Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Debt collection

Options
  • 10-10-2011 1:01pm
    #1
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭


    Is there any legislation in relation to debt collectors at all? A friend of mine got a letter from a debt collection agency saying that he owed money to their client and they had been passed on the debt to collect. It went on to say that failure to pay would result in court appearance and that his name would be publicised. It then gave the debt collectors own bank details for money to be lodged to.

    I know this is a pretty standard letters for debt collectors to send but it raised a few issues for me.

    1) To my knowledge a debt cannot be "passed on" to a party not involved or mentioned in the original contract so any legal action would have to be taken by the debt collectors "client". Is this correct?

    2) Are letters like these not bordering on an offence under Section 11 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/sec0011.html#sec11?

    3) Are debt collectors required to ensure the validity of a debt in any way before taking action?


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,127 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Your friend should contact the person/company they owe money to and settle it with them and cut the debt collector out of the loop. Regardless of the letters the simple fact is your friend owes the money and not paying could mean a conviction in court which will affect their credit rating.
    Get them to settle the debt and not to try and look for loopholes with the debt collector as it won't get rid of the debt.


  • Options
    #3
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    There's nothing in the Statute that you quote that would be relevant to your friend. The agency are quite within their rights to emphasis what the outcomes are for not settling your debt.

    Factoring debts or employing third party debt collectors are nothing new and are legal.

    However, as somebody else says you are better off dealing with the original party that you owe the money too.


  • Options
    #4
    Kosseegan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 987 ✭✭✭Kosseegan


    MagicSean wrote: »

    1) To my knowledge a debt cannot be "passed on" to a party not involved or mentioned in the original contract so any legal action would have to be taken by the debt collectors "client". Is this correct?

    3) Are debt collectors required to ensure the validity of a debt in any way before taking action?

    A debt can be passed on. The creditor sells his interest in the original contract. It has been going on since the middle ages.

    If a debt collector tries to pursue a debt that is not due and owing they will have to pay the costs of any action. It is in their interests to verify the debt is genuine.


  • Options
    #5
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Your friend should contact the person/company they owe money to and settle it with them and cut the debt collector out of the loop. Regardless of the letters the simple fact is your friend owes the money and not paying could mean a conviction in court which will affect their credit rating.
    Get them to settle the debt and not to try and look for loopholes with the debt collector as it won't get rid of the debt.

    I won't be getting them to do anything. The debt relates to a service they paid for but did not receive. They disputed the matter with the provider and the provider simply ignored them for two years and then sold the debt on. i personally hope they do take it to court but that is their decision.

    That's beside the point though. I'm more interested in the legal side of it. It seems to me to be a lot like the whole clamping situation were there is no actual law to cover it and its simply a matter of everyone making up their own rules to compensate
    BrianD wrote: »
    There's nothing in the Statute that you quote that would be relevant to your friend. The agency are quite within their rights to emphasis what the outcomes are for not settling your debt.

    Factoring debts or employing third party debt collectors are nothing new and are legal.

    However, as somebody else says you are better off dealing with the original party that you owe the money too.

    I know they are nothing new but that doesn't make it legal. How can the orignal party be dealt with if they have effectively given up any claim to the debt?
    Kosseegan wrote: »
    A debt can be passed on. The creditor sells his interest in the original contract. It has been going on since the middle ages.

    So has rape. Doesn't make it legal. What would the debt collector bring the debtor to court for? They have never been in a contract together.


  • Options
    #6
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    There is no issue with what the company have done is assigning the debt to a third party and the demands that have been issued. In some cases the debt is sold and in other cases the debt collector is acting as an agent. It's all perfectly above board and widely done. In your case you mention an agency - so the collection co. is acting as an agent of the company that your friend did business with.

    The dispute over the provision of the service is an entirely separate matter. I don't know what the history or nature of the dispute is.

    Your friend can still inform the debt collection agency that the amount is subject to a dispute with the documents to support the claim. If acting as an agent, the collection agency will have no option but to revert back to the principle.

    The legal threat comes from the fact that most of these agencies will offer the legal services as part of the package. So your contract is probably still in place with the supplier.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    Does anyone know a debt collection agency who will outright buy your debt? A friend of mine is owed quite a large amount, butany debt collectors he contacted only wanted a percentage "if" they managed to collect it. Bull!


