As I say - I fully expect that the letters sent by Wonga did not say "so and So, SOLICITORS", and probably did not have a partner list at all, and specifically with LL.B (or whatever it is after any names).
They would probably have just said "so and so, debt recovery managers"
I do not believe there is any crime. I expected they just agree to pay £50 compo to head off problems.
I am pretty sure you can buy form letters for debt recovery that purport to be official. Someone already gave an example
---
so what IS the result of the law society kicking off. Wonga will ACTUALLY put the recovery action with REAL SOLICITORS - thereby increasing WONGA's costs, and putting more money in the hands of legal eagles. No wonder the law society are kicking off.
A company writes to a debtor threatening legal action if the debtor doesn't pay what they owe. What would anyone expect them to do? Write saying "We have a feeling you don't want to pay. That's fine with us".
By pretending to be a law firm when they are not, Blackmail.
(1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
(2)The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.
(3)A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Annotations: Help about Annotation. Like a member of the public pretending to be a police officer for gain
As I say - I fully expect that the letters sent by Wonga did not say "so and So, SOLICITORS", and probably did not have a partner list at all, and specifically with LL.B (or whatever it is after any names).
They would probably have just said "so and so, debt recovery managers"
I do not believe there is any crime. I expected they just agree to pay £50 compo to head off problems.
I am pretty sure you can buy form letters for debt recovery that purport to be official. Someone already gave an example
---
so what IS the result of the law society kicking off. Wonga will ACTUALLY put the recovery action with REAL SOLICITORS - thereby increasing WONGA's costs, and putting more money in the hands of legal eagles. No wonder the law society are kicking off.
Well all wonga had to do was to employ a solictor, and wonga have admitted what they were doing was wrong and illegal. The same as its wrong and illegal for DCA to pretend to be bailiffs when they are not. Here is the poblem An investigation by the regulator found that Wonga sent letters to customers from fake law firms called "Chainey, D'Amato & Shannon" and "Barker and Lowe Legal Recoveries", sometimes charging customers a fee for these letters. When these compainies are FAKE this would have been discoverd because all legal firms and DCA are regulated and have to abide by laws and rules,
Well all wonga had to do was to employ a solictor, and wonga have admitted what they were doing was wrong and illegal. The same as its wrong and illegal for DCA to pretend to be bailiffs when they are not. Here is the poblem An investigation by the regulator found that Wonga sent letters to customers from fake law firms called "Chainey, D'Amato & Shannon" and "Barker and Lowe Legal Recoveries", sometimes charging customers a fee for these letters. When these compainies are FAKE this would have been discoverd because all legal firms and DCA are regulated and have to abide by laws and rules,
That's something else that needs to be looked at, bailiff firms when acting as debt collectors i.e. not enforcing a court judgment, not making it clear to debtors in letters and other communications in what capacity they are acting.
By pretending to be a law firm when they are not, Blackmail.
(1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
(2)The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.
(3)A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Annotations: Help about Annotation. Like a member of the public pretending to be a police officer for gain
Sorry, but where does that mention pretending to be a law firm? The essence is that the demand is both unwarranted and with menaces. "Unwarranted" fails under 1(a), and "menaces" under 1(b). It may also fail to qualify as "to gain for himself or another", since there's no gain, merely a payment of what they're entitled to.
A company writes to a debtor threatening legal action if the debtor doesn't pay what they owe. What would anyone expect them to do? Write saying "We have a feeling you don't want to pay. That's fine with us".
To not be blackmail the menacing demand for gain has to be
(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
Gain under the Blackmail legistlation includes gain of something you are entitled to.
Although the legal fees they charge to the debt as fictious legal firms they were not entitled to anyway. The threat they made was not a proper means of reinforcing the demand, and was done to force payment through menace, threat.
Sorry, but where does that mention pretending to be a law firm? The essence is that the demand is both unwarranted and with menaces. "Unwarranted" fails under 1(a), and "menaces" under 1(b). It may also fail to qualify as "to gain for himself or another", since there's no gain, merely a payment of what they're entitled to.
yeah, well I doubt very much if the bogus letterheads claimed that the firms WERE SOLICITORS. I expect they just said "Debt Recovery" or something similar.
