Debt threat dunces admit error

Oct 23 2011 by Mr Justice, Sunday Sun

A FINANCE firm threatened a customer with legal action following an admin error, I can reveal.

British Credit Trust said they would take Emma Mullen to court for failing to pay off her car loan.

But Emma had already returned the car to the lenders in accordance with her agreement.

BCT demanded amounts ranging from £351 to £3,460 after the car had been returned under a voluntary termination clause in the contract.

The car was returned to BCT’s agents Scottish Motor Auctions at Birtley.

Emma, of Hebburn, South Tyneside, said: “The car was returned and I thought everything was fine.

“But a few days later I received a letter saying my account was in arrears and I had 14 days to pay £3,460 or further action would be taken.

“I received a further letter two days later saying I owed £460 and had 14 days. Five days later, I received yet another letter, this time for £351, with the same threat.

“I tried to get some sense out of them because I knew I had done everything I should have done. Neither did I know why the amounts kept changing in each subsequent letter.

“I was told the account was closed but a computer error was responsible for all these threatening letters.

“I am extremely angry with BCT because this is causing extreme stress.

“My mother, who is guarantor on the agreement, is also being threatened with legal action. I have been a customer for several years and have never missed a payment.”

I asked BCT for a comment and they passed me to Hannah Chesterfield at the Target Group.

Hannah explained that Target Group are an out-sourced customer services operation for BCT.

She told me: “We have addressed Ms Mullen’s complaint. We have spoken with her directly today and issued a final resolution this afternoon.”

Sounds hopeful, but I wanted to see what Emma thought of it all.

She said: “They have accepted full responsibility for the problems I had and the account has now been closed.

“No further letters should be received and they offered £50 compensation to cover the cost of my calls.”

BCT’s apology letter, sent two days after I asked for a comment, admitted a series of mistakes.

It told Emma: “We have found your concerns to be justified and we are upholding your complaint.

“We received a copy of the vehicle inspection report from Scottish Motor Auctions confirming some damage to the vehicle. This figure was – due to an administration error – incorrectly unloaded to our system. Letters were generated advising the account was in arrears. Furthermore, duplicate correspondence was sent to the joint account holder’s address to inform them of the account status.

“I can confirm that no such letters should have been issued and we apologise for any distress or inconvenience caused as a result of this error.”

It was not the first problem Emma experienced over the car.

She said that she had returned the vehicle to Scottish Motor Auctions but it was not inspected in her presence.

She said: “I thought it was a requirement that the car was inspected while I was there but was told it was not going to happen. I was told I had come at a ‘stupid time’ because an auction was going on.

“I asked for a receipt as proof of hand-over but was greeted with a sigh and a tut before staff handed over a compliments slip with the registration number and date.”

I asked manager Nigel Binks for his point of view.

He said: “BCT do not insist on an inspection of every vehicle and would not have made arrangements for the car to be returned when an auction was taking place.

“I would be absolutely staggered if my staff said anything like that.

“You can pass on my apologies to the lady in question if she feels she has not been treated in the right manner.”