  • Options
    #8
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    newmug wrote: »
    Does anyone know a debt collection agency who will outright buy your debt? A friend of mine is owed quite a large amount, butany debt collectors he contacted only wanted a percentage "if" they managed to collect it. Bull!

    If it's remained uncollected for a while then it's unlikely to be collected. The risk is higher and less desirable. A debt collector wouldn't want to own the debt at that point.


  • Options
    #9
    Jo King
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭Jo King


    MagicSean wrote: »


    So has rape. Doesn't make it legal. What would the debt collector bring the debtor to court for? They have never been in a contract together.

    There are criminal offences outlawing rape. If there weren't rape would be legal.
    There are no laws prohibiting an assignment of an interest in a contract. Go around any shopping centre. The chances are that the tenants of the shops are not the original tenants, they bought the interest in the lease from a previous tenant. Most likely also the landlord is not the original landlord but bout the interest of the previous landlord. Both the existing landlord and tenant can still sue each other for breaches of the original covenants even though one or both may not have been a party to it.
    NAMA bought loans from the banks and the borrowers now owe the money to NAMA and not the bank they originally borrowed from. NAMA can and does sue on the loans.
    Irish Permanent is selling its sub prime mortgage book. People who owe mortgages will owe the new owner when the sale takes place.
    There are companies such as Celtic Invoice discounting buying trade debt and then recovering it at a profit.
    It isa absolutely ludicrous that something which happens so often and widely does not have any sound legal base. If that was the case when the debtor is sued they would raise it in their defence in court and get off.


  • Options
    #10
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    Debt collectors have no more legal power to demand money above that of a private citizen. If they pretend to have some sort official standing i.e. pretend they have a judgement when they don't they commit criminal offences.


  • Options
    #11
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Our man in Havana wrote: »
    Debt collectors have no more legal power to demand money above that of a private citizen. If they pretend to have some sort official standing i.e. pretend they have a judgement when they don't they commit criminal offences.

    They don't but as Debt Collectors they should be experts in using the full range of the law to pursue you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Jayo2011
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭Jayo2011


    MagicSean
    Quote:
    I won't be getting them to do anything. The debt relates to a service they paid for but did not receive. They disputed the matter with the provider and the provider simply ignored them for two years and then sold the debt on. i personally hope they do take it to court but that is their decision.

    That's beside the point though. I'm more interested in the legal side of it. It seems to me to be a lot like the whole clamping situation were there is no actual law to cover it and its simply a matter of everyone making up their own rules to compensate

    If what you are saying is correct, your friend has a very strong case of defamation of character and slander. A party may only pass on a debt to a collection agency if the debt is legitimate. If it is not - they are not permitted to employ third parties and should have resolved the matter through the courts first.

    Sharing your friends information with any third party for any other reason other than if it is a legitimate debt is in contravention of the Data Protection Acts. A person in control of your private personal data is required by law to protect that data. Telling people that you owe money you don't is a malicious rumour in the least and because court is being threatened - intimidation and extortion.

    I would contact the Data Protection Ombudsman and have them investigate the matter that private personal data has not been protected under the Data Protection Acts.

    Don't be intimidated by generic letters from Debt Collection agencies. End of the day most are solicitors who are employed to collect multiple debts on a single day and aren't familiar with the background of any one case. The one thing to remember is this - just because a solicitor or debt collector is involved does not mean you will automatically lose. For every case in court criminal or otherwise - there is usually one winner and one loser.

    If your friend does not owe the money, he/she will be entitled to counter the claim when taken to court and may be entitled to damages for not protecting Private Personal Data and spreading malicious rumours to third parties.

    Alternatively, contact your local MABS office and have them advise you. They offer free impartial advice and will deal with debts alleged or otherwise on your behalf for free


  • Options
    #13
    seb65
    Registered Users Posts: 402 ✭✭seb65


    newmug wrote: »
    Does anyone know a debt collection agency who will outright buy your debt? A friend of mine is owed quite a large amount, butany debt collectors he contacted only wanted a percentage "if" they managed to collect it. Bull!

