Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Threats/Harassment re: non-existent debt

  1. #1
    5ive-o User
    Join Date
    12 Apr 2006
    Location
    Haydock
    Posts
    446

    Default Threats/Harassment re: non-existent debt

    Hi guys,

    My mother, who is registered disabled, has been pursued for a couple of months now by a debt collection company alleging that she owes them, or rather their employer Sky TV, nearly 100.

    Her Sky account is in perfect order, something Sky themselves confirmed. They even stated that not only had they NOT referred on such a "debt" to an enforcement agency, but they'd never heard of the company claiming the debt exists!

    I wrote a letter, which mum signed, putting the collection agency to strict proof as per the OFT's guidelines for holders of credit licences. I demanded that they furnish all data they held in relation to this alleged "debt" (balance statements, documentation from the originating creditor, the referral from the originating creditor - ie Sky - authorising them to act as collection/enforcement agents etc).

    I also CLEARLY stated that their conduct was being construed as harassment under the Administration of Justice Act 1979 and that should they continue to ignore statutory guidelines by demanding money whilst the debt was now officially in dispute, we would refer the matter to the OFT and the police.

    Meaning, we felt that such continued threats of court action and bailiff attendance, "personal visits", phone calls demanding money etc would escalate this from a simple civil pursuit to a criminal offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

    They replied two WEEKS later simply with a threat of court action if she did not send them the sum demanded within 7 days of their most recent letter, along with ANOTHER letter a couple of days later stating that they would not send any proof of her alleged liability, nor of the debt's existence, unless she provided the statutory 10 fee for a data subject access request under the Data Protection Act.

    I replied saying that the OFT guidelines for holders of credit licences REQUIRED them to furnish such information for free, as it was an exemption from the usual data subject access requests in that if they want to demand money, it is up to THEM to prove WHY the money is due.

    To summarise, they have continued to pursue my middle aged, disabled mother for money she doesn't owe and indeed doesn't have! They have been advised twice in writing that she disputes the debt, and that she doesn't owe it and has proof from their "originating creditor". They were further warned frankly and transparently that any further action taken by them to attempt recovery of monies would be construed as harassment. I did state however that should they be able to demonstrate liability she would be more than willing to pay.

    They continue unabated.

    I have contacted Consumer Direct who have left instructions for Trading Standards, and I have been advised to follow up my threat to report them to the Office of Fair Trading (who have the power to remove their consumer credit licence) on Monday. The local police station however, says that even under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 this is a civil matter and no matter how much they continue to threaten, write to and telephone her she just has to "contact the CAB for advice".

    No offence, but I've done quite a lot of legal work and have at least the qualification of a lay advisor at the CAB. All the right letters have been sent them, and short of them going away or actually having the balls to sue (with no evidence!) and us counter claiming for harassment and the striking out of this non-existent debt, I don't know what to do next?

    Should I just file an N1 claim form pre-emptively with a copy of all the correspondence between them and my Mother, with a copy of the letter from Sky confirming she owes nothing and indeed never has owed them?

    At the moment they're just a big, faceless corporation bullying a single woman too old and physically incapable to do anything but worry herself stupid at nights. They still refuse to comply with my/our request to prove their legitimacy in the debt's existence and their ability to enforce it (because it doesn't, and they can't!).

    HELP please!

  2. #2
    5ive-o User Tiffany's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Nov 2006
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    3,851

    Default

    I would take this matter to court ASAP. You're fighting a losing battle with those unscrupulous money grabbing gits.
    In the meantime - make sure your mum doesn't let them get a foot over the threshold.

    Lynn

  3. #3
    5ive-o User MartinHP71's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Dec 2006
    Location
    Aberfeldy
    Posts
    2,335

    Default

    I think this is one of those rapidly growing events where companies buy the debts from organisations then they just try and find all the people whose name appears to be the same and use intimidation and stress in the hope of getting them to pay. Its been reported upon many times but nothing gets done for some reason .. but imagine someone in a pub getting in your face in the same way and demanding money !!

