Sev Vs Cahoot

[Sev]

Hello to all.

This thread is sister to my orginal thread : Sev vs Moorcroft vs Cahoot found here in the debt action group forum.

After two years of trying to be agreeable, I see that Cahoot have no intention at all of helping me try to clear my debt with them, instead choosing to let their collection agency dogs do their dirty work.

So, it's about time I got any and all charges back off them in order to help me get them off my back a bit quicker.

I'm going to send two letters - one to their MD, another, the Subject Access Request.

Here they are:

Matthew Tims
Managing Director
CAHOOT
Friars House
PO Box 1981
Coventry
CV1 2ZD

Date

Re Account No No:

Dear Sir,

I am writing in order to express my utter disgust at the levels your organization has stooped to in order to recover the above debt, and the carefree attitude to your industries own rules and regulations.

I had been a loyal customer of Cahoot since 2003. In 2006 I came into financial hardships which I had hoped would pass quickly, however, they did not. I contacted Cahoot every step of the way thinking wrongly that they would be sympathetic to my needs.

In December 2006 my debt was passed onto a collection agency without any prior warning or notice, which in itself is against your own industry regulation. This collection agency’s staff member felt the need to threaten my elderly parents and intimidate them into paying monies towards my debts. I also am sickened that they have such a ‘who cares’ attitude towards confidentiality in pursuit of their commissions.

The trust and relationship that I held with my family is now utterly destroyed because of these callous actions, having caused emotional shame and stress which is beyond words.

As of April 2008 the debt allegedly was passed to Moorcroft Debt Management for collection. Once again, no notification or documents were issued by you or Moorcroft, instead preferring to telephone late into the evening and state that as the debt could not be paid, they would ‘begin court action’.

Given that my original complaint was never pursued, given that Cahoot has never been in contact with me personally despite my regular token payments in order to show goodwill on my part and demonstrate that I am not running away from my obligation to pay this debt; I can only draw the conclusion that Cahoot are fully aware and endorse these aggressive methods of collection and you as director fully sanction.

As I am sure you are aware Harassment of debtors is a criminal offence in England and Wales under section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

In addition every individual has a right to be free from harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and given the gravity of the situation I should have sought an injunction against yourselves and your collection agency under section 1 of the Harassment Act 1998, acting on advice from the Crown Prosecution Service.

It was I who came to you in order to ask for help to deal with my debt situation. It was one of your staff who convinced me to borrow on my loan in order to ‘maintain payments’. A copy of the conversation recorded which I await as is my right.

Your parent company destroyed any chance of being able to repay you in any meaningful manner by stripping away what resource there was in the form of charges, which I now know to be unlawful and am in the process of recovering.

You have persisted in adding interest, and charges, uncaring as to my situation. I have a very real desire to repay this debt, but as of this moment I do not have the means to do so. Hence my token payment of ten pounds per month.

Since I first came to you to come to some agreement, I have had two collection agencies aggressively attacking me and my family psychologically and through verbal intimidation. Never has Cahoot thought to call in order to discuss a reasonable plan.

If Cahoot has sold the debt on, why have I not been notified, and more importantly why is it still taking what little I can afford?

If cahoot has not sold the debt on, why have you not contacted me to come to an agreeable arrangement, rather choosing to let collection companies do your work – knowing full well of the tactics they use – again I ask you, does this then mean that Cahoot fully endorse those tactics and methods used for collection?

Why should I pay a debt collection company when they will only hand a portion of it to you? And what makes you feel that I can pay them anymore that I can pay you? – unless of course you sit and take the pleasure of knowing what for the harassment and collection method will take – My just deserving punishment for not being able to pay you.

How does it feel knowing that you had driven me to a point where suicide was a very real option?
How does it feel knowing that it was easier to throw the rope I was holding over a branch and ending it all, rather than facing my family and dependents again?

I feel that it is only right to go public with this matter, as it is only right in the current economic climate that the public at large understand what happens when good debts go bad, and what methods are used by your industry and endorsed by people such as you.

I await your reply in this matter, and as always will gladly talk with Cahoot, as I have always been prepared to do, and will continue to make my payment until my situation improves. Cahoot has obviously decided that I am one of the ones who ‘wont’ pay rather than ‘cant’ pay – but more than likely there is no real difference in your eyes.


Yours Sincerely

Does anyone know for certain that Matthew Tims is the director of Cahoot?

	Subject Access Request A Subject Access Request is a demand which you can make to any organisation to disclose any personal information which they hold on you. The right to disclosure of data is provided by the Data Protection Act. There is no time limit. The organisation is obliged to reveal everything they have about you - which you ask for - as far back as you ask for. There are very few exceptions. It does not matter whether the data is held on microfiche, in an archive, on tape, in a cardex system, in sound recordings or in screen notes. Some companies are saying that they do not have to disclose where it would be difficult to do so - "disproportionate effort". This is untrue. Disproportionate effort refers to something else under the Act. If you are seeking bank charges information then you should ask for "all data held on you" and you should make it clear that you want everything as far back as it goes. Do not be put off by excuses. Do not accept being fobbed off. It is not in your bank's interest to make full disclosure to you. This means that it is in your interests to get it. If you have not started gathering your bank charges information yet, then you should start now. There will soon be a big rush once the OFT test case has been settled. Get all of your bank account informtion as far back as possible. At least as far back as 1995. If your bank says that they don't keep data as far back as this, don't accept it. Be persistent. They've got what you need in some form or other.