    Those that have bought debt buy it for pennies on the dollar. Not worth it.


  • Options
    #14
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,333 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    newmug wrote: »
    Does anyone know a debt collection agency who will outright buy your debt? A friend of mine is owed quite a large amount, butany debt collectors he contacted only wanted a percentage "if" they managed to collect it. Bull!
    You want third parties to take on other's bad debts? Just like that?
    Jayo2011 wrote: »
    If what you are saying is correct, your friend has a very strong case of defamation of character and slander. A party may only pass on a debt to a collection agency if the debt is legitimate. If it is not - they are not permitted to employ third parties and should have resolved the matter through the courts first.

    Completely wrong. Many debt collectors are solicitors firms.


  • Options
    #15
    Jayo2011
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭Jayo2011


    If what you are saying is correct, your friend has a very strong case of defamation of character and slander. A party may only pass on a debt to a collection agency if the debt is legitimate. If it is not - they are not permitted to employ third parties and should have resolved the matter through the courts first.
    Victor wrote: »
    You want third parties to take on other's bad debts? Just like that?



    Completely wrong. Many debt collectors are solicitors firms.

    I disagree. Just because a debt collector is a solicitors firm does not mean they are acting as a solicitor. The creditor may share information with their solicitor with the view to collecting it through the courts or for getting legal advice on the matter.

    The same solicitor may act on two different aspects of the same case:

    First: Offering legal advice to the Creditor with view to collecting the debt. If they are informed by debtor that money is not correct amount owed - they should be advising their client to back off and first resolve the facts of the case in court as you cannot be expected to pay an undetermined sum.

    Second:
    If the debt is disputed and Creditor instructs Debt Collection Agency decides to pursue it (even if its a Solicitors firm), there is a strong case of defamation of character, slander, extortion and possibly fraud. If this were not to be the case, what's the consequence for me instructing a Solicitor/Debt collector Agency to collect money from a rich businessman, money they clearly don't owe and just because its from a solicitor expect them to pay? I would be a very rich man if there was no consequence.

    Bottom line is: If a solicitors firm is acting as a debt collections agency - thats all they are - a debt collections agency. Just because they are a legal entity does not give them any more power than a debt collector. If they have been given misleading figures - the creditor is liable.


  • Options
    #16
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,231 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Jo King wrote: »
    There are criminal offences outlawing rape. If there weren't rape would be legal.

    do you really believe this? Are you familiar with the common law offence of rape?


  • Options
    #17
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,333 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Jayo2011 wrote: »
    I disagree. Just because a debt collector is a solicitors firm does not mean they are acting as a solicitor.
    If they were taking it through court as you suggested in your previous thread, would they not have to brief the solicitor anyway? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #18
    Jayo2011
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭Jayo2011


    Victor wrote: »
    If they were taking it through court as you suggested in your previous thread, would they not have to brief the solicitor anyway? :rolleyes:

    They would be briefing their solicitor in strict confidence. The solicitor is then bound by law to store this information in a secure way. The two cases are separate.

    Check the Data Protection Acts


  • Options
    #19
    Orrid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 59 ✭✭Orrid


    It is perfectly legal for the creditor to pass the debt onto a third party collection agency under assignment. The debtor should be notified in writing by the creditor that this is being done This is how most debt collection is done..me included. The contract remains with the original parties with the collector as an agent and responsible for his actions to the creditor (you have redress against both parties if he does something illegal while collecting..agency relationship).

    The collection agency is supposed to be discrete in his actions ie not parking a van marked debt collector outside your premises or generally harrassing you. However in the unregulated Irish market there are several firms (run by known criminals) who do exactly this as a business tactic.

    Debt collection is generally unpleasant and done by some fairly hard nosed individuals. It's always best to negotiate in some form with your creditor before the collectors come knocking.

    One thing debt collectors cannot do is seize your goods or property, the exception being motor vehicles on motor finance, when less than 30% of the HP has been paid. Goods can only be seized far down the road after a court judgement has been obtained and a further warrant of execution granted by the court. If they they do try to take you goods without a court order then it is theft. In the case of an unsecured personal loan then all the creditor can do is sue. These days 'sending the boys round' for a legal debt is very risky.

