UN-En contracts, regional un-en and the Limitations Act

[Newborn]

Having successfully sent the mother company Cabot packing, they have now brought out the pop-guns against me in the form of a letter from FIRE Ltd.

 

So I did a couple of the usual checks on them.

 

First Companies House:

 

'Kings Hill (No 2) Ltd' company number 03959268 became 'Financial Investigations and Recoveries (Europe) Ltd' company number 03958421 on the 14 March 2005.

 

Of course the registered address of Kings Hill (No 2) Ltd as we all know is ....

 

1 KINGS HILL AVENUE

KINGS HILL

WEST MALLING

KENT

ME19 4UA

 

Next The Information Commissioner's Office:

 

Registration Number: Z511230X

Date Registered: 11 January 2001 Registration Expires: 10 January 2010

 

Data Controller: FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND RECOVERIES (EUROPE) LIMITED

Address:

C/O CABOT FINANCIAL (EUROPE) LIMITED

1 KINGS HILL AVENUE

KINGS HILL

WEST MALLING

KENT

ME19 4UA

 

Now the interesting bit:

 

When applying for a data controller licence, it is the applicant's duty to keep the record up to date. Not to do so within 28 days of a known change is a criminal offence.

 

In accordance with the rules quite clearly laid out on the application form:

 

Data controller address

If you are a limited company you must provide your registered office address. In all other cases you must provide the address of your principal place of business. If there is no place of business (e.g. for a small local voluntary body) you should provide the address of the official who has completed the form.

 

Now, according to their letters and Companies House, the registered address for FIRE Ltd is Unit 5 Mitchell Court, Castle Mound Way, Central Park, Rugby, Warwickshire. CV23 0UY.

 

Therefore the address for FIRE on the ICO website, which should be the registered data controller address (I've checked with them) is wrong.

 

I have sent a letter pointing this out to the ICO.

 

What I don't know is if this invalidates their data controller licence, so making their actions in processing my (or anyone else's) data unlawful whilst this address remains unamended.

[ashmk]

FIRE are nothing to worry about, I think they are Cabots last ditch attempt to get you to pay before they stop banging there head on a wall.

[hungrybear]

It was the word SEEM that drew me to your thread! - should it not be FIR(E) anyway.

 

These groups of companies are such a tangled web that I think they keep forgetting who they are supposed to be!

[ashmk]

I just called FIRE to discuss the debt they claim is mine and asked them 'Does FIRE have anything to do with Cabot' and the polite lady said 'No'

[hungrybear]

I just called FIRE to discuss the debt they claim is mine and asked them 'Does FIRE have anything to do with Cabot' and the polite lady said 'No'

 

 

I have a theory. each morning when they turn up at the office they have to draw a ticket out of a bag which either has an 'F' or a 'C' on (you decide for yourself what the letters stand for) so they know who they are working for that day

[ashmk]

Dont you just hate the way you sound over the telephone

 

[cerberusalert]

That address is Morgan Solicitors, the in-house litigation department of Cabot Financial (Europe) ...

[hungrybear]

Dont you just hate the way you sound over the telephone

 

 

 

Who are the caboot you refer to? I LOOOOve the way she sounded...desperate for a commission cheque before christmas - why what did you think I meant?

[ashmk]

I made a couple more recordings today to. 1 of wescot and 1 of RMA.

Wescot won't wait on hold so thats a boring one but RMA will wait when you ask. I had RMA waiting for 2 mins and 22 seconds for no-one to come before they hung up.

[diddydicky]

if im not mistaken that address at kings hill is a private house

[Newborn]

Hi,

 

Wonder if anyone else has had a letter recently from Cabot saying "thanks for your recent payment, and we'll be charging interest on the rest"? But I have of course made no such payment!

 

I can only think that they are trying to re-start the statute barring clock, or if I don't reply show that I've somehow acknowledged the debt.

 

I cannot believe this devious bunch have made a simple error.

[lickthewallfatboy]

this is a tactic which is being used by DCA's

 

get them to prove the payment,and that it was made by you

[vint1954]

You need to respond to them, denying such a payment and asking for proof that the payment was made. Also let them know that you are aware of OFT guidelines and CPUTR 2008

[Pinky69]

Cabot really are desperate. Report them to the OFT - every report is a nail in their stinking coffin.

[pookeymonkey]

Mrs Pookey got one of these recently.

 

A letter will be on its way to them on Monday asking for proof etc as no payment has been made on this account for nearly 3 years now.