    I would suggest you write a simple and straight forward letter, your mother does not owe any debt, you have obviously got the name and details wrong. Then from that point on not respond to any correspondance, unless court in which case you can show no debt exists.

    Good luck
    Honestly its only my opinion, and doesn't mean its right

  4. #4
    5ive-o User
    Join Date
    01 Jun 2007
    Location
    Crawley
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Whats the name of the company chasing her? Could it possible be Sky Card (Barclaycard) that is saying she owes the money? It could be case of the a debt (somehow) being run up and then sold on to a collection agency.

    Is it someone such as Cabot? Buccanan Clark & Wells? Wescott?

  5. #5
    5ive-o User
    Join Date
    12 Apr 2006
    Location
    Haydock
    Posts
    446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace View Post
    Whats the name of the company chasing her? Could it possible be Sky Card (Barclaycard) that is saying she owes the money? It could be case of the a debt (somehow) being run up and then sold on to a collection agency.

    Is it someone such as Cabot? Buccanan Clark & Wells? Wescott?
    No, she doesn't have ANY credit cards never mind a Sky Card. Sky TV again confirmed that (1) She isn't in arrears in any way shape or form, and (2) The "your Sky Digital Subscribers Ltd account number" quoted by the debt collection company does NOT exist.

    They also said it's not the first time they've been made aware of such fraudulent "collection" attempts. The company is Red Debt Collection Services, Leeds. They are (after a bit of digging online by myself) a part of the Lowell Group, and indeed based at the same offices.

    They have instructed Hampton's Legal to commence legal proceedings, which frankly I am rubbing my hands together for. I DARE them!

  6. #6
    5ive-o User
    Join Date
    01 Jun 2007
    Location
    Crawley
    Posts
    780

    Default

    There goes my theory then....

    I wouldn't really know how to advise any further, but I guess you're in the right place. I work in collections so thought I might be able to offer some help, hope you get it sorted, and please keep us posted!

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    The local police station however, says that even under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 this is a civil matter and no matter how much they continue to threaten, write to and telephone her she just has to "contact the CAB for advice".
    I am sure that this is not true. If harassment is committed, it becomes a criminal offence.

    2. - (1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.
    (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
    (3) In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after paragraph (m) there is inserted-
    • "(n) an offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (harassment).".

  8. #8

    Default

    The problem is that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 says


    1. - (1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct-
    • (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
    • (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
    (2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
    (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows-
    • (a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
    • (b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
    • (c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
    Section 3 gives debt collectors a lot of leeway and makes it hard to use this act against such people unless they really overstep the mark by physical intimidation.


    I think you may have been a bit quick in condemning the CAB. Some branches deal with a lot of this sort of thing and can be very expert indeed because of the practice they get.
    They often have contacts with the head office staff of the debt collection agencies and I am aware of a case that was stopped dead by one phone call from the CAB to their regular contact at the company.
    I post here as an individual not as a representative (official or unofficial) of any organisation
    For legal advice, consult a lawyer.

  9. #9
    5ive-o member
    Join Date
    03 May 2007
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Not sure if you are allowed to post other advice forums details, but if not I'm sure a mod will advise

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/ goto the search box and enter Lowell Group. Loads of info and advice.

  10. #10

    Default

    If you havn't already, I would ensure to get a tape recording of the call the next time they contact her... I'm not certain of the laws over there, but you should be able to record the conversation so the court can hear the attitude of the caller and the "company" - sounds like a scam to me...
    I used to be a heavy gambler but now I just make mental bets.
    That's how I lost my mind...

  11. #11

    Default

    I wouldn't be too sure that they'll actually issue procedings. At work the company is in dispute with some alleged debts, and they send a "letter before action", solicitor's letters, notes that they're just preparing the summons...

    Then give up and sell the debt on to another agency which starts the process over and over again.

    Personally I'm fed up with them, and if I had my way would record as much as possible and try to bring private prosecutions (as the police can often fail to differentiate between the civil matter at the centre and the potential criminal matters around the periphary) against the debt collectors PERSONALLY, rather than their company.

