Debt Collectors in England

This page is still under construction

 

The debt collector is usually the first step if the original claimant hasn't managed you get you to pay up.

If the claimant has managed to get a Country Court Judgement (CCJ) against you, the debt collector can still ask you to payup, but they still have no authority. Only official Bailiffs have any authority, and only when acting on a CCJ. And even Bailiffs have limitations on what they can do.

Remember that a debt collector has no legal authority to force you to do anything. even if they are contacting you about a CCJ.
But for most of the time, the debt doesn't even have any vaidation yet, let alone any court order.
Which is why you need to engage with them to to verify everything and hold them accountable for their own conduct if need be (they are well known for breaching rules and claiming false information).

Bailiffs can only get involved if a Country Court Judgement (CCJ) is issued, which as not yet been settled. Beware that it's common for:
* Bailiff firms to do regular debt collection when there is no CCJ, but because they have the word "Bailiff" in the company name, you assume they are acting as a bailiff.
* For debt collectors to claim they are bailiffs, but only when they think their words won't be recorded (such as on your doorstep or on the phone) so is unlikely to be in writing.

Debt collectors will either be:

  1. Genuinely representing a client.
  2. Claiming to be representing their client but actually it's one of their sister / brother / parent companies that has purchased it and they are pretending it's a completely unrelated client.
  3. Claiming to represent a client, but it's them who have purchased it.

No matter which situation, it's unlikely they will say that you owe THEM the money. They will usually say things like:

"In relation to the debt from Barclays"
"There is an outstanding amount for "HSBC"

Even though their words are vague, they will still usually ask you to pay them directly making you assume they are collecting on behalf of someone else.

There is good reason for this, yes if they are genuinely collecting for a client they can't claim you owe them, but surely if they purchased the debt they can say you owe them?

Well the problems they often have are:

  1. The debts are Bulk Purchased, which invalidates certain parts of the debt assignment process. Assignment is the process of transferring ownership, so if it hasn't been transferred correctly then their 'purchase' of the debt is invalid.
  2. Even if they have the correct paperwork for the assignment, and it's been assigned without being in bulk, it's rare to find that it's been administered correctly inline with the law.
  3. The original creditors often do not issue the Notice of Assignment, either at all or as they should.
  4. The original creditor will often get an insurance payout for the debt, which means it has been paid so the assignment is invalid anyway, because you can't have a debt that has been paid and also claim it's outstanding at the same time.

Surely financial institutions like banks wouldn't be doing this or we'd all know about it? Well not only do they....... but it's standard practise.

It's important to write back, because you're setting the stage to show you're not trying to avoid. If done well and they haven't followed process or are engaged in unfounded debt collection activity, it'll make it much harder or even impossible for court action to succeed later on.

Even better, you may be able to claim damages from them.

Your Replies to the Debt Collector


There's a few thing you need to establish with your replies.

  • At a minimum you want to validate the debt from the point of asking for the original contract or loan agrement, etc. Plus any accounting.
  • But it'll help you a lot more to also ask them to verify more information, plus answer some questions.
  • And even better, you can "inform" them you are aware of the rules, legislation and laws they are supposed to be following.

 

Ideally, the 5 parts you're looking to establish are:

  1. Validation of the debt.
  2. Validation that the assignment process has been followed corretly & the assignment paerwork is correct (if the debt has been sold).
  3. To confirm the company / agents are complient and allowed to collect debts.
  4. To inform them they you know of regulation, legislation and law they should be following.
  5. To inform them of potential outcomes if any breaches take place for both civil (you claim financial damages) and criminal (they could go to prison or suffer big losses).

Validation of the debt.

Firstly, no matter what company you are dealing with. what service you was provided, or for what reason the alledged debt has been accumulated, there are still genral rules around how contracts and agreement are made and validated. 

For specific services there is specific legislation that needs to be adhered to.

Unsecured loan, (overdraft, credit card, loan etc): then it will be regulated by the Concumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulate the companies.

Mortgages & Secured Loans: In 2016 Mortgage Credit Directive was implemented into English law.
All lending secured by a mortgage or charge over residential property now falls to be
regulated under the FSMA regulated mortgage regime, which has absorbed the secured lending regime under the CCA. With effect from 21st March 2016, secured loans which were previously CCA – regulated agreements are now treated as ‘regulated mortgage contracts’.