 

Pookey

[Pinky69]

There's a couple of threads saying the same thing. I have sent an email to the OFT telling them what Cabot are up to. If other posters would do the same it would help to kick their behoochs.

[Huff&Puff]

Sounds like Fraud by False Representation to me:

 

Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35)

 

Deffo report them to Trading Standards and the oft.

[Hardupnotfedup]

What are the possibilities that Cabot have used £1 CCA fee or £10 SAR fee as a payment, it has been known.

[Bazooka Boo]

But as both those requests clearly state that the statutory fee is enclosed, any other use of the fee, would be fraud, and it will never re start the SB clock ever!

 

This is why those DCA's who employ this method are IMHO, not only on very thin ice, but are uneducated incompetent fools, who have their fat heads up in the clouds and truly live on a different planet.

 

Boo;)

[pookeymonkey]

What are the possibilities that Cabot have used £1 CCA fee or £10 SAR fee as a payment, it has been known.

 

Mrs Pookey got her 'Thanks for the payment letter' just after the 'Welcome to Cabot' letter for an account that no payments have been made for nearly 3 years, and no CCA or SAR had been sent to Cabot.

[Hardupnotfedup]

ok so a SAR is the way to go

[Bazooka Boo]

Not at all, ignorance is the way to go, let them begin digging their own grave, no payment has ever been given. their is zero evidence to their 'alleged' receipt of payment, so there is no evidence to any such 'alleged' debt outstanding.

 

Send them sweet FA, and be content in the knowledge that they have the square route of FA to even attempt taking you to court!

[Newborn]

I actually sent a very to the point and hard letter to let them know that I am aware of exactly what they are up to.

 

My worry is that the lenders/DCAs are lining up for a massive assault on the law in the next year or so with a war of attrition. They have managed to push the envelope bit by bit. They have successfully dismantled the bank charges problem and may now try to twist the CCA 1974 in the same way.

 

I know that the statute is the statute, but so far none of this has carried much weight except in some individual cases. The OFT and TS are there for the banks and government (otherwise CAG would be their first recommendation). Both organisations time after time have been proved wanting as far as the consumer is concerned.

 

Look, the OFT as far as I am concerned knowingly pursued the wrong legal path to chase the banks. They can now say they've 'done their bit' and give up. They knew exactly what they were doing and they knew exactly where it would end up!

 

Until, like most people in CAG, you have glimpsed the belly of the beast most people do not know the sort of organisations they are dealing with. In cahoots with the government the idea is to rip as much money from the public as possible to line their own pockets.

 

But how do you put this across to the general public who so sadly trust the banks and believe that they look after them? (Oh yes they do!)

 

In the cold light of day a lot of the activity that lenders and DCAs indulge in would be considered as fraud.

 

Remember, the only proof that you owe someone money who calls you and says you owe them that money, is for them to present you with a properly executed agreement. To present anything else to you for pecuniary advantage would, in any other theatre of life, rightly be called fraudulent activity and be punished accordingly.

 

Why is that so difficult for the courts, OFT and TS to work out unless they are instructed to find otherwise?

 

Our representatives, that is the Members of Parliament, passed the CCA 1974. This was accepted in full by the House of Lords and signed by the monarch so becoming the law of the land.

 

It is the law! Do not lose sight of that fact and do not let anyone else do so either. Or what is next?

[DonkeyB]

Quite right Newborn.

 

Put a bully boy or a crook in a suit and introduce him to an MP and he becomes respectable in the 'finance' industry.

 

Companies that buy distressed debt and use underhand and often illegal methods to intimidate and harass weak people are in the 'investment' business.

 

I think we should abolish suits.

[rameses_qc]

New York Mafiosi wear suits and run legitimate businesses. What's the difference?I agree that more and more DCAs will try to push the boundaries, secure in the knowledge that neither OFT not TS nor FSO will do anything to rein them in. They who control the country's finances call the tune. The banks and other lenders have proved that they are untouchable, so now they can and will extend that bullet proofing to their chosen DCAs. As far as I'm concerned EVERY transgression by these licensed gangsters should be reported to OFT and followed up by letters to MPsLook at Thames Credit. They caused Mrs Beryl Brazier's suicide. FACT. What was done about it? NOTHING. Philip Malcolm Lunn didn't even have the decency or common humanity to attend the inquest to even try and explain why this poor woman was driven and hounded, by his company, to kill herself. That's the kind of arrogant, couldn't care less attitude we are dealing with. They are all, including the rotten Government, bowing to the great God that is Money.Time for action from other avenues. I will be pestering my MP until he/she is sick of my name. If he/she wants my vote, he/she will have to damnwell work for it.