    The companies don't give two hoots about anyone, but if their employees are found guilty by the mags (and thus get a criminal record etc) the companies will have a far harder time persuading their employees to harass alleged debtors.

    I'd agree with oldcodger that it may be hard to make a Protection from Harassment Act charge stick, but I'd have thought that a s40 Administration of Justice Act charge would be provable in many of these cases?

    I'm not necessarily suggesting people should do what I've described above, but it is stressful enough dealing with these people when its only your employer, let alone if their target was your mother. What I'd like to do to them is almost certainly illegal, so I won't go there.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oldcodger View Post

    Section 3 gives debt collectors a lot of leeway and makes it hard to use this act against such people unless they really overstep the mark by physical intimidation.
    They can't hide behind S.3. They have been informed that here is no debt. As soon as a debt is placed in dispute, it can no longer be handled by a DCA and must be referred tot he original (alleged) creditor for further action to resolve the dispute.

    The fact that they are carrying on with their intimidatory threats is harassment and should be dealt with as such by the criminal justice system.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by berkshirelad View Post
    The fact that they are carrying on with their intimidatory threats is harassment and should be dealt with as such by the criminal justice system.
    Only if it goes over the line set by the Act.
    The criminal justice system will only deal with criminal stuff and your basic disagreement with them is a civil dispute about the existence or otherwise of the debt.
    I post here as an individual not as a representative (official or unofficial) of any organisation
    For legal advice, consult a lawyer.

  14. #14

    Default

    My biggest problems with these types of company, is they have a tendancy to ignore responses from the alleged debtor other than "sure I'll pay, my credit card number is...."

    I've got a few cases where we just shred their letters now, as they've been told "The debt is disputed and will not be paid unless a court orders us to" enough times that we could defend a claim for costs, and the only paperwork we'll reply to over the matter is a summons.

    I would dearly love them to sue us (because we'll win easily in the case I'm thinking of) but I can't see them actually doing any more than continuing their harassment.

    When they won't back off, but won't sue, what should you do?
    Pay under protest then sue for the money back?
    Try to prosecute for harassment?
    Ignore the rainforest of paperwork, incessant phone calls, visits to work etc?

  15. #15
    5ive-o User
    Join Date
    01 Jun 2007
    Location
    Crawley
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
    My biggest problems with these types of company, is they have a tendancy to ignore responses from the alleged debtor other than "sure I'll pay, my credit card number is...."

    I've got a few cases where we just shred their letters now, as they've been told "The debt is disputed and will not be paid unless a court orders us to" enough times that we could defend a claim for costs, and the only paperwork we'll reply to over the matter is a summons.

    I would dearly love them to sue us (because we'll win easily in the case I'm thinking of) but I can't see them actually doing any more than continuing their harassment.

    When they won't back off, but won't sue, what should you do?
    Pay under protest then sue for the money back?
    Try to prosecute for harassment?
    Ignore the rainforest of paperwork, incessant phone calls, visits to work etc?

    I wouldn't normally tell people this, but I figure I'm on the right forum where people can see things from both sides of the table - given that coppers often get a hard time from people, but then when you look at it from their POV you can see where they are coming from.

    This is in no way related to this bogus debt - I'm talking about legit debts where people have been burying their heads in the sand.
    I work in collections and deal with debts that are between 5 & 7 months delinquent and on the verge of sale. The way we see it is that by the time 5 months has come round, they have had time to sort things out and get help, during that 5months they have had offers of help and advice, they still havent taken those offers of help, or they've thrown them back in the faces of people offering it to them.

    When it gets to 5months, we aren't going to get involved in disputes, usually by this time they are closed anyway, in which case if the customer isnt happy, they need to go to the FOS, which they rarely do. It then becomes an issue of pride and I think perhaps they feel gutted that they've tried to fight something where they are in the wrong, or at least not right - theye wasted time and incurred loads of charges and now feel silly that they have to pay it all.