However, there are some exceptions. For instance, section 126 of the CCA (Enforcement of land mortgages) and other provisions relating to it, apply to agreements which would otherwise be regulated agreements1. Also, regulated mortgage contracts that were in place at 31 October 2004 and which are subject to the CCA will remain subject to that regime1.

It’s important to note that unsecured loans, as well as loans secured on second charges on property, are not subject to the Article 90 carve-out1. Many of these loans are currently covered by the CCA and the position will not change.

Water supply: is regulated by the Water Industry Act 1991 and gives enforces that you are entitled to review all charges and fees applied to the account.

Electrity / Gas is regularte

However, there are some exceptions. 

Here is a sample letter:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a response to your letter dated 26th March 2024, regarding an alleged debt for £1’940.63 for water services provided by Anglian Water Business (National) Limited, as referenced with the account number stated above.

 

This is the first communication I have received regarding this account or any alleged outstanding balance, and I have no prior records or correspondence that indicate any past due amount.

 

You claim there is a contract, but I have no knowledge of contracting or agreeing to pay with Anglian Water Business (National) Limited.

 

 

If you are you claiming you have the legal right and title to collect any payments of this alleged debt, please send the appropriate certified documents, see below, to evidence this in your reply.

 

 

Part 1

Before proceeding further, I request the following information to help me verify the alleged debt and understand the basis of your claims. It will also ensure that any collection practices used are in accordance with legal and regulatory standards.

Please provide:

 

  1. Original Contract:

You claim there was a contract with me.

  • Provide a full and complete copy of the original contract, between myself and Anglian Water Business (National) Limited, under which the alleged debt has arisen.

  1. Detailed Statement of Account:
    • Provide Complete and itemised billing statement(s) that includes all charges, payments made, any additional fees or interest charges that have been added, and any adjustments from the account's inception to the present, detailing how the alleged debt was accumulated.

  2. Copy of the Invoice or Invoices:

You claim Anglian Water Business (National) Limited have invoiced for this sum.

  • Provide copies of these invoices.

 

  1. The nature of your representation:
  • Clarify your standing in this matter.
  • Specifically, are you acting directly on behalf of Anglian Water Business (National) Limited, or has the debt been purchased by your firm or another entity?

  1. Proof of Assignment:

If the debt has been sold, please answer the following question:

  • Do you have, or does your client have the Deed of Assignment?

 

Provide the following:

  • Deed of Assignment and the original Notice of Assignment.

 

If you believe you have no obligation to evidence the Deed, I shall request to inspect it using CPR 31, including 31.12 if needed, backed by case law and legislation. (See case law and legislation in Part 3)

 

 

These documents will help ensure that all charges are correct and justified.

 

Under the Water Industry Act 1991, I am entitled to review all charges and fees applied to the account to ensure they comply with regulated standards.

 

 

Part 2 - I also require evidence or at least replies to the following:

 

Is this debt enforceable?

If so evidence this by sending the above-mentioned documents by return of post. Or openly admit with full transparency it is or is not as per FCA rules and the law stated below.

 

Are you registered with the FCA?

If so, please include your membership details so that I may check the validity of your specific named company and location against Companies House and the FCA.

 

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000), Section 20 & FCA Handbook 12.6A. Undertaking a regulated activity without authorisation or exemption is a criminal offence and, in the most serious cases could lead to prosecution. It could also lead to a Civil claim if losses are suffered as a result of the contravention.

Arrow Global Guernsey Limited v Watson,

Intrum UK Finance Limited v B:

Claims were struck out because the claimant was not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), demonstrating the necessity for debt purchasers or creditors to be properly authorised to pursue debt collection activities.

 

 

Part 3 - For your information:

 

Your letter, urging payment under the threat of legal action, appears to be an attempt to unduly coerce payment without establishing the legal basis for the claim. It is incumbent upon legal professionals to ensure that their actions do not contravene the principles of fairness and due diligence as mandated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, and RFLs, particularly Principle 1 (uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice) and Principle 5 (act with integrity), underscores the importance of verifying the legitimacy of a client's claim before proceeding with such actions.

 

Given the circumstances, I must remind you that involvement in actions that lack a legal foundation

may not only undermine public confidence in the legal profession but could also implicate you and Flint Bishop LLP in matters of legal misconduct. Should this matter proceed without the requisite evidence being provided, I will not hesitate to file a formal complaint with the SRA and consider further legal action for any damages incurred as a result of these unfounded claims.

