Use of Fraud Act 2006 Against Debt Collectors Collecting Statuted Barred Debts

[teaboy2]

Hi Guys

Just wanted to get your thoughts on this. As we all know Debt Collectors Knowing try to collect on statuted barred debts and knowing say on the phone its not statuted barred when they know and we know it is. Well not only should we be using the protection from harassment act 1997, limitation act 1980, but we should also use the Fraud Act 2006 as such false representation as to the legal status of the debt is clearly meant to make the debt collector a financial gain from those not knowledgable of legislation or simply take the debt collectors word for it not realising they are not liable to pay a debt after 6 years of non payment of acknowlegdement of the debt. As such they the debt collector knowing misrespresents the debt to make a financial gain that they are not legally entitled to, due to the debt being statuted barred, but do so at the financial loss/deteriment of the debtor who is not aware of their rights or that they are no longer liable to repay the debt.


Surely we should also use the fraud act 2006 section 2 false representation against debt collectors, that use such tactics and try to collect on statuted barred debts. I personnaly believe that once they realise that we are now using such law against them that they will think twice about play such underhand tactics.

[bluebottle]

Re: Use of Fraud Act 2006 Against Debt Collectors Collecting Statuted Barred Debts

Although it is not an offence, at law, to attempt to collect a statute-barred debt, it is an offence, under Section 2, Fraud Act 2006, to defraud or attempt to defraud another by false misrepresentation. If the original creditor is involved in the matter with the DCA, then it is Conspiracy to Defraud (Section 1, Criminal Law Act 1977 and Common Law).

The Limitation Act 1980 prevents the original creditor and DCA from enforcing or attempting to enforce a statute-barred debt through the legal process.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is a piece of legislation that is very effective in restraining the worst abuses and excesses of the debt collection industry. Any director, officer, secretary, manager, employee, servant or agents of a DCA who sees fit to ignore or defy an injunction under Section 3 of the Act risks a fine, imprisonment or both.

Would a DCA think twice about employing underhand and illegal tactics in trying to enforce statute-barred debt? The smaller DCAs would, in my considered judgement, but the larger ones, like Lowells and CapQuest, might feel they can get away with it. However, if they are hit with an injunction, they tend to get the message and, apparently, can't settle fast enough. This needs to be done in cases of serious abuse. A warning letter might act as a deterrent and be useful evidence should the DCA not take heed of the warning.

[teaboy2]

Re: Use of Fraud Act 2006 Against Debt Collectors Collecting Statuted Barred Debts

Hi Bluebottle

I think that if everyone included the section 2 of the fraud act 2006 in their statuted barred letters then it would certainly get the DCA's worried as they will then know that we have found a new way of dealing with them, along with the protection from harassment act 1997. As such they will know that not only could we pursue them for harassment, but also for fraud too, which would result in their credit license being revoked almost immediately if they are found guilty of fraud. I can just see the police Fraud Squad smashing their way into a DCA's office right now lol.

[Guest]

Re: Use of Fraud Act 2006 Against Debt Collectors Collecting Statuted Barred Debts

Found this whilst searching for reference material thought it was interesting.

• The Fraud Act could be used to criminalize conduct which may previously only have amounted to a breach of contract or other civil law or moral obligation. Examples may include:

Breach of banking covenants. Where a loan contract contains an obligation by the borrower to draw an event of termination to the attention of the bank, then a failure to do so may now be a fraud.

"Shill bidding" on online auction sites. This is where sellers bid up the price of their own items using a second identity.

Certain advertising practices previously seen as sharp, but not illegal, for example paying for a favourable restaurant or hotel review in a publication which appears at first glance to be independent.

Breach of fiduciary duty by directors; and preferences and transactions at undervalue in insolvency situations.

• The Fraud Act significantly limits the right of a defendant to claim privilege against self-incrimination (the right to refuse to disclose documents or give evidence if doing so would expose him to the risk of a criminal prosecution) where he is being charged with a fraud offence.
• D

[bluebottle]

Re: Use of Fraud Act 2006 Against Debt Collectors Collecting Statuted Barred Debts

Nice one, Davy.

The Fraud Act 2006 is a lot better and its scope much wider than the provisions it repealed - Sections 15 and 16, Theft Act 1968. Don't forget that withholding information can also amount to fraud, as can abusing one's position.

The criminal legislation that could be used against DCAs in appropriate circumstances includes -

Common Law Conspiracy to Defraud
Criminal Law Act 1977 (Statutory Conspiracy to Defraud)
Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981
Public Order Act 1986
Malicious Communications Act 1988
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Communications Act 2003
Fraud Act 2006