Complaints to DCAs re Mobile Phone Bills

[Bungleinthejungle]

Good Morning

I am a little confused and would appreciate some feedback. I have an ongoing saga with Lowells regarding an alleged debt for a 3 Mobile Account. For months, they have been unable to substantiate the debt, no bills, statements, records or even, until yesterday NoA.

Despite my having sent a 'prove it' along with clear notification that I consider the matter as in dispute, they have bombarded me with demands for payment.

Yesterday, I received a complaint response. Odd, because I had not made a complaint, only threatened to. Naturally, my 'complaint' was not upheld. I was referred to the Consumer Ombudsman for redress.

Today, I have spoken with the Financial Ombudsman office. I had thought that was the place to refer complaints re DCAs. The FO confirm that they cannot look at complaints re DCAs arising from mobile phone debt. I was referred to the Consumer Ombudsman or the CSA

Now Lowells are regulated by the FCA so why can they not accept complaints? I am not...as yet...complaining of the OP, but the antics of the collection agency. The Consumer Ombudsman say that they can get involved, but only as an ADR service.

This appears to make mockery of the templated letters provided by many respected agencies, which mention the FCA code of Conduct. Any thoughts, or have I been going at this in completely the wrong way?

With thanks

[Debt Camel]

Re: Complaints to DCAs re Mobile Phone Bills

The mobile debt is not a consumer credit debt. It doesn't fall under the FCA rules. The Financial Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint about this.

This is incredibly annoying for all concerned, Even the debt collectors trade association, the CSA, would like it changed. But those are the rules at the moment.

The template letters you are referring to are for consumer debts.

[nemesis45]

Re: Complaints to DCAs re Mobile Phone Bills

Good morning, welcome to LB.

The FCA will take on board any information regarding the conduct of a regulated company, and does act on the information if there's sufficient evidence of non compliance accumulated so it's worth making such a report.

Lowell is a debt purchaser and now owns the debt.

What is your dispute?

nen

[charitynjw]

Re: Complaints to DCAs re Mobile Phone Bills

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...#ixzz4UvDmLB5P

FYI

[Bungleinthejungle]

Re: Complaints to DCAs re Mobile Phone Bills

Thanks for the swift responses. My dispute with Lowells is purely with regard to their constant badgering for payment when I have sent 2 letters, by recorded delivery, stating that I consider the matter to be in dispute. This is backed up by their inablilty to provide proof of the debt.



I had not complained to Lowell, merely stated that I would if this behaviour continued.

Nem, I understand where you are coming from. Does this mean that templates, excluding mention of CCA, are valid for use in these circumstances?

I know that mobile phone debt is not meat for the FCA, but this is in regard to what I consider to be shady practice by Lowells who are licensed by the FCA. As a huge proportion of their work concerns Telecoms debt purchases, it would make sense for them to be regulated in conduct of their activities.

My point is that this is an ambiguous area. Clarification would be welcome.

[nemesis45]

Re: Complaints to DCAs re Mobile Phone Bills

Thanks for the swift responses. My dispute with Lowells is purely with regard to their constant badgering for payment when I have sent 2 letters, by recorded delivery, stating that I consider the matter to be in dispute. This is backed up by their inablilty to provide proof of the debt.



I had not complained to Lowell, merely stated that I would if this behaviour continued.

Nem, I understand where you are coming from. Does this mean that templates, excluding mention of CCA, are valid for use in these circumstances?

I know that mobile phone debt is not meat for the FCA, but this is in regard to what I consider to be shady practice by Lowells who are licensed by the FCA. As a huge proportion of their work concerns Telecoms debt purchases, it would make sense for them to be regulated in conduct of their activities.

My point is that this is an ambiguous area. Clarification would be welcome.

Lowell now owns the debt and is governed / regulated by the FCA if a regulated company fails to comply with the provisions of it's licence then it should be reported to the FCA .

The conduct of the original creditor in this case as see it a matter for OFCOM.


