast sums, they will have a few answers to come up with as to how they have legitimately raised legal action doing things against all borrowers they have litigated against and I for one, want transparency (which won't come from Swift) and truth (something they are bereft of) so I can hold them to account.

Answers on a postcard please!

Ta

A1