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

[Amethyst]

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

Swift Group Legal Service co no/ 07245244 ? That one? Dissolved 13/12/2011

Do you have copies of any of the letters?

[andrew1]

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

Swift Group Legal Service co no/ 07245244 ? That one? Dissolved 13/12/2011

Do you have copies of any of the letters?

Where did you get that number and what is it - a Companies House number?

No, that company was set-up by someone else before Swift had it registered as a trading style . Then disolved it -

Swift Advances plc co.number is 1800474 and the trading style Swift Advances (which also belonged to another company before Nov 2010) and Swift Group Legal Services were added to the CCA licence in Nov 2010 after we'd shown them up for not having them registered. We stated that it was a criminal offence to trade without these names registered on their licence and the OFT did nowt to remedy their offence.(as usual).

A1

[Amethyst]

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

Yes put it in webcheck http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//w...essCompanyInfo

Only incorporated in 2010 - then gazetted and struck off - Director a Jeffery Williams

SWIFT GROUP LEGAL SERVICES LIMITED
MAGHULL BUSINESS CENTER
LIVERPOOL ROAD NORTH
LIVERPOOL
UNITED KINGDOM
L31 2HB
Company No. 07245244


Status: Dissolved 13/12/2011
Date of Incorporation: 06/05/2010

[Amethyst]

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

No, that company was set-up by someone else before Swift had it registered as a trading style .

Ahhh - that explains a lot then.

[mystery1]

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.

If a Judge can rule, despite it being against the rules and 2 rulings by his colleagues, that a firms name is ok as a signature on a court claim form then i'd fear that signing a random piece of paper as such matters little.

M1

[Amethyst]

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

If a Judge can rule, despite it being against the rules and 2 rulings by his colleagues, that a firms name is ok as a signature on a court claim form then i'd fear that signing a random piece of paper as such matters little.

M1

I completely agree, however that is the ''defence'' that Lloyds have been putting forwards to explain why the letters were not considered misleading.

''''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.'''' is thus untrue.

[Amethyst]

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



Guardian.

[mystery1]

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

I completely agree, however that is the ''defence'' that Lloyds have been putting forwards to explain why the letters were not considered misleading.

''''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.'''' is thus untrue.

They'll change their tune again if they're caught out. If you want to listen to pish all day try classic FM.

M1

[meellis]

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

My take is that the industry was told that it could only charge reasonable costs for sending letters hence the £12 I believe that they were made to charge. How much is a reasonable charge for the same letter from a third party? Nobody would realise that the third party was in fact just another template on their computer ie same letter with different header and footer. They believed they would get away with the legal issues with the small print and probably will. We all see these things as black and white but as Andy 58 keeps saying the courts will view this as a minor problem and will allow them to rectify it. People like Andy who have/are working in the finance industry know this so will continue to push the rules because they know there will be punitive measures placed on them. One question that needs to be asked is why are so many of them saying they actually stopped doing this a while ago, sounds to me that somebody had been having a word with them and was trying to get rid of an issue before it became a major headache and now the same people will be frantically trying to play everything down and hide things.

[Fred]

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

My take is that the industry was told that it could only charge reasonable costs for sending letters hence the £12 I believe that they were made to charge. How much is a reasonable charge for the same letter from a third party? Nobody would realise that the third party was in fact just another template on their computer ie same letter with different header and footer. They believed they would get away with the legal issues with the small print and probably will. We all see these things as black and white but as Andy 58 keeps saying the courts will view this as a minor problem and will allow them to rectify it. People like Andy who have/are working in the finance industry know this so will continue to push the rules because they know there will be punitive measures placed on them. One question that needs to be asked is why are so many of them saying they actually stopped doing this a while ago, sounds to me that somebody had been having a word with them and was trying to get rid of an issue before it became a major headache and now the same people will be frantically trying to play everything down and hide things.

Especially the regulator who probably asked them nicely two years ago to stop doing it or we will put a requirement notice on you, which would/could have highlighted the issue earlier if these dodgy deals were actually more open & transparent.......its probably easier to get information out the MOD than FCA/OFT/CMA..............they have the power to impose but yet pussy foot around the said whilst pretending to work for our good-selves............their priorities & how they do things highly questionable, who do they work for again ?

