Wonga have admitted what they were doing was wrong, they say so themselves in a tv interview http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28015456 They sent letters from fake law firms An investigation found that Wonga sent letters to customers from fake law firms called "Chainey, D'Amato & Shannon" and "Barker and Lowe Legal Recoveries".
They also added legal fees from those non existent firms too apparently.
If the firms did not exist then they had no right to add legal fees either.
T..............Funny you should mention twisting the English language, given it's Wonga's wording of the letters that makes them potentially illegal. If anyone was twisting the English language dishonestly it's Wonga. .......
There is another possible offense to add to the list.
Trading Disclosure. Under section 82 of the Companies Act 2006: it is illegal to send a business letter or other communication without disclosing the registered name of the company sending it. As these fake third party letters, were from non-existant not registered legal companies.
Agreed, and those aspects have been done to death. What do they have to do with:
Send in fraud squad over banks and utilities' 'menacing and misleading' legal threats to customers, says MP
Calls for probe: MP John Mann said the police should be called in to investigate the 'contemptible' practice
Detectives were last night urged to launch an investigation into banks and utility firms that have sent ‘menacing and misleading’ letters to customers owing money.
The Daily Mail revealed yesterday that Barclays, Lloyds, Halifax, RBS and HSBC are among organisations that have masqueraded as independent law firms and debt collectors in a bid to get customers to pay up.
John Mann, a Labour member of the Commons Treasury committee, last night said the police should be called in to investigate the ‘contemptible’ practice.
‘If the allegations are correct then this is a form of fraud,’ he said. ‘The regulator needs to deal with it but in my opinion it is also a matter for the fraud squad.
‘It is unacceptable for banks, utilities or anyone else to pose as someone else in order to send menacing letters to their customers. It is completely misleading and obviously designed to intimidate people.’
There is another possible offense to add to the list.
Trading Disclosure. Under section 82 of the Companies Act 2006: it is illegal to send a business letter or other communication without disclosing the registered name of the company sending it. As these fake third party letters, were from non-existant not registered legal companies.
Do you know that they don't? Have you actually seen a letter? I think that info usually appears at the foot of each page in extremely small type, doesn't it?
Do you know that they don't? Have you actually seen a letter? I think that info usually appears at the foot of each page in extremely small type, doesn't it?
The main wording used in the letters make it look like they have been sent by some real law firms or real DCA when they have not, post 89 shows the main bits of these fake letters
The main wording used in the letters make it look like they have been sent by some real law firms or real DCA when they have not, post 89 shows the main bits of these fake letters
Irrespective of the main wording, do the letters have the required information mentioned in post 104?
Irrespective of the main wording, do the letters have the required information mentioned in post 104?
I could not answer that, but saying the FCA are having a good look into it all i would say there is some dodgy pratices going on. One of the things i know they do is use the term trading style with a company name
Operating a trading style whilst running a limited company is common practice amongst many businesses. You may find that your preferred company name is already on the register. Your business may move in a direction that is different to your registered company name. This use of a trading style is one solution adopted by many companies. But would still be breaking the law to pretend to be a legal firm or a DCA. as both have to be registered and regulated without that they are acting illegally. As i have said if you look at post 89 the 3 letters there are pretending to be from DCAs when they are not DCA. Just the same as its illegal for DCA to pretend to be bailiffs
................. But would still be breaking the law to pretend to be a legal firm or a DCA. as both have to be registered and regulated without that they are acting illegally. ...............
I believe that may have been mentioned earlier in the thread.
And a 'trading style' - the use of a trademark, registered or unregistered, is very common, so I'm not clear what point you're making.
I believe that may have been mentioned earlier in the thread.
And a 'trading style' - the use of a trademark, registered or unregistered, is very common, so I'm not clear what point you're making.
A trading style is fine, pretending to be a legal firm, and imposing legal fees is illegal unless they are actually registered as a legal firm, which Wonga are not.
I believe that may have been mentioned earlier in the thread.
And a 'trading style' - the use of a trademark, registered or unregistered, is very common, so I'm not clear what point you're making.
Because using a trading style does NOT allow you to pretend to be a legal firm or a DCA. And pretend you are trying to collect money for someone else when it is for yourselfs.
Comments
They also added legal fees from those non existent firms too apparently.
If the firms did not exist then they had no right to add legal fees either.
Agreed, and those aspects have been done to death. What do they have to do with:
Trading Disclosure. Under section 82 of the Companies Act 2006: it is illegal to send a business letter or other communication without disclosing the registered name of the company sending it. As these fake third party letters, were from non-existant not registered legal companies.
Send in fraud squad over banks and utilities' 'menacing and misleading' legal threats to customers, says MP
Calls for probe: MP John Mann said the police should be called in to investigate the 'contemptible' practice
Detectives were last night urged to launch an investigation into banks and utility firms that have sent ‘menacing and misleading’ letters to customers owing money.
The Daily Mail revealed yesterday that Barclays, Lloyds, Halifax, RBS and HSBC are among organisations that have masqueraded as independent law firms and debt collectors in a bid to get customers to pay up.
John Mann, a Labour member of the Commons Treasury committee, last night said the police should be called in to investigate the ‘contemptible’ practice.
‘If the allegations are correct then this is a form of fraud,’ he said. ‘The regulator needs to deal with it but in my opinion it is also a matter for the fraud squad.
‘It is unacceptable for banks, utilities or anyone else to pose as someone else in order to send menacing letters to their customers. It is completely misleading and obviously designed to intimidate people.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681315/Send-fraud-squad-banks-utilities-menacing-misleading-legal-threats-customers-says-MP.html#ixzz36gOocwcL
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Do you know that they don't? Have you actually seen a letter? I think that info usually appears at the foot of each page in extremely small type, doesn't it?
The main wording used in the letters make it look like they have been sent by some real law firms or real DCA when they have not, post 89 shows the main bits of these fake letters
Irrespective of the main wording, do the letters have the required information mentioned in post 104?
I could not answer that, but saying the FCA are having a good look into it all i would say there is some dodgy pratices going on. One of the things i know they do is use the term trading style with a company name
Operating a trading style whilst running a limited company is common practice amongst many businesses. You may find that your preferred company name is already on the register. Your business may move in a direction that is different to your registered company name. This use of a trading style is one solution adopted by many companies. But would still be breaking the law to pretend to be a legal firm or a DCA. as both have to be registered and regulated without that they are acting illegally. As i have said if you look at post 89 the 3 letters there are pretending to be from DCAs when they are not DCA. Just the same as its illegal for DCA to pretend to be bailiffs
I believe that may have been mentioned earlier in the thread.
And a 'trading style' - the use of a trademark, registered or unregistered, is very common, so I'm not clear what point you're making.
Yep, and it's also a practise Wonga have admitted to.
So all this arguing is actually quite pointless.
They admitted the practise.
They admitted it was wrong.
They have promised never to do it again.
They have agreed to pay compensation.
A trading style is fine, pretending to be a legal firm, and imposing legal fees is illegal unless they are actually registered as a legal firm, which Wonga are not.
Again, Wonga have admitted their wrongdoing.
I totally agree.
Because using a trading style does NOT allow you to pretend to be a legal firm or a DCA. And pretend you are trying to collect money for someone else when it is for yourselfs.
Npower 'sent customers threats from FAKE firm of debt collectors'