I expect it would be extremely hard to prove a criminal offence. I don't believe there IS a criminal offence to be honest. I think Wonga have just took a prudent option.
This is all faintly ridiculous. Should someone owed money not be able to take steps to recover it?
It's wrong for some customers to commit a possible offence by taking a loan with no intention of paying it back, yet it is acceptable for the company to commit a possible offence itself?.
Why is one acceptable but the other isn't?.
And Wonga have admitted the practice, and apologised for it saying they stopped it in 2010. If they didn't do it, why apologise and admit it?.
As I say - I fully expect that the letters sent by Wonga did not say "so and So, SOLICITORS", and probably did not have a partner list at all, and specifically with LL.B (or whatever it is after any names).
They would probably have just said "so and so, debt recovery managers"
I do not believe there is any crime. I expected they just agree to pay £50 compo to head off problems.
I am pretty sure you can buy form letters for debt recovery that purport to be official. Someone already gave an example
---
so what IS the result of the law society kicking off. Wonga will ACTUALLY put the recovery action with REAL SOLICITORS - thereby increasing WONGA's costs, and putting more money in the hands of legal eagles. No wonder the law society are kicking off.
Well thankfully the authorities appear to disagree with you, and so do Wonga it seems given they admitted it and apologised, and have agreed to pay compensation. They haven't agreed to pay compensation for sending letters marked "Debt Recovery Agents", they have agreed to pay compensation for sending letters saying they were a solicitor when they weren't.
Astonishing that it's taken this long for the FCA to take action.
Have you ever had dealings with the FCA? The words couldn't organize a p*ss up in a brewery spring to mind.
I deal with them on a regular basis through my job and I don't think a single one of them could make an actual decision if you held a gun to their head.
The BBC's Money Box have 2 letters sent to Wonga customers. They start with the words "We have received instructions ....."
I don't know what the penalty is for pretending to be a Solicitor and then making a charge of £50 for the false pretence but it does appear to be very serious.
If hope the Police do prosecute Wonga. But Wonga's statement refers to "these mistakes". What mistake?
How does someone produce a string of bogus legal letters from a variety of bogus companies without making a deliberate and cynical decision to do so?
And finally, as someone who has taken an interest in the less well known end of the Payday loan industry, I would ask this. If the flagship good guys in the industry were behaving like this - what exactly were the others doing?
Well thankfully the authorities appear to disagree with you, and so do Wonga it seems given they admitted it and apologised, and have agreed to pay compensation. They haven't agreed to pay compensation for sending letters marked "Debt Recovery Agents", they have agreed to pay compensation for sending letters saying they were a solicitor when they weren't.
Face it, on this you are wrong.
I might be, and i might not. I think the outcome is just that wonga agreed to pay compo, and not do it again. The so called "crime" needs testing in court, like the bank charges issue. I think charging for a cost that wonga did not incur is naughty. I dont think sending a letter is.
I might be, and i might not. I think the outcome is just that wonga agreed to pay compo, and not do it again. The so called "crime" needs testing in court, like the bank charges issue. I think charging for a cost that wonga did not incur is naughty. I dont think sending a letter is.
Sending a latter pretending to be from a solicitor is a criminal offence. They have admitted that was the case.
Whether they get tried in court though depends on other factors, public interest (given they have stopped the practise 4 years ago and promised never to do it again, the CPS may decide not to proceed even if the police provide some evidence) and of course, there are all sorts of technicalities a good legal team may find.
But that still doesn't change the fact they did it, and admitted it was wrong.
I might be, and i might not. I think the outcome is just that wonga agreed to pay compo, and not do it again. The so called "crime" needs testing in court, like the bank charges issue. I think charging for a cost that wonga did not incur is naughty. I dont think sending a letter is.
Well wonga could have taken these people to court anytime but did not, wonga made that choice. I wonder why not? To much like hard work.