[andrew1]

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

The charges for one, is an issue. Letters from 'solicitors' cost far more than letters from the creditor when they add them to your bill.

The second point is have these solicitors, like in the Swift group Legal Services situation, actually instituted legal proceedings against people and presented documentation themselves as 'solicitors' acting on behalf of their client' to a court?

If so, How 'legal' has that action been and what are the remedies for people taken to repossession?

A1

[PAWS]

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

First of all these unscrupulous animals will try to weasel out of what they have already done by picking through the small print. :evil:Even if they can blow the cobwebs off a stack of laws to enable them to get away with such a morally abhorrent crime they must never be able to do this again.
As we know the big problem is that OLs and DCAs are allowed to break laws, regulations, codes of conduct and guidelines. When they break these the debtor still finds themselves in court or at the very least terrified. That is what it all boils down to. Now the OFT guidelines, Consumer credit act and all the other Ts, Cs, FCA judgements and court rulings should prevent this sort of behaviour but they do not.
For example: Debtors are discovering they have a ccj against them for a debt that should be statute barred and have a hell of a job trying to get rid of it.
Debtors are having court papers served for debts that the lender /collector cannot produce any agreement or other paperwork for.
Debtors are being threatened with legal action for debts that are unenforceable for a number of reasons.
Debtors are often so terrified of going to court or have no idea how to challenge the OL /DCA’s actions that they either pay up or get hammered in court.
The laws /guidelines are already there and as we all know they are constantly broken. The debtors have no chance when they argue this point as they are all seen as scumbags who are trying to avoid paying what they owe.
Well why can’t these laws be simpler, less littered with ‘ifs,buts and maybes and the onus of enforcing them not be the job of the debtor.
An original lender /Debt collection agency can only threatenlegal action if the following is in order.
(Yep, I know the rules already exists but bear with me!)
1. The creditor /collector has a true copy of the agreement and all paperwork supporting the history of the debt.
After all I cannot prove I own my home /car etc. without documents.
2. Once the paperwork is in order, the creditor /collector must have satisfied both parties that the debtor can afford to pay the debt.
i.e. if the debtor has filled in an income /exp. Form backed up with proof of earnings etc. then the creditor/ collector must accept this and accept reduced payments with no charges added.

If these rules are ignored the second a debtor gets a letter spouting legal action or a similar threatening letter whether from an internal /external/ fake source they whack it over to the FCA and it is for them to get the OC /DCA to prove that they have followed procedure and can proceed down the legal route.
Let the bloody FCA do they job they are paid for, stop unscrupulous collection practices, free up the court system and save the country the cost of mopping up the broken bodies and homes caused by this practice. If the FCA were getting bombarded with the issue they might start coming down a bit harder on the offenders.
It is not as if this would require a stack of new laws; it would simply mean that someone is charged with enforcing them.
As for all the people who knowingly put their name to these sham legal letters –well **** *** :embarassed:
OK, I know you chaps with extensive legal knowledge may think this is over simplifying the issue but some body or organisation has to take ownership and come up with a clear blanket ruling and the enforcement of that rule that is not based on the ability of the debtor to fight or the mood and personal opinion of a judge.:incourt: Tragically, as we all know it doesn’t always get that far.

[andrew1]

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

The one thing I can't stand is when some oink like Cable says " This must not happen again" - where were they when it began?

Make thse companies PAY for their errors by

1) reimbursing, with interest what they have taken

2) Paying proper compensation to the victims, not some measley £50 which goes nowhere to make up for those harrassing and turbulent, frightening calls made by these feckers from 8.a.m. until 10pm

3) Then make those responsible for doing it face the punishment due.

Slapped wrists ended when I left school. This is the real world.

A1

[Amethyst]

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

The charges for one, is an issue. Letters from 'solicitors' cost far more than letters from the creditor when they add them to your bill.

The second point is have these solicitors, like in the Swift group Legal Services situation, actually instituted legal proceedings against people and presented documentation themselves as 'solicitors' acting on behalf of their client' to a court?

If so, How 'legal' has that action been and what are the remedies for people taken to repossession?

A1

That's definitely a question that needs asking the regulators

[Amethyst]

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

Court claim bought by the non-existent SCM ( from THIS YEAR ) on behalf of Lloyds