    When it reaches us, all we are interested in is securing a payment or an arrangement. They've had ample time to sort disputes out (usually, this is reliant on the customer doing some work, e.g. sending back statements with disputed transactions highlighted, and quite often they don't bother. Or they don't bother chasing it up to see what the situation is. It could be they've missed a letter, or their letter hasnt been received by us) or get advice, we just want to stop them charging off and being sold - also meaning they get a default.

    Obviously if the debt is bogus, or the dispute hasnt been fully investigated and closed then please ignore everything I have said above!

    Oh btw, I'm not sure that they can legally visit you at work, they mustn't cause unneccessary embarassment.

    Oh, and in answer to your last questions, I'd say talk to them, it may be the case that once the arrears is cleared and the account is up to date, thats when its possible to speak to someone who isn't programmed to collect, if there is a dispute after that and you've paid when you didnt need to, you will get reimbursed (if its a legit debt - this probably doesnt apply to the original post).

    Sorry for babbling, I hope that makes sense.

    *puts on flame suit

  16. #16
    5ive-o User
    Join Date
    01 Jun 2007
    Location
    Crawley
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Doh, double post, please can you delete the first one, I hadn't finished tweaking it, it was only a first draft!!!

  17. #17

    Default

    The debts I'm fighting are on behalf of my employer, and it is the ltd company being chased, so naturally the visits are to the office

    I can see where you are coming from, but the attitude of "the time for disputes is over, just pay" is the entire problem. Probably the alleged debtor shouldn't have gotten into the situation, but I've got an uphill battle on my hands where the office was without a manager for a year so the disputes weren't resolved, and now the only line seems to be "Well thats a matter for the courts, we will be issuing procedings soon" but they never actually do.

    We've tried convincing the original creditor, but to no avail
    We're in the process of taking the original creditor to energywatch
    We're fighting (succesfully) disconnection warrants as and when they're being applied for (over 50 separate meters on this site)
    We've given up trying to convince the DCAs, as if one agrees to refer it back to the creditor as "disputed", the creditor sells it on to someone else and the cycle starts again.

  18. #18
    5ive-o User MartinHP71's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Dec 2006
    Location
    Aberfeldy
    Posts
    2,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveG View Post

    Ignore the rainforest of paperwork,
    Personally I would put them in large envelopes and address them back to the sender with no postage on them ... a few of those back to them and having to keep paying for collecting might help to focus minds .. tis what I do with junk mail I receive now ..

    First one I say not wanted and return to sender.

    If they insist they get it back in plain envelope with no stamp and the amount of junk mail I get now is very small ..
    Honestly its only my opinion, and doesn't mean its right

  19. #19
    5ive-o User
    Join Date
    01 Jun 2007
    Location
    Crawley
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
    The debts I'm fighting are on behalf of my employer, and it is the ltd company being chased, so naturally the visits are to the office

    I can see where you are coming from, but the attitude of "the time for disputes is over, just pay" is the entire problem. Probably the alleged debtor shouldn't have gotten into the situation, but I've got an uphill battle on my hands where the office was without a manager for a year so the disputes weren't resolved, and now the only line seems to be "Well thats a matter for the courts, we will be issuing procedings soon" but they never actually do.

    We've tried convincing the original creditor, but to no avail
    We're in the process of taking the original creditor to energywatch
    We're fighting (succesfully) disconnection warrants as and when they're being applied for (over 50 separate meters on this site)
    We've given up trying to convince the DCAs, as if one agrees to refer it back to the creditor as "disputed", the creditor sells it on to someone else and the cycle starts again.

    Eek, I don't know anything really about business debts, I assume the basic principles are the same. My first port of call would be to spend a (forgive my ignorance, I'm just assuming you havent already) decent amount of time talking to them and making sure everything possible has been done to settle the dispute. OBviously document everything (stating the obvious I know, I'm sorry!) get names, times extension numbers, if possible record the calls - but notify them you are doing it.

    What did the original creditor say when you spoke to them? It sounds like you need to get in quick before they manage to pass it on again.

    I don't really know what to tell you other than the above Sounds like the old manager left you in a world of ****.

