ScarletPimpernel v Cabot

[debt_mountain]

It would be really nice if you could get this in writing!

 

 

Regards, Jeff.

I got the opposite confrimed in wriing from M&S. They allow Cabot to use their headed paper. oops

[ScarletPimpernel]

I have written to the OC asking some pertinent questions about the letter, and also (for info, as the debt is statute barred anyway), whether the assignment was equitable or absolute, and whether documentary evidence of a debt and consent to process data (eg a copy of the original credit agreement) is provided when a debt is purchased.

 

Something else that occurred to me, that has probably been covered elsewhere, is how Cabot (Europe) are always pursuing when it is Cabot (UK) that owns the debt (or account, as they have it)? Presumably there will be records showing how each account is 'assigned', and how each processes data.

[debt_mountain]

Presumably there will be records showing how each account is 'assigned', and how each processes data.

You would expect so but so far the records have not been shared and they keep ropoting the data even when they have been told a debt is unenforceable, no agreement .....

[Seahorse]

UK OWN the debt, despite apparently having no staff. Europe are merely their collecting agents (allegedly), and to whom all data etc is, in practice, passed.

 

However, despite being different companies within the Cabot Group of Companies, we all know that different names means simply a paper exercise, and everything is run by Europe. (Allegedly) But different companies means they seperately must comply with the DPA. And UK (despite having nobody to do so) should NOT be passing your Data to Europe without your consent. Although they will insist that UK does NOT hold your data. So how can they pass it on? See above.

 

Round, and round, and round..... Oh, I feel sick. I want to get off.

[ScarletPimpernel]

An update.

 

Nothing heard back from the bank, perhaps unsurprisingly. However, I spoke to Cabot today to ask them to send me a copy of their complaint procedure. First I told them that I intend to report them to the Information Commissioner for unlawfully processing my data, at which point the phone monkey told me that I must have given permission when I first took out the card. "Fine", I said, "just let me have a copy of the agreement then". "Well, we haven't got it now because it's not an active account", says the monkey. "Actually, according to the bank you bought the debt off, you've never had it", I told him, " and Cabot know it because they told ECI. In any case, if you don't have evidence of my permission to process my data, and you don't intend to try to collect this statute barred alleged debt, why are still doing it? - you've just told me you have my details on your screen". Suddenly, he wasn't keen to talk to me, but wouldn't you know it, his team leader had just left the office. What's more, all the team leaders and managers were in a meeting, so there was no one else to talk to.

 

So, I told him I was going to contact the police about the bogus letter, because it hadn't been sent by the bank. Now, he says that Cabot have permission to use the bank's letterhead, and I say that the bank told me otherwise. I pointed out that either way they shouldn't be doing it as it is intended to mislead, and is therefore improper within the meaning of the CCA 1974 (s 25(2)(d), even if it isn't unlawful.

 

Suddenly, the team leader was available again, but I said all I want is a copy of their complaints procedure.

 

We'll see what happens.

[andrew1]

Well Done... keep up the pressure. It's all a gathering apace

[debt_mountain]

An update.

 

Nothing heard back from the bank, perhaps unsurprisingly. However, I spoke to Cabot today to ask them to send me a copy of their complaint procedure. First I told them that I intend to report them to the Information Commissioner for unlawfully processing my data, at which point the phone monkey told me that I must have given permission when I first took out the card. "Fine", I said, "just let me have a copy of the agreement then". "Well, we haven't got it now because it's not an active account", says the monkey. "Actually, according to the bank you bought the debt off, you've never had it", I told him, " and Cabot know it because they told ECI. In any case, if you don't have evidence of my permission to process my data, and you don't intend to try to collect this statute barred alleged debt, why are still doing it? - you've just told me you have my details on your screen". Suddenly, he wasn't keen to talk to me, but wouldn't you know it, his team leader had just left the office. What's more, all the team leaders and managers were in a meeting, so there was no one else to talk to.

 

So, I told him I was going to contact the police about the bogus letter, because it hadn't been sent by the bank. Now, he says that Cabot have permission to use the bank's letterhead, and I say that the bank told me otherwise. I pointed out that either way they shouldn't be doing it as it is intended to mislead, and is therefore improper within the meaning of the CCA 1974 (s 25(2)(d), even if it isn't unlawful.

 

Suddenly, the team leader was available again, but I said all I want is a copy of their complaints procedure.

 

We'll see what happens.

 

 

I really wish I could phone them more often or they failed to meet my request not to phone, I just love this new found knowledge that they talk so much sh it.

 

Good Job, it is so satisfying tying them in knotts.

[Seahorse]

Don't wait for the procedure to pop through the door. Start complaining now, as per their procedures, available to view at. . .

 

Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited Complaints Procedure

[ScarletPimpernel]

Thanks, Seahorse, I will start on it at once.

[Jeff2000]

Suddenly, the team leader was available again, but I said all I want is a copy of their complaints procedure.

 

We'll see what happens.

 

 

Hi,

 

 

These meetings don't last very long do they!!?

 

 

I'd of thought they would have plenty of things to discuss these days!

