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

[EXC]

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

From the current Private Eye.

Looks like a poor preemptive attempt at reputation management by a major Wonga shareholder.

[andrew1]

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

" Ignorance of the law" and all that jazz yeah yeah yeah!

[Captain Haddock]

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

[/FONT]
Now we can dig up archaic laws such as ‘Joint Enterprise’ –a law I believe was created to punish people involved in Duels! So why can’t we bring back good old ‘usury’ laws. It would slap these b****rs down and nip the whole ‘buying debts for pennies’ profiteering of the DCA’s.

And, as with the pastiche of the Hogarth painting earlier on in this thread, surely Les Autres would argue for the re-instatement of the Debtors' Prison??

Several years ago, I was part of the technical crew on a conference hosted by an investment bank. This would be around 2006, when the first tremors of the crash were being felt and the keynote speaker held forth on defaulters and debt. Later on, during a break, I passed by him, surround by sycophant delegates and I clearly heard him clamouring for the return of the Debtors' Prison as a way to 'show' defaulters that they had obligations. He's probably still doing the conference circuit and still arguing for it!

[PAWS]

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

You know Captain H that does not surprise me. The thing that makes me laugh is that the top bankers get their banks into debt due to bad practices and mismanagement. They will not suffer as their debtors will because they simply beg from us, the tax payer and still get their bonuses. If a customer’s business fails they smash them and take action to ensure they never get back on their feet again.
We all know that there are people out there who deliberately try to avoid paying back money they can well afford to repay. Like many things in life the minority destroy it for the others. What annoys me is that unlike criminals we are all doled out the same sentence and punishment; in fact when it comes to the courts we are treated worse than criminals. As I pointed out in another post on here, could the prosecution take a suspected criminal to court without preparing a proper case? Could they turn up with flimsy or no evidence as the DCA solicitors do secure in the knowledge that the Judge will side with them?:incourt:

Some people are living in a hell that would make debtors prison seem like a holiday camp; at least in prison you would be sure of a roof over your head and your next meal! Now as then the treatment of debtors is one dimensional. :ballchain:

[PAWS]

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

"

Ignorance of the law" and all that jazz yeahyeah yeah!

Sorry Andrew; Missed that!

[righty]

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

Read this from the LS website
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/pr...tion-of-wonga/

As you will note the LS do think these companies are committing an offence which could include blackmail

[PAWS]

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

Now this raises an interesting point; Last year when Arrow bought a shed load of debts they split them up among their subbies. From what I can see a huge number of them went straight to Dryden(un)Fairfax solicitors.The first and all subsequent letters received by that bunch of debtors were all from these solicitors. Now comparing those accounts and the ones handled by Arrow themselves, Wescot etc. there is no difference in the status of the account. I.e. the accounts handled by their solicitors were no more in default, of higher amount or older than the others so it was very much a lottery as to which sub company Arrow passed the account on to.
Now I know that Dryden’s are a bona fide solicitors but would it be considered a threat for a person’s initial and only contact to be with a firm's solicitors. From what I can see all the letters from all the individual sub companies were worded in the usual way but it would be interesting to find out if more of the people getting the Dryden’s letters panicked /coughed up than those getting the less malignant ones.:confused2:

[righty]

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

You know Captain H that does not surprise me. The thing that makes me laugh is that the top bankers get their banks into debt due to bad practices and mismanagement. They will not suffer as their debtors will because they simply beg from us, the tax payer and still get their bonuses. If a customer’s business fails they smash them and take action to ensure they never get back on their feet again.
We all know that there are people out there who deliberately try to avoid paying back money they can well afford to repay. Like many things in life the minority destroy it for the others. What annoys me is that unlike criminals we are all doled out the same sentence and punishment; in fact when it comes to the courts we are treated worse than criminals. As I pointed out in another post on here, could the prosecution take a suspected criminal to court without preparing a proper case? Could they turn up with flimsy or no evidence as the DCA solicitors do secure in the knowledge that the Judge will side with them?:incourt:

Some people are living in a hell that would make debtors prison seem like a holiday camp; at least in prison you would be sure of a roof over your head and your next meal! Now as then the treatment of debtors is one dimensional. :ballchain:

Its been my experience that a lot of Judges don't side with the creditors solicitors quite contrary many side with the alleged debtor while wasting no time in blasting the creditors lawyer for the way their client has treat the alleged debtor

[PAWS]

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

Its been my experience that a lot of Judges don't side with the creditors solicitors quite contrary many side with the alleged debtor while wasting no time in blasting the creditors lawyer for the way their client has treat the alleged debtor

Gosh, I don’t know Righty; Even the recent success Mr. Moore had (see post; Borrower wins court reprieve over £13,000 debt due to ‘illegible documents’) They had to go back to the court three times and it was only when the Judge messed up and the legal team spotted it that they got a result. Then there was the chap on here whose debt should have been statute barred. The creditor told the court that he had made a payment within two years and without having to substantiate that or offer any proof they won. I have read a lot of cases on here where not only did the alleged debtor loose but the circumstances were very unfair. Most were defending themselves and the Judge did seem more than a little biased. It does happen that the defendant wins and as you say the claimant is blasted for their slackness etc. but I fear these cases are in the minority.