  20. #20

    Default

    I'll try and explain as best I can:

    The debts are electricity bills, my employer is a landlord.

    Each flat has 2 or 3 rooms, rented individually. Some tenants have contracts inclusive of electricity, some exclusive. Flats are mixed between the two types of tenant, but the metering is only done on a per-flat basis.

    All the disputed accounts are on deemed contracts.

    With some accounts they have the name of the ltd company, with some the name of one of the current tenants (who invariably by sods law have an inclusive contract with us) and for some they've resorted to "The Occupier"

    Arrears are being rolled forward, despite the frequent changes in tenancy (nobody seems to have told the creditor about people moving around), and include arrears from before the company took posession of the premesis (The builders didn't pay for their power either)

    Each disputed account has the possibility of the company being liable for none of some of it, all of some of it, and varying fractions of the rest.

    The directors are convinced that making part-payment against a disputed debt accepts full legal liability for the lot. Personally I can't see how this makes sense, but they're the ones with the cheque book and no matter what I want to do, if they won't approve payment, nobody gets paid.

    Most of the tenants are international students, so the DCAs are very unimpressed to be told to chase someone in China for the money.

    To add insult to injury, apparently the bills didn't arrive for the first 8 months, meaning a whole batch of tenants on 6 month ASTs moved out before the bills were sent, and the ex-tenants are not too keen on paying up either.

    Because most of the eventual-debtors are in China (inc Hong Kong) collecting against them is nearly impossible, so my employer wants the electricity company to separate the bills, and chase the ex-tenants themselves, whilst the electricity company wants us to pay the full amount and then if we feel we can collect from our ex-tenants, thats down to us.

    As far as I can tell, both the electricity company and the directors refuse to budge from this position.

    If the matter goes to court it will be resolved quicker than if it carrys on bouncing around the debt-collectors.

  21. #21
    5ive-o User
    Join Date
    12 Apr 2006
    Location
    Haydock
    Posts
    446

    Default

    Sorry, I stopped getting reply notifications for some reason - I thought this thread had died!

    I called the company back and stated mum's case (again). The guy got really snotty, pointing out that he could only speak to the account holder. So, I cheerily pointed out that (1) there WAS no account as this was a bogus debt, and (2) if he referred to Mum's letter of 8th May 2007 he would see that she's nominated me as her agent/litigation friend which more than entitles me to speak with him.

    So, now we're going. He again asks for some of her account details with the alleged originating creditor. I point out that had they actually bought the "debt" as they state, they should have the account info in front of them. Ahh, he says, not so - we've referred it back to the originating creditor.

    Hm. So, why is mum still getting your threats of legal action and snotty letters? Apparently, that's because she hasn't paid

    I tell this "person" that as the debt was placed in dispute on 8th May 2007, and they didn't send a court threat until 22nd May 2007 (two weeks after the dispute was filed) they had CLEARLY broken the law. Further by refusing to divulge details of the alleged debt, including the balance statement and the referral from the originating creditor, they had broken the Consumer Credit Act - a CRIMINAL offence.

    Ooh, he didn't like that one. "I KNOW the law thank you very much..."

    "Great! So why did you break it not once, but TWICE?"

    ***LONG SILENCE***

    "What do you want us to do?"

    "Quit harassing my mother, or else."

    "Can't do that until she's paid"

    That was when I mentioned that I had recorded the call and would be forwarding this latest piece of evidence, along with the full portfolio of correspondence, to the OFT. Cue panic attack at the other end. Didn't I KNOW it was illegal to record phone conversations without permission (actually, no, as one party of the call was aware of the recording, AND they'd already said THEY were recording at their end, making an SAR under the DPA easy access to their tapes anyway).

    The OFT have said that so long as I can send a complaints form (which they emailed to me inside two minutes - impressed!), along with the dispute letter, its proof of delivery, AND their later threat of legal action which breaches the law, they WILL contact this "debt collection company" AND investigate whether they are still fit to hold their Consumer Credit Licence.