See Charitynjw s post re 3mob. and VAT

nem

[charitynjw]

Re: Complaints to DCAs re Mobile Phone Bills

FOS - mobile phone issues are not within their remit.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...laints_a2.html

FCA - even if they did decide that your 'complaint' falls under conduct of business rules, they would probably inform you that they do not accept or deal with individual complaints but will add it to their files.

[Debt Camel]

Re: Complaints to DCAs re Mobile Phone Bills

I know that mobile phone debt is not meat for the FCA, but this is in regard to what I consider to be shady practice by Lowells who are licensed by the FCA. As a huge proportion of their work concerns Telecoms debt purchases, it would make sense for them to be regulated in conduct of their activities.

It absolutely would make sense. But that isn't how the law and regulatory rules stand at the moment. This is not an ambiguous area. The rules are regrettably quite clear, even if they aren't well known.

Yes you can complain to the FCA about the conduct of an authorised firm for non authorised business. But (a) it would have to be extremely bad for the FCA to do more than file your complaint. I think they would ignore what you have described, and (b) even if they look at it, you will never get any more feedback about the matter.

And there is no way of taking your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman.

[Bungleinthejungle]

Re: Complaints to DCAs re Mobile Phone Bills

It absolutely would make sense. But that isn't how the law and regulatory rules stand at the moment. This is not an ambiguous area. The rules are regrettably quite clear, even if they aren't well known.

.

With respect, IMO, the arcane and complex nature of the subject makes it ripe for ambiguity.

The FOS site is certainly unclear. For example, they claim to deal with businesses that are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to provide retail financial services or credit-related activities. i.e. Lowells. Further, with regard to Mobile providers "But there are some circumstances where we might be able to help - like complaints about paying your mobile phone bill".

And again in Areas we cover from the site " repayment problems and debt collection".

Elsewhere they say they cannot cover utility bills, but on the same page, state that they can now consider unregulated debt. All fine for a seasoned professional to interpret, but quasi impenetrable for the average lay person.

I spoke with National Debtline on the issue and they are confused. Similarly, the Consumer Ombudsman were unsure whether or not their friends over at the FOS could get involved. When I finally got through to the FOS, they were able to explain why they couldn't help, although the person I spoke to stated that they get lots of calls on this subject.

In my case, Lowell's action is so full of holes that I am confident it can be overcome quite easily. I had not even made a complaint, but it was comforting to have that option.

I have found these pages enormously helpful, but I am concerned that confusion may lull victims of DCA's into a false sense of security or undermine their efforts to bring malpractice to light. May I suggest a sticky on this subject?

[nemesis45]

Re: Complaints to DCAs re Mobile Phone Bills

With respect, IMO, the arcane and complex nature of the subject makes it ripe for ambiguity.

The FOS site is certainly unclear. For example, they claim to deal with businesses that are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to provide retail financial services or credit-related activities. i.e. Lowells. Further, with regard to Mobile providers "But there are some circumstances where we might be able to help - like complaints about paying your mobile phone bill".

And again in Areas we cover from the site " repayment problems and debt collection".

Elsewhere they say they cannot cover utility bills, but on the same page, state that they can now consider unregulated debt. All fine for a seasoned professional to interpret, but quasi impenetrable for the average lay person.

I spoke with National Debtline on the issue and they are confused. Similarly, the Consumer Ombudsman were unsure whether or not their friends over at the FOS could get involved. When I finally got through to the FOS, they were able to explain why they couldn't help, although the person I spoke to stated that they get lots of calls on this subject.

In my case, Lowell's action is so full of holes that I am confident it can be overcome quite easily. I had not even made a complaint, but it was comforting to have that option.

I have found these pages enormously helpful, but I am concerned that confusion may lull victims of DCA's into a false sense of security or undermine their efforts to bring malpractice to light. May I suggest a sticky on this subject?

However the debt originated it's now in the hands of an FCA regulated debt purchaser and Lowell is and can be held responsible for actions/conduct that does not meet the requirements of their FCA license.

It is worth reporting any such breaches to the FCA the information will be logged and will be use to judge Lowell's fitness to hold a license. We have seen this recently with a company penalised for its conduct.

nem