News

Woman Claims Debt Collector Harassed Her But Debt Collector Claims Debtor Is a ‘He’

2022-07-27 , 12:35 pm

The sky is blue, grass is green, debt collectors don’t play nice to get the money their clients has asked them to retrieve, because debt collectors are usually the final resort when nothing else works.

Sure, there are updated debt collection laws that will be going into the books soon, which limits the amount of nuisance the debt collectors can cause, but debt collecting activities will never be outlawed so long as loans exist.

You can watch this video to know more about the new proposed laws:

The Woman and Debt

On 24 July, Facebook user Tabitha Lee Xiang made a post, sharing her terrible experience with Singapore Debt Collection Services (SDCS).

To cut the long story short—because the post was nearly a 2,000-word essay—it outlines a series of incidents that started on 17 February 2021, of debt collectors visiting Tabitha at her house and/or workplace to serve debt notices and chase for the debt settlement.

True to form, threats were issued, her colleagues and family were understandably traumatised, and everyone in Tabitha’s social circles is now under the assumption that she has unpaid debts since the SDCS staff have good lungs that are made for shouting.

The timeline of the harassment and unwanted visits are as follows:

17 Feb 2021: Two SDCS members show up at her office, told the reception that they were collecting funds, and left after handing over two debt collection documents
29 April & 29 June 2021: Two more visits to the office
Continuous spam calls made to Tabitha’s phones.
Threatens to show up at her residence during Chinese New Year when her relatives are gathered
Threatens to “go after” her family members
Threatens to pick up her kids from their school and expose her debts there
Leaves red notices taped to her car
27 June 2022: Three to five SDCS members show up at her house and bang on her door while shouting expletives.
Pretending to be deliverymen to fool the security guards
Unlawfully trespasses by entering her residence without consent and knocking on her glass door of her living room.

Additionally, Tabitha attaches surveillance footage of her house to, as well as images of the debt collectors knocking on the glass door of her living room, to prove that the last three points happened.

To be fair to Tabitha, the banging on the door is quite intimidating because you can hear the wooden frame rattling and surveillance camera microphones aren’t exactly the best.

With regards to the US$2,810,000 debt, Tabitha summarily denies owing that sum, writing, “I was quite bamboozled by this whole account when it was narrated to me as I am well aware that I do not owe any individual or business entity any form of debt.”

Tabitha also noted that there was a monetary discrepancy in the Police Reports (the red notices) that she was served. While most of the red notices reflected US$2,810,000, there was one particular occasion where the stated amount was only US$472,840.

The debtor goes on to speak of the negative impact that these incidents had on the people around her.

Purportedly, her family lost sleep over the past few weeks because they were in a constant state of dismay and distress. Her colleagues now regard her with suspicion.

Her domestic helper even went as far as tendering her resignation letter out of fear. Tabitha managed to retain her domestic helper in the end, although she had to give her a few days off to recover from the ordeal.

After recounting all these events, Tabitha questions SDCS’ legitimacy as a debt collection agency and the legality of their heavy-handed intimidation tactics.

Admittedly, dragging children into the mess created by adults leaves a bad taste in the mouth; revealing where Tabitha’s children were studying, and threatening “to go pick up [her] kids” and tell their teacher their parent is a “liar”, sounds terrible.

The Fake Account

The sob story, and attached photographic and videographic evidence, paints a rather believable picture, but it only holds up until you check the minor details.

Because there are a few loopholes in Tabitha’s story.

Firstly, the Facebook name ‘Tabitha Lee Xiang’ impresses upon people that the original poster is female, and her old profile picture was that of a woman.

However, some keen-eyed netizens realised that the woman in the profile picture looked oddly familiar.

One quick Google Image reverse later, they discovered that the exact image was from some marketing collaterals for Unilever Careers, and the model featured was Ms Wu Meng Yu.

Furthermore, Tabitha seems to confuse their own gender in their post as well.

When the debtor spoke about the confrontation on 27 June 2022, they wrote, “When my spouse answered the door due to the loud bangs she was hearing, they immediately started shouting at my wife, asking her to either call me to the door or pay up the money. My wife was petrified by their disposition and closed the door immediately.”

Same-sex marriage isn’t legal in Singapore, and judging from the fact that the couple have children, someone must be the father.

The person in the surveillance footage is obviously female, so “Tabitha” must be the husband.

Now that the gender issue has been exposed by numerous netizens, Tabitha has since changed her profile picture to an image of Lady Justice instead. It looks like someone’s cover is crumbling.