    The guy at the debt company didn't sound too happy about that, and hung up on me The OFT promise that not only will they investigate, but possibly give them a huge fine, revoke their licence, AND instigate criminal proceedings

    So, that should be the end of them, or at least their pursuit of mum

  22. #22
    5ive-o User
    Join Date
    01 Jun 2007
    Location
    Crawley
    Posts
    780

    Default

    DaveG: That's quite a tangle!!!!!! Who's responsibility is it to notify the suppliers? e.g. when I moved in to my house I was told by my solicitor to phone up the supplier on the day with a new metre reading and anything prior to that I wasn't liable for paying. I was even told my the leccy supplier that they would chase the previous owners for any outstanding balance.


    Rainmaker: It sounds like you've got them by the short and curlies, I hope that works out for you, please keep us posted?

  23. #23

    Default

    To be honest, I don't know. It is not written in any of our contracts that the tenant should notify the supplier, and it isn't written in that they shouldn't. I don't think my predecessor notified anyone either.

    As they are deemed contracts, my understanding is that the "occupier" is liable for all usage during their occupation, and when the flats are vacant, the landlord is deemed to be the occupier.

    I don't know if the "inclusive contracts" actually make the company liable to the supplier, or whether they make the company liable to the tenant, who is liable to the supplier.

    As and when a flat changes hands we are doing our best to transfer it to another supplier, with whom we've signed one contract for all flats, and the whole lot are sent through as both individual bills and a monthly summary for all bills (on this system) which is then collected by DD. We can then invoice anyone we have to for electricity we're not ultimately paying for, although the new supplier gets paid in the interim.

    Its just the old bills, and arrears that are giving me a headache!

  24. #24
    5ive-o User
    Join Date
    01 Jun 2007
    Location
    Crawley
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Would private renting be the same, e.g. if I rented a flat I owned out to someone and they didn't pay the bills, would they be held responsible for paying the bill? Or would I be cos I owned the property that used the leccy? Would I then be responsible for chasing up my tenants for the outstanding?

    I would assume, that it would work the same way privately as it does in your business's case? Surely there must be a rule of thumb that is only different if stipulated by contract? i.e. owners are responsible for rates used unless contracted otherwise?

    I'm only kinda making an educated guess here - I hope someone can tell the facts.

  25. #25
    5ive-o User Shobhna's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 2004
    Location
    Milton Keynes
    Posts
    9,716

    Default

    Rainmaker,
    please let us know the final outcome.


    as in.......what happens to the Debt collection agency.
    \
    Be the kind of woman that when your feet hit the ground each morning the devil says, "OH CRAP, SHE'S UP"! ..


  26. #26
    5ive-o User
    Join Date
    12 Apr 2006
    Location
    Haydock
    Posts
    446

    Default

    Sorry for the long time frame between replies, but I didn't want to jump the gun while the OFT were looking into proceedings.

    Not sure what they did with the collection company (read: extortion racketeers) in the end, but I can happily report that since the OFT received the complaints form, Mum hasn't heard from the company since

    Funny thing is, this exact scenario happened to me last month with a different collection company. Non existent debt, threats, loud abusive phone calls, telling third parties I allegedly owed money etc.

    Virtually the exact same thing as my OP. Dispute letter sent, a week and a half later a court threat turns up (in breach of s40 of The Administration of Justice Act - a law that was clearly quoted to them in my dispute letter!).

    Again an OFT complaint, and again no word back from the company involved ever since. This kind of thing seems to be on the increase (two people from one family, living 30 miles apart, with no financial connection!). It happened to my friend's partner this year too.

    Makes a change to emails from Nigerians who have recently come into some money after their uncle died, I suppose

  27. #27
    5ive-o User Shobhna's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 2004
    Location
    Milton Keynes
    Posts
    9,716

    Default

    Rainmaker,
    Thanks for the update.

    I guess these prople try it on and if they get 3 out of 10 people to pay up for something that they know nothing about, then they are still making money.
    Pity there is no way of stopping this sort of thieving !!
    \
    Be the kind of woman that when your feet hit the ground each morning the devil says, "OH CRAP, SHE'S UP"! ..


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •