I dont think PRA like me anymore

After nearly 3 years of those lovely people at PRA Group claiming they want to "help" me. I have received
a letter from them (not for the first time) stating that they are not going to write to me anymore.
I think I may have upset them as in my last letter I resorted to taking the p***. This next one goes on
Monday.
As its said. "Enjoy the game".

PRA Group Ltd.                                                                                
Wells  House                                                                                      
Elmfield Rd                                                                                        
Bromley                                                                                              
Kent
BR1 1LT

30th September 2019

Dear Peter McPhee.

I am in receipt of your letter dated 25/9/19 & received 28/9/19.

I am at a loss as how to express myself in a manner which even the employees of PRA Group can comprehend. I have at all times used plain standard English ,I have not used long words or phrases .
However I will give it another try . In the event that the collective intelligence of the PRA staff are still unable to comprehend . I would suggest you pop down to the local primary school and ask any pupil to explain my letters to you. I will now answer your letter paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraph 1   You have not “supplied all that is required to validate this” alleged “debt,”
                     “ You will take any and all steps you feel are reasonable “ If any and all includes
Court action, please feel free to proceed at your leisure.

Paragraph 2.   “ your complaint and rebuttal is not upheld” Please inform me when have I ever made a complaint ? It is of no concern of mine whether or not you uphold my rebuttal , it is made and stands.
                      “ your refusal to pay”. Please enlighten me as to when I have refused to pay.
If you care to look at all my correspondence you will note that I have stated I will pay any obligation upon valid proof of claim.
 
Paragraph 3.    States you will note but not reply to further correspondence . Does this mean that I will no longer receive a monthly begging letter from PRA Group ?  I do hope so as my file on this matter is now almost 3 inches thick ,and I would prefer not to have to start a second one.





                                                                                                   Yours sincerely.

                                                                                                      By:

                     Authorised agent & representative for,

                    Implied admission by lack of rebuttal . All contacts recorded.

Bloody superb DI!

Thanks Mr Blue,

I wonder if my previous letter (below) has got them on the back foot.
They dont seem to like the questions.
14 th September 2019


Dear Sir / Madam.

I am in receipt of you letter dated 10th September 2019 and received 12th September.

Yet again you have chosen to refer my rebuttal as a complaint ,which it clearly is not.

Therefore as I have received letters from many in your corporation, who apparently find
understanding basic English an impossibility ,please pass this letter to whoever has been
allocated the functioning brain cell this week.

Firstly please tell me how the two partial extracts from what you allege to be an agreement,
constitute a valid claim .

Secondly ,and please pay attention as the questions will only get harder.

As its standard banking practice to sell the rights & interests on all receivables in connection
with loans / credit cards etc . (which should tell you why neither you nor MBNA can produce
the original agreement). What exactly is it that you claim to have bought from MBNA?
Very clearly ,as these rights have been sold ,(usually within 3 months of any agreement) how
can they sell to you something they clearly no longer own?

This leads me to conclude that all you may have purchased is a list . Was any due diligence
carried out ? Or indeed is fraud being perpetuated by someone ?

Finally for now ,I once again rebut and reject your presumption that I owe a debt or obligation
to your corporation. All future claims made by you will of course be replied to with a further
notice of rebuttal.


By:

Of that mate, I have no doubt

To add and given my long experience with DPs / DCAs; I may be wrong, but I am sure they know perfectly well what we mean. As such, they CANNOT POSSIBLY answer accordingly because if they did, they quite simply would have to say something along the lines of “we perfectly understand what you mean and, as such, we are unable to properly and legally evidence a debt in your name”. And they are NEVER going to admit that with lines to that effect. So they play dumb... Which makes us (or at least some of us and that used to include me but not anymore) become increasingly frustrated! These scum bags thrive on winding us up (or trying to).

When you think about it, when a DP gets one then two then three then god knows how many more DCAs to chase on their behalf, it kinda tells you all you need to know. They KNOW they can’t substantiate their claim and so all they have left is to repeatedly go on and on and over and over with the same nonsense and (even more pathetically) hope we’re dumb enough to eventually roll over.

More the fool them, as we don’t give up and we will always win!

I am MORE than confident I can use this with utilities (tounge in cheek)

Mrblue wrote:To add and given my long experience with DPs / DCAs; I may be wrong, but I am sure they know perfectly well what we mean. As such, they CANNOT POSSIBLY answer accordingly because if they did, they quite simply would have to say something along the lines of “we perfectly understand what you mean and, as such, we are unable to properly and legally evidence a debt in your name”. And they are NEVER going to admit that with lines to that effect. So they play dumb... Which makes us (or at least some of us and that used to include me but not anymore) become increasingly frustrated! These scum bags thrive on winding us up (or trying to).

When you think about it, when a DP gets one then two then three then god knows how many more DCAs to chase on their behalf, it kinda tells you all you need to know. They KNOW they can’t substantiate their claim and so all they have left is to repeatedly go on and on and over and over with the same nonsense and (even more pathetically) hope we’re dumb enough to eventually roll over.

More the fool them,  as we don’t give up and we will always win!

Mr Blue, one major issue here and this is the word "UNDERSTAND" which has at least two meanings and it is used in its legalese definition which means they consent to standing under YOUR authority and if they do that then its game over as YOU HAVE AUTHORITY over them and this means you give the orders under your authority which they have consented to; and their game is not winding people up, but getting them to consent to the DCA's authority which stands as evidence in a court (well, a fake one who use exactly the same tactics) to get you to consent by admission or action.

My point regarding whether a DP/DCA would ever use a phrase with the word UNDERSTAND in it and in this context was a hypothetical one (which is why I said “they are NEVER going to admit that, ie say we UNDERSTAND”). A DP/DCA would never say that and never have in any of our collective experiences to my knowledge. Because, as you say, it would mean they would have consented to standing under our authority and it would be game over for them.

In terms of winding us up, maybe I should have been more clear. When you receive the same letters over and over from a DP (or DCA on their behalf) appearing to ignore your points (playing dumb) that can potentially wind you up as it has me in the past and clearly others from their posts / stories.

My point wasn’t that their aim is to PURELY wind us up and nothing else. As you rightly say, their main aim (obviously) is the hope that we’ll eventually consent to an alleged debt. But I do believe that winding people up (frustrating us) is one of their deliberate tactics. When you wind people up enough, I think the chances of writing the wrong thing in response (ie writing something that could even remotely admit consent) go up. And worse still, I’d imagine some people might end up calling a DP / DCA out of frustration. And if you were to call them (a BIG NO, NO OF COURSE) then you’re even more likely to inadvertently admit something which could at the very least admit consent.

So I totally get your points assassin. But hopefully you can now see what I was trying to (but perhaps failed to) convey. We are agreed that their main aim is for us to admit consent. We are agreed that a DP / DCA would never say they UNDERSTAND (our demands and that we are entitled to see evidence). And in my opinion, winding people up / frustrating people is an intended tactic.

Correct guys ,my mistake (schoolboy error) .have changed Mondays letter to 'comprehend'.
Although I did state to them that my letters were in common English.
Just looked through 3 legal dic's including Blacks 8th ,guess what ? Comprehend is not there.

No problem DI. Please can you post the links to the legal dictionaries you use?

Hard copies of Merriam-webster & Oxford dictionary of Law .
pdf of Blacks 8th edition,
any others I just look on line.

Much obliged

Mrblue wrote:the word UNDERSTAND

I have started to try to get away from using that word as my reaction would be to say YES if asked by the wrong people, so by using comprehend instead it should overcome the problem.

again, my original post has been misunderstood haha.

For the last time and from my original post (which I suggest is read in full to fully understand the point I was trying to make):

...they [DP/DCA is the context] quite simply would have to say something along the lines of “we [DP/DCA] perfectly understand what you [potential debtor] mean and, as such, we are unable to properly and legally evidence a debt in your name”

And as per my subsequent post, a DP/DCA will NEVER say that hence “hypothetical” haha.

Anyway...

I ...err ... get ye !

Haha! Glad someone does

Well Dave, I like you and Mr Blue, to avoid any confusion and misunderstanding, sorry incorrect assumptions.

Fair enough assassin.

Maybe I was wrong ,maybe they do still like me. After their letter on Saturday , today (Monday) they sent me
another one. This is my response.

PRA Group Ltd  
Wells House
15-17 Elmfield Rd
Bromley
Kent
BR1 1LT

30th September 2019.


Dear Peter McPhee .

You wrote to me on the 25th September ,to which I have responded. Today I have received yet another letter from you also dated 25th September which states you have received a complaint from me and you have now started yet another formal investigation.
Please be kind enough to inform me how many more investigations you are likely to conduct ,as the pile of previous ones from PRA are starting to leave me to believe that I may have to purchase a new filing cabinet .

However I do have a couple of questions ,( actually I have many but it seems that PRA staff are unable to comprehend basic English) so I will make it as simple as I possibly can.

To quote from your first paragraph , “ Thank you for your complaint received on 20 September 2019. It is always disappointing when a customer is concerned about our service.”

Ok please pay attention as I believe this is where you are getting confused.
1. I have never made a complaint to PRA.
2. I am not now ,nor have I ever been a customer of PRA . The definition of customer is
' A person or business who purchases a commodity or service'.  
I now take this opportunity to inform you I am not a person (look it up). At no time have I made a purchase or received a service from PRA and I do not have any contractual obligation with PRA.

I am sorry that the staff at PRA Group are having these problems , I can only attribute it to the declining educational standards .  


                                                                                          Yours sincerely,

                                                                                    By:

                                                     Agent and representative for,

                           Implied admission by lack of rebuttal .  All contacts recorded

Love it DI haha

cheers DI will definatly use this with utilities

Do I appear to be enjoying this too much ?

No way, you can never enjoy firing back at a DP/DCA too much

Do what I did Dave, as they couldn't understand English I got a mate who is Chinese and bilingual and I typed a response out and he translated it into Cantonese and this was sent to them and it included some important conditions which they didn't understand.

Dont think I should do that mate . The poor souls seem confused now ,that may push them over the edge.
We would not want that ,would we ?