 

If it takes place, the concerted effort by two or more parties to extract money without legal right may constitute a conspiracy to defraud, as preserved under section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

R v. Grantham (1984) QB 675 shows the judiciary's stance on such matters, where individuals were held accountable for dishonestly conspiring to defraud.

 

 

Considering all of the above, I urge you to review this matter carefully and advise your client accordingly. Further unwarranted and unsubstantiated demands for payment will be met with the appropriate legal response and a formal complaint to the SRA without further notice.

 

Assignment

Companies Act 2006:

If the assignor is a company, the execution must comply with the company's rules for executing deeds, which may require signatures from two directors, a director and a company secretary, or affixing the company seal, depending on the company's articles of association.

 

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989:

Sending the correct legal format of a notice of assignment, which as you know requires both the original lender (assignor) and the assignee’s signatures.

 

 

RA Group (UK) Limited v Mayhew:

The court held that just saying an agreement has been assigned and producing a notice saying it has been assigned does not prove legal assignment. Debt purchasers need to provide proof.

 

Without the original agreement or a proper deed of assignment, the claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to prove an assignment from MBNA to PRA.

 

PRA Group (UK) Limited v Boorman:

The appeal was allowed, and the claim was dismissed because the claimant could not prove the title had been assigned to them.

 

 

If you do own the legal title then production of the deed should not be a problem.

 

 

Acting Fraudulently

Fraud Act 2006:

Take note particularly of:

Section 2 - Fraud by False Representation: Where someone dishonestly makes a false representation with the intent to make a gain for themselves or another, or to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. A false representation means asserting something to be true without belief or evidence in its truth.

 

Section 3 - Fraud by Failing to Disclose Information: Situations where fraud is committed by not disclosing information when there is a legal duty to do so. The omission of crucial information, which you are legally obligated to disclose, with the intent to make a gain or cause loss, falls under this category.

 

Section 4: Fraud by abuse of position:  

  • occupies a position in which they were expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial

interests of another person

  • abused that position
  • dishonesty intending by that abuse to make a gain/cause a loss

 

The abuse may consist of an omission rather than an act. It’s complete once the offender carries out the act whether successful or not, and whether any gain or loss is actually made.

 

The sentence could be up to 10 years imprisonment.

 

 

Companies Act 2006, Section 993 “Offence of fraudulent trading”:

“If any business of a company is carried on with intent to defraud creditors of the company or creditors of any other person, or for any fraudulent purpose, every person who is knowingly a party to the carrying on of the business in that manner commits an offence.”

 

This could also apply to actions such as passing on my data to any other debt agent while you knowingly

have no legal rights or title to do so. Known as the “Debt claim merry-go-round”. Falling into conspiracy to defraud.

 

This will also incur breaches of both DPA/GDPR.

 

As you may or may not know carries with it 12 months custodial sentence.

 

 

Acting in an Unfair, Misleading or Aggressive way.

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008:

These regulations are a Statutory Instrument and enforceable by law so please be upfront, transparent and do not assign this notice to any kind of “internal investigation”, while still sending me letters.

 

Take note particularly of:

Regulation 4: The promotion of any unfair commercial practice by a code owner in a code of conduct is prohibited.

Regulation 5: Addresses misleading actions, including any false information or behaviour that deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, affecting their economic behaviour or harming a competitor.

 

Regulation 6: Deals with misleading omissions, which occur when material information that the average consumer needs to make an informed decision is omitted, hidden, provided in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous, or untimely manner, or when failing to identify the commercial intent of the practice if not already apparent from the context.

 

Regulation 7: Deals with aggressive commercial practices. A commercial practice may be considered aggressive if the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct is significantly impaired.

 

 

Harassment

Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009]:

This case established that a series of unwarranted letters could constitute harassment. This would include delaying tactics of such rubbish as “Internal investigation” in response to basic questions of your legal obligations to produce evidence of your claim or any other word-salads could be seen as an attempt to intimidate, prolong or misrepresent your position.

 

 

 

I only include all the information above to highlight what others may be guilty of and would not tar your company with the same brush since I look forward to your transparency in all matters.

 

Part 4: My Data
Consider this a formal notice to cease processing any of any personal data.

Data Protection Act 2018:
Cease processing my personal data until you provide sufficient documentation to substantiate the alleged debt, as the continued processing without such substantiation is causing unwarranted distress and potentially infringing on my privacy rights.

GDPR:
Cease processing my personal data because the accuracy of the data is contested—specifically, until you can verify that the debt is indeed mine and that your claims are justified.

 

Regards Your Name,
[Your Printed Name]