 

 

Jeff.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Admiral Lord Nelson is a particular hero of mine, and today I was thinking of his famous signal to the Fleet at Trafalgar:

 

"Engage the enemy more closely"

 

 

So, my complaints are now en-route to Cabot, one each for UK and Europe.

 

I shall now await the usual pile of dog-toffee about the LOP, after which I shall be on to FOS with the speed of a thousand gazelles.

 

After that, if Cabot fail to comply with my s.10 notice I might just take a leaf out of Louisboy's book and have a pop at them for damages.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Unsurprisingly, Cabot have failed to send out the complaint procedure. I wrote in any case, and although Cabot signed for the letters (1 each for Eu and UK), they have failed to respond.

 

Now, the FOS procedure requires them to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, and they haven't done it, so I now intend to make a complaint direct to FOS, with a request that they make an order for compensation for the time I have wasted on the oxygen thieves at Cabot.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Update. Another letter from Cabot, this time from Chris Atkins, dated 12 December but postmarked 27th.

 

It is, as might be expected, full of waffle. All the usual suspects are there: 'we have no obligation to supply information' (i.e. the agreement); 'we have a legal obligation to report to CRAs' etc. etc.

 

Perhaps the most breathtakingly arrogant (and incorrect as to fact) statement is this one: 'by asking for a copy agreement, you have acknowledged the account'. Given that I specifically mentioned that I did not acknowledge the debt, because I do not think I had an account with the OC, I find this a ludicrous assumption.

 

They then go on to justify continuing to process my data, even though they have confirmed that the debt is statute-barred and they have confirmed they have no interest in it, by claiming that 'you would have signed an agreement giving consent, therefore it would not have been necessary to seek your permission for the OC to pass the data to Cabot'. Now, is it just me, or does this seem to anyone else that this is a wilful misunderstanding of the issues involved.

 

My dilemma now is this: because of other more pressing matters I didn't complain to FOS. I could now, but it seems to me that ICO may be a better bet. Ideally I'd like to go to both, but I'm aware that FOS won't deal with any case where data protection is mentioned, and vice versa. Which would be the better one to go for. My first thought is ICO, because I think that Cabot have neither consent or any need to process my data. Comments welcome.

[Curlyben]

In all honesty I think that the OFT would be very interested in this as chasing a stat barred debt in this manner is serious !!!

 

So serious that there is a whole section of the collection guidelins covering it.

 

2.13 This guidance applies to the pursuit of debt regardless of its age. We will be

carrying out further work on this aspect of debt recovery including analysis of

relevant legislation and practice throughout the UK.

2.14 In the past we have dealt with a number of statute barred debt cases governed by

the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales. Based on that

experience our position with regard to England and Wales remains:

a. we accept legally the debt exists

b. it is the methods by which the debt is collected that can be

unfair as follows:

• it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from

the creditor during the relevant limitation period

• if a creditor has been in regular contact with a debtor before the debt

is statute barred, then we do not consider it unfair to continue to

attempt to recover the debt

• it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations, for

example, falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally

recoverable and relying on consumers not knowing the relevant legal

provisions, and

• continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they

will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to

harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of

Justice Act 1970.

[Seahorse]

NICE one CB.

 

And by the same token, I'd imagine that continuing to press for payment when it is obvious that a debt is otherwise unenforcable, might also be construed as harrassment, contrary to the AoJ act.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Cabot have been clear that they would not be pursuing the alleged debt, even though they should never have started doing so.

 

I couldn't resist one last letter:

 

Dear Mr Maynard

 

Letter before action

I refer to the letter from Chris Atkins dated xxxx.

 

Living in a rural area, it is not unusual to come across large, stinking piles of bovine faecal matter. Mr Atkins' letter is, however, quite the largest and most malodorous example I have ever seen.

 

His specious arguments, wilful misunderstanding of the points raised in my complaint, and mendacious approach demonstrate a total lack of commitment to compliance with legislation and regulatory rules.

 

His reluctance to enter into further correspondence is noted - perhaps he has run out of cut-and-paste templates?

 

Cabot's conduct in this matter is, in my view, clear evidence that it is not fit to hold a consumer credit licence, and accordingly I have reported the facts to the Consumer Credit Licencing Fitness Team at the OFT. I have also complained formally to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Information Commissioner.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I have never acknowledged this alleged debt, and you have failed to produce any proof that I entered into an agreement (and thus consented to the sharing of data), with (bank).

 

You now have one final opportunity to stop processing my data as instructed in the Notices I served pursuant to s.10 of the Data Protection Act 1998. If you have not confirmed to me within 7 days that you are no longer holding or processing my data, I will ask the County Court to order you to comply, and ask for damages at the Court's discretion. No further notice will be given.

 

I remain,

Yours sincerely

 

Sir Percy Blakeney, Bt

 

I don't expect a reply.

 

I spoke to the OFT yesterday, and they are keen for me to let them have details of Cabot's misdeeds, not by way of a complaint, but as a simple statement of fact that may assist them in looking at Cabot's fitness to continue holding a consumer credit licence.

[Seahorse]

Hmm. If you let me know the gentleman's name and contact details at the OFT, perhaps I could assist in reinforcing your contention that Cabot are not fit to tie their own shoelaces, never mind hold a consumer credit licence.

[ScarletPimpernel]

With pleasure:

 

Consumer Credit Fitness Investigation Team

OFT

Room 1C/5

Fleetbank House

2-6 Salisbury Square

London

EC49 8JX

 

As we all know, they don't deal with complaints, but they will accept details of ways in which licence holders are failing to comply.

 

I also asked the OFT yesterday about dormant companies and consumer credit licences (in fact in relation to Triton, but there are others). My question was:

 

A company is allowed under company law to be dormant and non-trading, and can be funded and used (apparently legitimately), as a vehicle or agent of another, trading, company, as appears to be the case with several in-house DCAs, and DCAs that have a number of companies under one roof. However, if a dormant company breaches the law or OFT guidance, is the CCL of the 'host' company equally at risk?

 

You can, hopefully, see where I am going with this; it would be very easy to let the dormant company take the rap when in fact the host is entirely responsible for the breach. In the (unusual) event that the dormant company's CCL is revoked, all the host has to do is fetch out another dormant company with a CCL, all the while maintaining the pretence that they are pure as the driven.

 

Anyway, the OFT seemed to be interested, and asked me to send them details.

 

Now, Kings Hill no 5,323,889...

[Seahorse]

Smashing. I'll add to their pile of documentary bummf then.

 

I do see where you are going with your question. And it is quite clear that a company employing a 3rd party of whatever ilk, is as culpable as that company for any misdeeds perpetrated in their name.

 

When I have a moment, I'll dig out the bit of legislation that says so.

[ScarletPimpernel]

The OFT guidance is clear about third party responsibility. However, it seems that all OC's have a template 'we think they're a reputable company' letter. To say anything else, of course, would be to admit that they know that their DCAs don't comply. To an extent I can understand this, and certainly there exists the possibility (however slim) that a DCA is taken on in good faith.

 

However, when the DCA is in-house or a dormant company, there can be no excuse. The only thing that will put a stop to it is zero-tolerance on the part of the enforcement agencies and regulators, none of whom seem particularly effective at the moment.

[patrickq1]

i think i shall send data concerning our other freind s HFO that should be looked at also

patrickq1

[Rhia]

Sir Percy I would be very interested in seeing the OFT's response to this as I have a very experienced barrister looking at the very same issue as I write.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I will add any updates as I receive the information.

 

This morning I spoke to the Information Commissioner's Office about Cabot, but also raised the dormant company question with them.

 

When registering as a data controller, the trading status of the company isn't mentioned, so it's easy for dormant companies to get onto Information Commissioners Office's register. It seems to me that if a company isn't trading, it should not be able to be a data controller, since any data processing would be activity that in most circumstance would amount to trading.

 

Similarly, dormant companies can be granted consumer credit licences - but again, why does a company that isn't trading need one? The OFT's licencing 'fitness test' includes these points:

 

evidence of the skills and knowledge that you and the people participating in your business have in relation to the licensed activity and any

relevant experience, and

 

of the practices and procedures that you propose to operate in the

running of the business.

 

Since a dormant company cannot have any staff, and its non-trading status indicates that it won't be using any practices and procedures, how can it fulfil the requirements for a licence?

 

Clearly companies that are starting-up will need to be able to get a licence, but there doesn't appear to be any check to see whether a company goes on to trade or not. It seems to me that the licences held by dormant companies should be withdrawn, and fitness assessed again if and when they begin trading.

 

[Wizard of ID]

A recent class on my uni course was about the Data Protection Act. I questioned the lecturer closely about this situation of unregistered debt collectors, and asked if he was aware of the Information Commisiioner EVER taking action against them. He replied not only that he wasn't, but that he had written to the Information Commissioner after the government's loss of CDs they'd posted carrying 5 million people's personal details. The Information Commissioner had replied that they had no plans to prosecute anybody over the loss. My lecturer commented that if they won't even take action over a clear negligence that blatant and that public, he didn't think I could expect them to take much interest.

 

It makes one wonder what exactly the Information Commissioner is for. Why exactly do they exist? And why are our taxes supporting it?

[andrew1]

I actually took up the issue with Triton with Companies House asking how they can be Dormant and trade. This was their response:

 

Although I can not go into great detail concerning the response

received from the company, as you would fully understand all

correspondence is treated in the strictest confidence and is not

released to any other party without the express consent of the writer, I

can confirm the following:

 

Triton Credit Services LTD was set up as an agent for another company

within a group undertaking, to carry out debt collection activities. All

staffing cost are met by another company within the group, and all costs

are met by another company within the group.

 

There are therefore no transactions by the company which are required

by Section 221 to be entered in the accounting records of the company.

 

So RBS can do their dirty work under the guise of deceit...and...

therefore, the registration as 'Dormant' is for accounting purposes only and by not having any 'trading' costs can actually deceive people into believing this is a fully functioning organisation whilst putting the hebe gebies up the recipients of their letters typed up by staff who don't work there.

 

It's a farce. Maybe they could be had under the trades descriptions Act as 'Debt Collectors' as there's no-one there to collect debt just ghosts sending out letters.

 

Sarah