Secondly, if you listen carefully to the second video, you can clearly hear that it’s a male voice that’s speaking to the SDCS representatives while the police linger at the side lines.

(Some online private investigator wannabes even managed to spot that the two SDCS representatives are the same people from the Lim Tean livestream and even know that they tend to hang out in a coffee shop at Jurong East. Serious kudos.)

If the police report/debt notice was fake or invalid, why wasn’t the police intervening when the debt collecting agency confronted Tabitha in the carpark?

Thirdly, the Facebook account was only created on 13 July, and has 8 Facebook friends in total. They apparently work for an Arabic Coffee Magazine and live in Johor Bahru.

These odd details have led Facebook users to speculate that the account is fake, created for the sole purpose of complaining, so as to avoid revealing more personal details about themselves.

The authenticity of the attached evidence has also been brought to question, since there are no timestamps to prove when those incidents actually took place.

Lastly, there’s another minor detail that seems amiss.

In Tabitha’s account, they said that they filed a police report on 18 December 2022, under the report number E/20201218/7028.

Disregarding how Tabitha somehow predicted that she would file a police report five months into the future, the serial number states that the report was made on 18 December 2020, two months before the first listed incident.

Things don’t add up at all.

Join our Telegram channel for more entertaining and informative articles at https://t.me/goodyfeedsg or download the Goody Feed app here: https://goodyfeed.com/app/

The Debt Collectors’ Response

SDCS caught wind of the Facebook Post too, so they issued a counterargument.

Without wasting any time, SDCS immediately expose that “Tabitha Lee Xiang” is a fake Facebook alias, and then they reveal the debtor’s real identity.

The debtor—who is addressed as Mr HYL—works as a fund manager who was supposed to be responsible for a client’s cryptocurrency assets which were worth more than US$2 million, hence the hefty debt that needs to be collected.

Apparently, Mr HYL was entrusted with the money, but ultimately lost all of it, citing the excuse that his account had been hacked and the funds were all wiped.

When the client sent a legal letter to Mr HYL, the debtor neither replied nor provided a satisfactory answer as to where the money had gone.

SDCS shares that after they took up the client in early 2021, the agency struggled to find Mr HYL during the first few months because he had changed both his job and place of residence.

Why would you suddenly pack up and leave your old place of residence and work, unless you’re running from something?

Given the long spiel that Mr HYL digressed into on Facebook, it’s evident that SDCS managed to find him in the end.

They claim that they informed the security guards of their intent, which was to service a notice, and the police were likewise aware of their actions.

Although trespassing the property to knock on MR HYL’s living room glass door is creepy, it’s undeniable that they’re dressed in their SDCS shirts with their credentials listed on their lanyards.

They couldn’t have passed off as delivery men, they’re not in pink or green.

This explanation would also go a long way to explain why the policemen in the carpark confrontation video merely stood at the sidelines to observe the situation instead of interfering. The police are just there to keep peace and prevent violence, not obstruct the debt collectors from carrying out their job.

Moreover, SDCS write in their Facebook post that their visits are usually short and to the point: they serve the red notice, try to talk to the debtor, then leave the premise within ten minutes or less.

As a parting note, SDCS addresses the debtor, “Lastly, dear sir, we understand that you do not like us to keep looking for you. Trust us, neither do we. If you’d like to stop this, we strongly suggest that you contact us ASAP to fix an appointment to come down to our office for a discussion to settle this matter.”

The debt collector agency then offers a few solutions, like paying the money owed through instalments or they could discuss a way that Mr HYL could feasibly afford.

SDCS adds, “Most of our clients have exhausted all avenues to recover their debts, including taking legal actions or even obtaining court orders, without success. At SDCS, we do our best to ensure that our clients do get their money back without using force, harassing or threatening the debtors.”

The last bit is slightly hard to believe, but if that’s how they wish to preserve their reputation, sure.

What is True or Fake?

As many other netizens have pointed out, it’s unlikely that a debt collecting agency would come knocking at your doorstep if your hands were clean.

Therefore, it’s highly probable that Mr HYL is really in debt because he scammed the client or invested poorly and wanted to escape the harsh financial consequences.

USD$2 million is a sum that some of us may never accumulate in a single lifetime, after all.

The police’s presence proves that the red notice is a genuine document, not a forged one.

If the original poster is indeed a debtor hiding behind a fake account and crying crocodile tears in hopes that he can garner sympathy from the masses and turn the tables in his favour…

Well, it’s pathetic and solves nothing.