    There is an interesting case going in Kinnegad where an oil supplier + mates went around seizing vehicles in liu of unpaid diesel fuel bills and ended up with a theft conviction.


  • Options
    #20
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    Marcusm wrote: »
    do you really believe this? Are you familiar with the common law offence of rape?

    Murder is a common law offence. Are you saying murder is not criminal?


  • Options
    #21
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    Murder is a common law offence. Are you saying murder is not criminal?

    I don't think Marcusm was saying that in fact I think he was agreeing with your proposition.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    I don't think Marcusm was saying that in fact I think he was agreeing with your proposition.

    He was questioning me. Why not let him answer for himself?


  • Options
    #23
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    He was questioning me. Why not let him answer for himself?

    I think jo king was the person who questioned you, in fact from what I have read Marcusm was agreeing with you.

    BTW I didn't answer the question you posed, I just pointed out my belief that he in fact agreed with your position.
    Marcusm wrote: »
    do you really believe this? Are you familiar with the common law offence of rape?

    Which he wrote in response to
    Jo King wrote: »
    There are criminal offences outlawing rape. If there weren't rape would be legal.


  • Options
    #24
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,231 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    Murder is a common law offence. Are you saying murder is not criminal?

    Nope, fully agree that it is. I was questioning Jo King's assertion (which i inferred from the quoted post) that without a specific Law outlawing rape it would be legal. In the broader context of Jo King's longer post, I inferred that h e/she believed rape only to be outlawed by act of parliament (although this was not explicitly stated).


  • Options
    #25
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,231 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    He was questioning me. Why not let him answer for himself?

    I don't think I was questioning you, unless you have 2 logins!!


  • Options
    #26
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Marcusm wrote: »
    I don't think I was questioning you, unless you have 2 logins!!

    Interesting idea, considering that from what I can see Milk & Honey's first post on this thread was
    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    Murder is a common law offence. Are you saying murder is not criminal?

    Followed by
    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    He was questioning me. Why not let him answer for himself?

    Interesting that is.


  • Options
    #27
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    I was questioning Marcusm. I phrased it wrongly. That is what I meant when i asked why not let him answer for himself.
    Now that he has answered is he now saying that common law offences are not specific offences? Is murder not a specific offence?


  • Options
    #28
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,231 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    I was questioning Marcusm. I phrased it wrongly. That is what I meant when i asked why not let him answer for himself.
    Now that he has answered is he now saying that common law offences are not specific offences? Is murder not a specific offence?

    I have no idea what you mean by "specific offences"; the inference I drew from Jo King's post was that unless an act was expressly prohibited by legislation then it was fair game. The point I was seeking to make was that common law jurisdictions did not required legislation for all matters as the body of common law had evolved over the centuries independent of legislation which I s why we have as prosecution for common law offences (matters which so outrage common good) for centuries, be they murder, robbery, larceny or, in the case Jo King suggested, rape. So far as I am aware, these are now almost exclusively prosecuted in Ireland under statute now rather than common law.


  • Options
    #29
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    Marcusm wrote: »
    I have no idea what you mean by "specific offences"; the inference I drew from Jo King's post was that unless an act was expressly prohibited by legislation then it was fair game. The point I was seeking to make was that common law jurisdictions did not required legislation for all matters as the body of common law had evolved over the centuries independent of legislation which I s why we have as prosecution for common law offences (matters which so outrage common good) for centuries, be they murder, robbery, larceny or, in the case Jo King suggested, rape. So far as I am aware, these are now almost exclusively prosecuted in Ireland under statute now rather than common law.

    You said "without a specific law".
    Jo King simply said there are criminal offences against rape. Criminal offence can mean either a statutory or a common law based offence. How can you infer statutory only from that?


  • Options
    #30
    Predalien
    Closed Accounts Posts: 946 ✭✭✭Predalien


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    You said "without a specific law".
    Jo King simply said there are criminal offences against rape. Criminal offence can mean either a statutory or a common law based offence. How can you infer statutory only from that?

    You might want to read the thread again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    Larceny is now gone as a common law offence.


Advertisement