Casimba - Withdrawl Sent To Discontinued Account

Gaz237

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
May 8, 2014
Location
chelmsford UK
Just because someone has debt, it does not mean that they cannot afford to gamble. Any debt management advisor will inform you - you're entitled to use some of your income for leisure. Unsecured debt, such as a credit card, is not a priority bill - the risk is on the lender, and once a plan is agreed, as long as it is stuck to, they will be happy with it.

Not when the Op is in a DMP and paying back £10 a month on the thousands they owe.

Keeping money back for leisure is for family, not for the debtor to chuck weekly into slot machines

Talking of your debt management adviser. What did he say when you told him about your winings?, Which you legally have to?
As your finances had changed and you had 1K to be spread out to your creditors.

Vanquish credit cards are for people already sky high in debt. A payment plan was obviously in place.

And they just got 10 years payments out the blue from the OP,s gambling winnings.
 
Last edited:

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
Not when the Op is in a DMP and paying back £10 a month on the thousands they owe.

And a debt manager adviser is just that an adviser.

Vanquish credit cards are for people already sky high in debt. A payment plan was obviously in place.

And they just got 10 years payments out the blue from the OP,s gambling winnings.
Unless they sold the debt and then it isn't Vanquis's money. Legally they would have no right to pass it to the DCA.
 

Gaz237

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
May 8, 2014
Location
chelmsford UK
So the OP lied when he said Moorcroft are collecting the debt and taking his payments every month?
Missed the moorcroft bit.

I personally would say Moorcroft have bought the debt/account and the OP still legally owes it.

Now this 1K has turned up linked to that card (which the account for would not of been closed) I still think it's game over
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
Missed the moorcroft bit.

I personally would say Moorcroft have bought the debt/account and the OP still legally owes it.

Now this 1K has turned up linked to that card (which the account for would not of been closed) I still think it's game over
Moorcroft buy and manage debts, so it's 50/50, if the OP had a letter of assignment or something it would be easier to work out.
If they have bought the debt, then Vanquis cannot legally take that money and do anything with it, they have to return it to the customer. The debt is nothing to do with them any more. If the customer rings them and wants to pay the debt off in full, they cannot take payment as the customer legally has no debt with them anymore. The account will be closed if they have sold the debt.
Suggesting they can is akin to saying if you owe money on a tesco credit card, then go in, do your shopping, pay £100 through the POS, then them refuse to give you your shopping, saying they have sent the money over to tesco credit card to pay your debt off.

If Moorcroft are just collecting it on behalf of Vanquis, then I would say it is close to 100% that he won't see a penny of it, as it is still a debt belonging to Vanquis and they are fully entitled to offset it against the debt.
 

Gaz237

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
May 8, 2014
Location
chelmsford UK
Unless they sold the debt and then it isn't Vanquis's money. Legally they would have no right to pass it to the DCA.
I dont profess to be fully clued up on this, but i would not be surprised if when Moorcroft bought the debt, there was not a clause that any future money that came into that account was passed on to them, as they now legally own the debt. Plus i would expect they will now want the OP,s finances going through again to increase their payments
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
I dont profess to be fully clued up on this, but i would not be surprised if when Moorcroft bought the debt, there was not a clause that any future money that came into that account was passed on to them, as they now legally own the debt. Plus i would expect they will now want the OP,s finances going through again to increase their payments
I have NEVER seen an arrangement that allows for that.
Once the debt is sold, it has nothing to do with Vanquis any more, it's pretty much as simple as that. I've done quite a lot of work in this field, albeit a while ago, and am confident in being right on this, unless things have changed recently, which I doubt as I would have likely seen it.
 

pinnit2014

Meister Member
PABnoaccred
mm1
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Location
Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
I presumed the debt hadn't been sold - if it has been that's a different story; Vanquis have no legal right to keep it AFAIK: the only way i can see them being able to keep it would be if Moorcroft were collection agents on their behalf, whilst the debt still sat on Vanquis's balance sheet etc.
 

danofthewibble

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Location
UK
Not when the Op is in a DMP and paying back £10 a month on the thousands they owe.

Keeping money back for leisure is for family, not for the debtor to chuck weekly into slot machines

Talking of your debt management adviser. What did he say when you told him about your winings?, Which you legally have to?
As your finances had changed and you had 1K to be spread out to your creditors.

Vanquish credit cards are for people already sky high in debt. A payment plan was obviously in place.

And they just got 10 years payments out the blue from the OP,s gambling winnings.

Having worked in the industry, I can say that the definition of leisure will differ from person to person; if an arrangement has been agreed, it is in place until one/both parties has agreed that it will end, either by a specified date (at which point it may be renegotiated), or by default of payment (at which point it may still be renegotiated.)