Well wonga could have taken these people to court anytime but did not, wonga made that choice. I wonder why not? To much like hard work.
Presumably they were hoping the threat would be sufficient? That's the usual reason for these letters.
But is there any point in suing someone who's so hard up they have to get loans from Wonga? It's as likely as that expensive, pay weekly furniture shop (s***ehouse?) suing a customer.
Presumably they were hoping the threat would be sufficient? That's the usual reason for these letters.
But is there any point in suing someone who's so hard up they have to get loans from Wonga? It's as likely as that expensive, pay weekly furniture shop (s***ehouse?) suing a customer.
At least most other companies at least use real DCA not make up thier own fake law firms.
It wasn't a mistake. Some people are acting like it was a typo. It was a deliberate ploy to frighten people into paying. Many of whom were in a vulnerable position. The only mistake was they thought they'd get away with it. They should be hammered and that inculdes criminal proceedings.
See. Not a crime. Even the government do it. Can't be a crime. Just a ploy. Wongas offence (if they did it) was to surcharge the debtors for the letter.
See. Not a crime. Even the government do it. Can't be a crime. Just a ploy. Wongas offence (if they did it) was to surcharge the debtors for the letter.
But the SLB are no longer allowed to send these letters out either.
Earlier this year the OFT – which has since been folded into a new regulator – intervened to get the SLC to change the wording of the letters. “The letters . . . are no longer issued by SLC, having been revised following discussions with the OFT earlier this year,” the quango said. “This includes reference to the word ‘client’ in communications.”
Many graduates, after receiving the letters, expressed their fears online that their debts were in the hands of an independent collection agency – unaware that Smith Lawson was merely a pseudonym for the not-for-profit government agency.
The SLC said it introduced Smith Lawson as a “cost-saving exercise” because the use of conventional debt collection agencies required the payment of commission. Asked why the SLC did not issue the letters under its own name, the agency replied: “The use of a secondary brand is part of SLC in-house recovery process, all letters issued in the initial stages of recovery are all branded Student Loans.”
See. Not a crime. Even the government do it. Can't be a crime. Just a ploy. Wongas offence (if they did it) was to surcharge the debtors for the letter.
You're still wrong.
The SLB sent letters out from a fake collection agency from what I read, they didn't pretend to be a solicitor, which Wonga did and have admitted to doing.
The SLB sent letters out from a fake collection agency from what I read, they didn't pretend to be a solicitor, which Wonga did and have admitted to doing.
I doubt it.
They are not pretending to be solicitors or any other registered body. I dont think Wonga did either.
They are not making threats. (other than exercising due process)
They are just asking for payment of debts which are legally due.
There is no problem (other than charging for such letters to be raised).
I expect that is why this has not been tested in law.
They are not pretending to be solicitors or any other registered body. I dont think Wonga did either.
They are not making threats. (other than exercising due process)
They are just asking for payment of debts which are legally due.
There is no problem (other than charging for such letters to be raised).
I expect that is why this has not been tested in law.
YOU don't "think" Wonga did?.
So why did they admit and accept responsibility, and agree compensation?.
They certainly think they did it.
They did not just send letters asking for payment, they sent letters pretending to be a from a law firm, something that is a criminal offence. If they only sent letters asking for, or even demanding, payment they wouldn't be in the trouble they are in
Come on Gemma, it's not rocket science for goodness sake.
The police think there is a problem, and have started a criminal investigation. The Law Society think there is a problem, and have called for them to be prosecuted.
They may or may not face a criminal prosecution, but if not it wont be because they didn't do it. The CPS has to decide whether to prosecute in the public interest, and they also will take other factors into account, such as Wonga having stopped the practise 4 years ago, the costs of such criminal proceedings etc.
Your constant defence of this firm, who have admitted wrongdoing and agreed compensation, and are now being investigated for possibly committing a criminal offence, is a bit weird. Anybody would think you worked for them.
They are not pretending to be solicitors or any other registered body. I dont think Wonga did either.
