Over the years I have had the occasional cause to take on companies that pursue for money that we have not owed. On one occasion I helped my sister when British Gas claimed an exorbitant amount of money despite her not having gas connected to her property.
My solution has always been the same – it is a tip I learned from a former employer. If you are right, then you write back to the company advising them that they are chasing incorrectly and provide any evidence where you can that they are wrong. You make it clear that you will not engage in further discussion and that if they believe they have a case, then they should issue proceedings. This is, in effect, saying; put up or shut up. In each case, they shut up. I always adopt a firm (bordering on the belligerent) approach with these companies. If I have not had any dealings with them, I do not expect them to write to me demanding money and I see no reason why I should give them any leeway. Accurate identification of the debtor is their responsibility, not mine and I have a low tolerance when it comes to incompetence.
When companies sell the debt to a collection agency, it can become more complex. On one such occasion, there was a dispute – my sister (again) had withheld money due to negligence on the part of the company concerned. On that occasion, the debt collection agency dropped it promptly on learning of the dispute. What they want is a nice clean debt with no complications. So, again, keep any evidence of disputes if this is the case.
However, it seems that there is now an added dimension due to a recent case:
A man wrongly identified as owing a debt has received a payout of thousands of pounds from the debt collection agency concerned.
The problem in his case was that the agency went on to put his details incorrectly onto the credit rating agencies database. Information that was incorrect, and therefore defamatory.
Mike’s solicitor told Aktiv Kapital that unless it paid damages and apologised, there were grounds for him to consider suing for defamation.
That was because details of the debt Mike did not owe could now be accessed by any finance company checking his credit record, adversely affecting his reputation.
After weeks of negotiations, Aktiv Kapital paid him £6,725 in damages and costs and issued a public apology, published in the London Gazette.
This is an excellent result for all those people wrongly identified by companies as owing money and a pointed lesson for the companies that they should check their details before harassing people who do not owe them money and have never heard of them.
It is unfortunate that this case did not come to court and set a legal precedent as anyone following Dr Thompson’s lead will still have to consider the costs and there is the matter of proving that the company got it wrong:
However, to succeed he would have to overcome significant legal protection known as “qualified privilege” given to the firms involved.
Ms Webb told the programme: “The claimant would have to show the company had been reckless in passing on the wrong name, that they’d got the wrong person.”
In my sister’s case, not having a gas meter should have done it, I would have thought. In general, if you have never had any dealings with a company, asking them for some evidence that backs up their claim should identify their error – as Dr Thompson tried. Unfortunately, when dealing with these people they work on the initial assumption that they are right and you are lying:
Kurt Obermaier, the association’s executive director, said his members have a difficult task but take complaints seriously.
“The very essence of our industry is to deal with people who say ‘that’s not me’ or ‘I don’t owe this money’, so there’s a certain amount of scepticism at the start,” he said.
No, when someone receives a letter demanding money that they do not owe, it is extremely distressing – so your scepticism is highly inappropriate. You should immediately and thoroughly investigate – if you do this properly (and promptly) you will quickly discover whether there has been a mistake or the complainant is trying it on. What happened to Dr Thompson was a disgrace and one that I hear repeated just a little too often for comfort (not to mention personal experience). All too often the cause is laziness or incompetence on the part of the company concerned – that should be the default assumption, frankly.
Well done to Dr Thompson and I just hope that Aktiv Kapital are a little more careful before chasing innocent people for money that they do not owe.
I just got a bill for £6.98 for an item bought by the previous occupant of the property from 2006.
I told them he left in 2007.
They said that as the item is still at the house {tv ariel} that I was liable for the unpaid part of the old bill.
This should be fun in the court.
.-= ´s last blog ..They all confess in the end.. =-.
I was renting a flat with my partner in Havering when the form for the community charge came into being, this was in the November and we had just bought a place in Loughton Essex which came under Epping council, which we moved to in January. I was told by the people at Havering that I had to complete the form although I was moving and would not be liable for it. Sure enough I then received two council tax bills when it started the following April, one from each council. I sent the copy of the correct one to the council of the incorrect one to no avail, the summons came in the post.I then filled in a court form, as I used to collect my companies bad debts, for a claim of twenty thousand pounds against the person in Havering council who would not listen to my complaint, saying it would be entered into court after seven days. It was the best fun I had, I refused his calls for two days on the third day all was resolved when I finally spoke to him.
Yup, if you play them at their own game and refuse to be browbeaten, the battle is half won. They rely on you being intimidated by their threats. I had a falling out once with a driving school and left. The owner tried to pursue me for £900 compensation – he called it a goodwill severance payment although there was no goodwill involved.
There were a few letters via solicitors back and forth arguing the ins and outs of the matter. I eventually advised my solicitor to send the put up or shut up letter as the original contract had not only been broken by the other party, it was in breach of the unfair contract terms act.
I never heard another word 😉