RHF Productions Limited PO Box 69 Kirkcaldy Fife KY2 6WU

Hi My son received a letter from the above company stating
Dear removed

When you registered with us you indicated that you would make payment by Credit Card. Unfortunately this transaction was unsuccessful and the latest reason given was Declined

We now require details of how this and future payments, will be met. Please call us on 0844 8429 844. Alternatively, please complete the enclosed Direct Debit Instruction or the Credit Card Mandate and return it to us at the address below.

we reserve the right to take any further action to recover any amount that remains unpaid after 14 days from the date of this letter; no reminder letters will be issued
Yours sincerely
RHF Productions Ltd
Finance Department

Please make any cheques payable to Digibill

My son has had no dealings with this company, I believe this to be a scam, if so please warn others

Thanks



I edited out your signature as I believe it is your actual name. Thank you for posting this and it has plenty of elements of a scam. ~ Bubbles

If you check at Companies House there is no such company as RHF Productions Ltd registered there, and it is a legal requirement in the UK that incorporated companies should be so registered, so it is undoubtedly a try on without legal effect.

Having said that I have come across the names digibill and Westcot Credit Services Ltd about whom you'll find many mentione on the web, and I suspect that they're hiding behind a new name to make their demand appear credible. Interestingly I find that Westcot Credit Services Ltd isn't currently registered either, so I suspect that the entity behind this is digibill, an unincorporated entity.

Even if a company sends bailiffs to your house it doesn't mean anything if the claim is unjustified. In fact it rebounds on the company as it will cost them a lot of money. By using the name of a company that effectively doesn't exist, they have damaged their prospects at the outset and given you ammunition to use against them if they try to pursue the matter.

I don't intend this as legal advice and I have no legal training, but I'd retain the letter, and take no action.

If you would feel better to do something than ignore the letter, then this reply, that I have copied from another forum on the same topic, appears perfect

You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

I am/we are familiar with the Office of Fair Trading debt collectionicon Guidance which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and consider informing the OFT of your actions.

I/we look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully

Once again, I must point out that I have no legal training and, if you send this letter, I'd send it by recorded mail and retain a copy. For your own peace of mind it turns the tables on the company and, if it is all a bluff, I suspect they'll move on.

I love doing research.

This has been going on for years, and it's time it stopped.

I can see from here

http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/updates/200702

that the company has a licence issued by ofcom, which is peculiar as it is not properly registered with Companies House

The licence states that its service names are/were

Previous service name New Service Name
Red Hot 40+ Wives Red Hot 40+
Red Hot Climax Fantasy 1
Red Hot Reality Fantasy 2

It appears that it offered channels through SKY TV but I hasten to add that it is a regular complaint by people that they are being charged without ever having viewed the channels.

I only mention this because a complaint to Ofcom might make them let go very quickly.