They are not making threats. (other than exercising due process)
They are just asking for payment of debts which are legally due.
There is no problem (other than charging for such letters to be raised).
I expect that is why this has not been tested in law.
Well the police and the regulators have been meeting again today over wonga http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28089981 Police and regulators have been meeting to discuss Wonga, the payday lender embroiled in controversy over letters from fake lawyers.
Wonga sent letters from non-existent law firms to customers in arrears between 2008 and 2010, and has now agreed to pay compensation.
On Friday, the City of London Police said it would reconsider opening a criminal investigation into the case.
Comments
They would probably have just said "so and so, debt recovery managers"
I do not believe there is any crime. I expected they just agree to pay £50 compo to head off problems.
I am pretty sure you can buy form letters for debt recovery that purport to be official. Someone already gave an example
---
so what IS the result of the law society kicking off. Wonga will ACTUALLY put the recovery action with REAL SOLICITORS - thereby increasing WONGA's costs, and putting more money in the hands of legal eagles. No wonder the law society are kicking off.
By pretending to be a law firm when they are not, Blackmail.
(1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
(2)The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.
(3)A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Annotations: Help about Annotation. Like a member of the public pretending to be a police officer for gain
Well all wonga had to do was to employ a solictor, and wonga have admitted what they were doing was wrong and illegal. The same as its wrong and illegal for DCA to pretend to be bailiffs when they are not. Here is the poblem An investigation by the regulator found that Wonga sent letters to customers from fake law firms called "Chainey, D'Amato & Shannon" and "Barker and Lowe Legal Recoveries", sometimes charging customers a fee for these letters. When these compainies are FAKE this would have been discoverd because all legal firms and DCA are regulated and have to abide by laws and rules,
That's something else that needs to be looked at, bailiff firms when acting as debt collectors i.e. not enforcing a court judgment, not making it clear to debtors in letters and other communications in what capacity they are acting.
Sorry, but where does that mention pretending to be a law firm? The essence is that the demand is both unwarranted and with menaces. "Unwarranted" fails under 1(a), and "menaces" under 1(b). It may also fail to qualify as "to gain for himself or another", since there's no gain, merely a payment of what they're entitled to.
Just my opinion, I'm not a lawyer.
(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
Gain under the Blackmail legistlation includes gain of something you are entitled to.
Although the legal fees they charge to the debt as fictious legal firms they were not entitled to anyway. The threat they made was not a proper means of reinforcing the demand, and was done to force payment through menace, threat.
How can a fake law firm be collecting a payment they are not ENTITLED to claim, as the firm is fake and bogus. http://www.sra.org.uk/bogus-solicitors/ http://www.sra.org.uk/identitytheft
It's wrong for some customers to commit a possible offence by taking a loan with no intention of paying it back, yet it is acceptable for the company to commit a possible offence itself?.
Why is one acceptable but the other isn't?.
And Wonga have admitted the practice, and apologised for it saying they stopped it in 2010. If they didn't do it, why apologise and admit it?.
Well thankfully the authorities appear to disagree with you, and so do Wonga it seems given they admitted it and apologised, and have agreed to pay compensation. They haven't agreed to pay compensation for sending letters marked "Debt Recovery Agents", they have agreed to pay compensation for sending letters saying they were a solicitor when they weren't.
Face it, on this you are wrong.
Have you ever had dealings with the FCA? The words couldn't organize a p*ss up in a brewery spring to mind.
I deal with them on a regular basis through my job and I don't think a single one of them could make an actual decision if you held a gun to their head.
I don't know what the penalty is for pretending to be a Solicitor and then making a charge of £50 for the false pretence but it does appear to be very serious.
If hope the Police do prosecute Wonga. But Wonga's statement refers to "these mistakes". What mistake?
How does someone produce a string of bogus legal letters from a variety of bogus companies without making a deliberate and cynical decision to do so?
And finally, as someone who has taken an interest in the less well known end of the Payday loan industry, I would ask this. If the flagship good guys in the industry were behaving like this - what exactly were the others doing?