If they then proceed to court, it will be for the court to decide if the offer of payment is reasonable, and if the amount they wish to keep back for leisure is unreasonable.

Long gone are the days when a debt collector would be able to tell you that you had to use every spare penny of your disposable income to service unsecured debts. Truth be told, they're encouraged not to, as this advice only leads to people needing to take out further credit to cover "disposable" income.

In this case - Vanquis may choose to keep the money if they still legally own the debt. The OP's quarrel strictly isn't with Vanquis, as the problem is White Hat's - they were instructed to use a specific card, their terms provide that they will, and they didn't do this. While the OP is not strictly out of pocket (his debt is reduced), they have deprived him of those funds against his wishes (and seemingly their policy.)

The ideal outcome here is that White Hat own the error and pay the OP. They can then try to take it up with Vanquis. Or given that (to them) it's a relatively small amount of money, accept he needs to be paid twice and draw a line under the matter.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
Having worked in the industry, I can say that the definition of leisure will differ from person to person; if an arrangement has been agreed, it is in place until one/both parties has agreed that it will end, either by a specified date (at which point it may be renegotiated), or by default of payment (at which point it may still be renegotiated.)

If they then proceed to court, it will be for the court to decide if the offer of payment is reasonable, and if the amount they wish to keep back for leisure is unreasonable.

Long gone are the days when a debt collector would be able to tell you that you had to use every spare penny of your disposable income to service unsecured debts. Truth be told, they're encouraged not to, as this advice only leads to people needing to take out further credit to cover "disposable" income.

In this case - Vanquis may choose to keep the money if they still legally own the debt. The OP's quarrel strictly isn't with Vanquis, as the problem is White Hat's - they were instructed to use a specific card, their terms provide that they will, and they didn't do this. While the OP is not strictly out of pocket (his debt is reduced), they have deprived him of those funds against his wishes (and seemingly their policy.)

The ideal outcome here is that White Hat own the error and pay the OP. They can then try to take it up with Vanquis. Or given that (to them) it's a relatively small amount of money, accept he needs to be paid twice and draw a line under the matter.
My thoughts exactly, you put it better than me :)
If Vanquis have sold the debt, am I right in thinking it can't be offset against it?
 

danofthewibble

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Location
UK
My thoughts exactly, you put it better than me :)
If Vanquis have sold the debt, am I right in thinking it can't be offset against it?

Not entirely sure; I would think that there would be some contract between them and the debt purchaser that funds received to their account should be transferred to them. But then there is also the issue that the amount Vanquis may have sold the debt for could be significantly less than the actual debt. Debt purchasers often pay pennies in the pound, but are entitled to recover the full amount.
 

CasinoNinja

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Location
UK
Debt Collectors are awful people imo, as they by bulks and bulks of debts for very little value and try to threaten the customer with all sorts of letters which would not be enforceable.

I see the OP has posted in Consumeractiongroup also regarding this, they are usualy quite a nice bunch to sort things out with a customer mindset, so if it doesn't work out I hope they can help you out.
 

pinnit2014

Meister Member
PABnoaccred
mm1
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Location
Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
Debt Collectors are awful people imo, as they by bulks and bulks of debts for very little value and try to threaten the customer with all sorts of letters which would not be enforceable.

I see the OP has posted in Consumeractiongroup also regarding this, they are usualy quite a nice bunch to sort things out with a customer mindset, so if it doesn't work out I hope they can help you out.
They're certainly not as brash as they once were.

The internet/people sharing info has helped as well - their bully boy tactics hold little weight now.

Seems to have been a bit of a clearing of the riff raff over the years and they're seemingly a lot more reasonable now. Even the banks: Llloyds/HSBC have even been sending folk goodwill payments for 'not treating customers fairly' during periods of financial difficulty.
 

danofthewibble

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Location
UK
Seems to have been a bit of a clearing of the riff raff over the years and they're seemingly a lot more reasonable now. Even the banks: Llloyds/HSBC have even been sending folk goodwill payments for 'not treating customers fairly' during periods of financial difficulty.
That's not their choice ;)
 

sledge13

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Location
York
Just checked my bank account and was stunned to see a credit of £1045 from White Hat Gaming this afternoon!!

If this is thanks to @WhiteHatGaming on here thank you so much.

...and a great thank you to everyone on here from Colin to Dan and more, what a brilliant community this has proven to be again, I doubt I would ever have got this money back without Casinomeister, again thank you so much!

Casimba is a great site with all the latest slots and every single provider, as they sorted it out in the end fairplay.
 
Last edited:
Top