[andrew1]

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

Gosh, I don’t know Righty; Even the recent success Mr. Moore had (see post; Borrower wins court reprieve over £13,000 debt due to ‘illegible documents’) They had to go back to the court three times and it was only when the Judge messed up and the legal team spotted it that they got a result. Then there was the chap on here whose debt should have been statute barred. The creditor told the court that he had made a payment within two years and without having to substantiate that or offer any proof they won. I have read a lot of cases on here where not only did the alleged debtor loose but the circumstances were very unfair. Most were defending themselves and the Judge did seem more than a little biased. It does happen that the defendant wins and as you say the claimant is blasted for their slackness etc. but I fear these cases are in the minority.:sad:

I'd agree 150%

One can only speak from one's own experiences either personal ones or ones which have been witnessed first hand whilst working on the forums with the people concerned and all I can say from that experience is that the Judiciary are 'Totally one-sided' unless the LIP has the Claimants AND their barrister AND the Judges nailed against the wall with documented audit trails and supporting case laws which cannot possibly be challenged leaving the Judgement only in the hands of a Judge who has his hands tied by FACTS infront of him/her.

Even then, they fight like hell to make sure the filthy debtor does not come out smiling with the justice they deserve.

It's shocking, appalling, unjust, expensive and all that goes with it, but it's the way it is.

I'm not a bitter person, I am not a person who takes or makes statements lightly, but I'm honest in my dealings with everyone I meet or do business with and have been all my life, but I despise liars or people who lie or mislead a court just to win for some employer who couldn't care about anyone except how it affects their balance sheet.

If I find people have lied, as I have done, solicitors too, then they won't know what's hit them when the result of my wrath finally hits their desk.

A1

[EXC]

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

The Treasury Select Committee have released this

[EXC]

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

Lloyds 'misleading' letter to borrowers published by MPs

An example of a letter sent out to Lloyds customers by a law firm - which was actually from Lloyds Bank itself - has been published by MPs.

Andrew Tyrie, the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, said such letters were "calculated to mislead".

The letters were sent to individuals and businesses who owed the bank money between the 1980s and March this year.

Lloyds said the letters were only sent to a small number of customers who had not previously responded to requests.
According to the letterhead, they came from a law firm calling itself Sechiari Clark and Mitchell - later abbreviated to SCM - with an address in Hove in Sussex.

This gave customers the impression that their debts had been passed to a collection agency.

But the bank has now admitted that SCM consisted of a group of solicitors who worked for a firm within Lloyds Bank.

Even though this firm was dissolved in 2011, letters continued to be sent out in its name until March this year.

All use of SCM letters is expected to cease by the end of September, said the bank.

"We believe that views on transparency and clarity have changed," said Antonio Horta-Osorio, the chief executive of Lloyds, referring to the time when SCM was established in the 1980s.

'Threatening'

Mr Horta-Osorio told the Treasury Select Committee that SCM's status as part of the in-house litigation team "was disclosed on correspondence."

However the only reference to this on the sample letter was a statement that if customers decided to make a payment, it would show on their statement as paid to "Lloyds Bank PLC."

The details follow previous revelations about other banks, energy firms and the Student Loans Company using similar techniques.

Five of the UK's big six energy companies have sent out such letters, with the exception of SSE.

George and Nina Perrott from Halesowen in the West Midlands received a final demand for payment from Scottish Power's in-house debt-collection team, Sterling Collections, even though they were never in debt.

"We left our property, paid all the utility bills and then were presented with a bill from Scottish Power for £5,473.60 which was quite a ridiculous amount," says Mrs Perrott.

"We were that upset we came off holiday early to see what was going on," the couple told You and Yours on Radio 4.

The letter from Sterling Collections mentioned in the small print that it is a trading name of Scottish Power but the couple were convinced the matter had been passed to external debt collectors.

Scottish Power has offered compensation and "sincere apologies" to the Perrots for the mistake. It has suspended use of the Sterling Collections name while it carries out a review.

'Unethical practice'

British Gas wrote to customers in debt using the names Debt Recovery Services and Central Recoveries but says it stopped doing so in 2012. EDF says it ceased using the name Knight Debt Recovery in 2009 to allow "complete transparency for customers".

But Npower still sends final demands from Collections Direct. It said the letters are only issued after it has made four attempts to communicate with a customer itself.

E.On has a separate company registered for the purpose: Utility Debt Services. It has also suspended use of the name whilst it conducts a review.

"No-one condones unethical practice but energy suppliers owe it to the honest majority to use all legitimate means to recover debts from people who can pay but won't," a spokesman for Energy UK told You and Yours.

The energy regulator Ofgem has asked all domestic energy suppliers for information about their use of what it calls "alternative branding". It will then consider if any action is necessary.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28343256

[EXC]

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

Dear Andrew...

...Best regards

Antonio

PS I am not a lawyer

[Nibbler]

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

When I saw that I thought it looked like the disclaimer had been cut off the bottom. Seems it was.

[EXC]

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

Yes the BBC copy left it out.