I might be, and i might not. I think the outcome is just that wonga agreed to pay compo, and not do it again. The so called "crime" needs testing in court, like the bank charges issue. I think charging for a cost that wonga did not incur is naughty. I dont think sending a letter is.
Sending a latter pretending to be from a solicitor is a criminal offence. They have admitted that was the case.
Whether they get tried in court though depends on other factors, public interest (given they have stopped the practise 4 years ago and promised never to do it again, the CPS may decide not to proceed even if the police provide some evidence) and of course, there are all sorts of technicalities a good legal team may find.
But that still doesn't change the fact they did it, and admitted it was wrong.
Well wonga could have taken these people to court anytime but did not, wonga made that choice. I wonder why not? To much like hard work.
Presumably they were hoping the threat would be sufficient? That's the usual reason for these letters.
But is there any point in suing someone who's so hard up they have to get loans from Wonga? It's as likely as that expensive, pay weekly furniture shop (s***ehouse?) suing a customer.
At least most other companies at least use real DCA not make up thier own fake law firms.
Did you forget to include a link? I suspect you're talking about the students' loans body.
Barclays send out letters from a firm called "Mercers"
Lloyds send out letters from a firm called "SCW"
But the SLB are no longer allowed to send these letters out either.
Earlier this year the OFT – which has since been folded into a new regulator – intervened to get the SLC to change the wording of the letters. “The letters . . . are no longer issued by SLC, having been revised following discussions with the OFT earlier this year,” the quango said. “This includes reference to the word ‘client’ in communications.”
Many graduates, after receiving the letters, expressed their fears online that their debts were in the hands of an independent collection agency – unaware that Smith Lawson was merely a pseudonym for the not-for-profit government agency.
The SLC said it introduced Smith Lawson as a “cost-saving exercise” because the use of conventional debt collection agencies required the payment of commission. Asked why the SLC did not issue the letters under its own name, the agency replied: “The use of a secondary brand is part of SLC in-house recovery process, all letters issued in the initial stages of recovery are all branded Student Loans.”
You're still wrong.
The SLB sent letters out from a fake collection agency from what I read, they didn't pretend to be a solicitor, which Wonga did and have admitted to doing.
I doubt it.
They are not pretending to be solicitors or any other registered body. I dont think Wonga did either.
They are not making threats. (other than exercising due process)
They are just asking for payment of debts which are legally due.
There is no problem (other than charging for such letters to be raised).
I expect that is why this has not been tested in law.
YOU don't "think" Wonga did?.
So why did they admit and accept responsibility, and agree compensation?.
They certainly think they did it.
They did not just send letters asking for payment, they sent letters pretending to be a from a law firm, something that is a criminal offence. If they only sent letters asking for, or even demanding, payment they wouldn't be in the trouble they are in
Come on Gemma, it's not rocket science for goodness sake.
The police think there is a problem, and have started a criminal investigation. The Law Society think there is a problem, and have called for them to be prosecuted.
They may or may not face a criminal prosecution, but if not it wont be because they didn't do it. The CPS has to decide whether to prosecute in the public interest, and they also will take other factors into account, such as Wonga having stopped the practise 4 years ago, the costs of such criminal proceedings etc.
But even if their letters were carefully worded to just about avoid a criminal prosecution (which is possible) for pretending to be a legal firm, they may face other legal problems:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wonga-ordered-pay-26million-compensation-3760980
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-06-25/wonga-to-pay-2-6m-compensation-for-misleading-practices/
Your constant defence of this firm, who have admitted wrongdoing and agreed compensation, and are now being investigated for possibly committing a criminal offence, is a bit weird. Anybody would think you worked for them.
Well the police and the regulators have been meeting again today over wonga http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28089981 Police and regulators have been meeting to discuss Wonga, the payday lender embroiled in controversy over letters from fake lawyers.
Wonga sent letters from non-existent law firms to customers in arrears between 2008 and 2010, and has now agreed to pay compensation.
On Friday, the City of London Police said it would reconsider opening a criminal investigation into the case.