[Sev]

Also have sent S.A.R from the library.

[Fred Bassett]

Hi Sev, you've raised some good point in your letter. It will be interesting to see if they respond and how.

In the meantime, I would advise you to ask the Mods to move this thread to the Debt Collection Forum which is very active and where you are much more likely to get a quick response.

You can do this by clicking the red triangle at the bottom of the post (it will say something about 'report this post' and sending a quick message to the mods.

Good luck.

Regards.

Fred

	Debt collection library Follow this link to our debt collection library. This library contains templates and advice for dealing with debt collectors who act oppressively or unfairly. This library is work in progress and will be built up over the next few weeks. 17.03.09

[Sev]

Hi Fred, thanks, I have already got one in the debt action group forums. The reason this is here is that I heave decided to claim back any charges levied on the loan whilst all this was going on. If nothing else it would be interesting to see whether and what the reply is going to be.

[Sev]

Hello all, and I hope that you've all had a good crimble.

I received a letter from cahoot finally in relation only to my Subject Access Request but nothing from their directorship in reply to the letters sent.

Strangely enough, it is two pages of why I should use the FOS, and their internal complaints procedure instead of trying to reclaim charges.

Similarly, you should be aware that if you choose to issue a claim to the courts, the bank will immediately apply to the court for an order to stay your action until resolution of the bank's proceedings with the OFT.

To be honest for the sake of 90 quid, i'm more interested in the recordings of conversations and letters authorising collection which have not been supplied.

Oh and their wonderful cop out of signing everything 'the cahoot team'.

So I think another letter reinforcing the need for disclosure of the other information is in order, and then a call to a tabloid or two perhaps.

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

	Subject Access Request A Subject Access Request is a demand which you can make to any organisation to disclose any personal information which they hold on you. The right to disclosure of data is provided by the Data Protection Act. There is no time limit. The organisation is obliged to reveal everything they have about you - which you ask for - as far back as you ask for. There are very few exceptions. It does not matter whether the data is held on microfiche, in an archive, on tape, in a cardex system, in sound recordings or in screen notes. Some companies are saying that they do not have to disclose where it would be difficult to do so - "disproportionate effort". This is untrue. Disproportionate effort refers to something else under the Act. If you are seeking bank charges information then you should ask for "all data held on you" and you should make it clear that you want everything as far back as it goes. Do not be put off by excuses. Do not accept being fobbed off. It is not in your bank's interest to make full disclosure to you. This means that it is in your interests to get it. If you have not started gathering your bank charges information yet, then you should start now. There will soon be a big rush once the OFT test case has been settled. Get all of your bank account informtion as far back as possible. At least as far back as 1995. If your bank says that they don't keep data as far back as this, don't accept it. Be persistent. They've got what you need in some form or other.

[Fred Bassett]

Originally Posted by Sev

Hello all, and I hope that you've all had a good crimble.

I received a letter from cahoot finally in relation only to my Subject Access Request but nothing from their directorship in reply to the letters sent.

Strangely enough, it is two pages of why I should use the FOS, and their internal complaints procedure instead of trying to reclaim charges.



To be honest for the sake of 90 quid, i'm more interested in the recordings of conversations and letters authorising collection which have not been supplied.

Oh and their wonderful cop out of signing everything 'the cahoot team'.

So I think another letter reinforcing the need for disclosure of the other information is in order, and then a call to a tabloid or two perhaps.

Sev,

I had a similar response to my Subject Access Request so I wrote back to tell them I wasn't satisfied. I'm not that bothered about reclaiming charges from them because they don't amount to much (less that your £90), but I think they automatically assume that this is what it is all about.

Regards.

Fred

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

	Subject Access Request A Subject Access Request is a demand which you can make to any organisation to disclose any personal information which they hold on you. The right to disclosure of data is provided by the Data Protection Act. There is no time limit. The organisation is obliged to reveal everything they have about you - which you ask for - as far back as you ask for. There are very few exceptions. It does not matter whether the data is held on microfiche, in an archive, on tape, in a cardex system, in sound recordings or in screen notes. Some companies are saying that they do not have to disclose where it would be difficult to do so - "disproportionate effort". This is untrue. Disproportionate effort refers to something else under the Act. If you are seeking bank charges information then you should ask for "all data held on you" and you should make it clear that you want everything as far back as it goes. Do not be put off by excuses. Do not accept being fobbed off. It is not in your bank's interest to make full disclosure to you. This means that it is in your interests to get it. If you have not started gathering your bank charges information yet, then you should start now. There will soon be a big rush once the OFT test case has been settled. Get all of your bank account informtion as far back as possible. At least as far back as 1995. If your bank says that they don't keep data as far back as this, don't accept it. Be persistent. They've got what you need in some form or other.