ScarletPimpernel v Cabot

[ScarletPimpernel]

A few weeks ago I received, out of the blue, a letter from a company called ECI, pursuing an alleged debt on behalf of Cabot (I will not say which bit of the hydra yet). I ignored it, as I did the next couple. Ultimately, however, curiosity got the better of me and I had an entertaining conversation with ECI.

 

It transpired that they were trying to collect a debt apparently incurred in 1984! - is this a record?

 

I told them that so far as I could remember I have never had an account with the bank they named, but in any case it would be statute barred. It seems that ECI, like so many DCAs, think that the OFT guidelines and DPA don't apply to them.

 

"You must owe the money, because Cabot say so, and statute barred doesn't mean we won't continue to enforce it", they said. "Actually, it means precisely that you won't, because you can't", I said. "Well, maybe not in court, but we can still try to collect", they replied.

 

They then went on to tell me some porkies about registering defaults with CRAs, cancelling my birthday and making the sky fall in.

 

I went on to ask if they could produce evidence of my consent for them (or their client, Cabot), to process my data, to which they replied that they must have it, because Cabot wouldn't have handed the case to them otherwise. A touching faith in Cabot, no?

 

The creature at ECI said he was so confident that they could still collect, that he'd be writing a final letter before taking me to court (he'd obviously forgotten that that isn't going to happen). Maybe he wrote it, but he certainly didn't send it to me.

 

On the other hand, I have written to them. I am rather busy, so my letter won't get posted until the 6 April.

 

In my letter I have told them that I perceived the phone monkey's talk of continuing to collect as a threat to harass; asked them to confirm that they will now comply with the OFT guidelines; demanded a copy of my signed consent for them and Cabot to process my data; and demanded full details of their client. I have a feeling that they will not want to play.

 

The next stage will be to complain to the FOS and IC about ECI, and then begin a complaint against Cabot under the DPA.

 

Sink me, I'm quite looking forward to doing battle with Citizen Maynard.

[Seahorse]

And we're looking forward to hearing all about it.

 

Watch they don't try to break your legs with baseball bats. Any company that tries to collect on a debt that old really must be the lowest of the low.

[Seahorse]

Collecting your Debts

 

 

Some important questions to ask yourself:

 

DOES YOUR BUSINESS SUFFER FROM OVERDUE ACCOUNTS?

In the past, how long have you had to wait for customers to pay you?

 

ARE YOU WASTING VALUABLE TIME CHASING ACCOUNTS?

How much time have you spent chasing overdue invoices?

 

With ECI you waste no time and no money!

 

What does it actually cost your business to use your

staff to struggle with the problem of slow payers?

 

With ECI we provide a 'no collection, no fee' service - you only pay us if we collect your debt.

A high proportion of our clients get paid within 14 days!

 

We respect your customers

We approach your customers with the aim of recovering your

money and maintaining your business relationship with them

 

It is almost a certainty that we already act for many firms

and companies in the same business as yours, so we will

have experienced the particular problems that are unique

to your business

 

This is the first time I've read about this shower so I thought I go take a peek.

[Seahorse]

'ECI are the AA of Debt Collections'

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

[Seahorse]

I've just had a thought!!!! They offer a No Win, No Fee service.

 

I wonder if I should set them on Cabot???????

[Seahorse]

Have you had a look at their T&C's on the website Scarlett? Looks like Cabot enjoy throwing money down deep, dark pits.

 

H. If the Client should require ECI to make a vexatious claim and no claim or right to action exists, ECI shall be entitled to charge for time it incurs at the rate of £75 per hour plus VAT

[ScarletPimpernel]

And we're looking forward to hearing all about it.

 

Watch they don't try to break your legs with baseball bats. Any company that tries to collect on a debt that old really must be the lowest of the low.

 

 

Any company that tries a doorstep collection in Northern Ireland must be the most moronic of morons.

 

So, I'll expect them next Tuesday...

 

 

 

I'm not advocating any sort of illegal violent response, incidentally, though that's why there are some areas where DCAs fear to tread. Not where I live, which is very firmly on the right side of the law.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Alas, Seahorse, you have the wrong ECI - the clowns I'm dealing with are these: ECI: Under Construction

 

Still, the other one is risibly self-important - no doubt they'll turn up on CAG some time.

[Seahorse]

Awwww. You have spoilt all my fun now.

 

[Seahorse]

You must live in an area where the TV detector vans fear to tread too, then.

[ScarletPimpernel]

You must live in an area where the TV detector vans fear to tread too, then.

 

With that splendid sense of fairness that New Labour are famous for, MoD insists that the military co-operate with TV Licencing/Crapita, whilst for Tony Bliar and 'Sinn' Hain's new best mates it's business as usual - no TV licencing, no DSS investigators, and so on. Then again, people buying televisions tend to use spoof addresses, as a security measure, you understand, which seems to confuse Crapita's database...

[tbern123]

"You must owe the money, because Cabot say so, and statute barred doesn't mean we won't continue to enforce it", they said. "Actually, it means precisely that you won't, because you can't", I said. "Well, maybe not in court, but we can still try to collect", they replied.

 

There is a story in the Daily Mail about this today, the spoke to the chairman / president / whoever from the CCA, this is almost word for word what he said. The Daily Mail disagrees with him and mention about the OFT guidelines...

[ScarletPimpernel]

Here's what I sent on 06 April:

 

COMPLAINT

 

Dear Sirs

 

I do not acknowledge any debt to you, or any company you claim to represent.

 

I refer to your recent correspondence and to my telephone conversation with Monkey01 and Monkey02 of 20 March 07. You contacted me regarding the above-referenced account, which you claim is owed by me.

 

As you are aware, under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 "an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued."

 

The Office of Fair Trading’s Debt Collection Guidance (by which you are bound, as you are required to hold a Consumer Credit Licence) states, on statute barred debt that: "it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period".

No acknowledgement or payment towards this alleged debt has been made for far longer that the limitation period. Indeed, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that the alleged debt even exists or existed.

 

However, Monkey02 stated that whilst he was aware that the alleged debt could not be enforced at law, this did not mean that ECI would not stop trying to collect. This is contrary to the OFT Debt Collection Guidance, which states that "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". I perceived Monkey02's statement as a threat that ECI or its client intends to harass me in the future.

 

Monkey02 told me that such was his confidence in the strength of his position, he intended to write to me confirming that collection action would continue. It comes as no surprise, however, that I have not heard from him at all.

 

It is my view that such blatant disregard for the OFT rules makes ECI unfit to hold a Consumer Credit Licence. I therefore intend to make a formal complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman (FOS). I also consider that an offence may have been committed under Data Protection Legislation, which matter I shall raise as a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

However, I am prepared to offer you a reasonable avenue to resolve the situation. I require all of the following:

 

-full details of your complaints handling procedure

-confirmation in writing that you intend to honour your obligations under the OFT Guidelines, and that you will no longer attempt to pursue this statute barred alleged debt

-full details of your client, including the registered company name, address and any reference number pertaining to this matter

-a true copy of my signed consent for either your client or yourselves to process my data.

 

Please ensure that your reply reaches me within 10 days.

 

Today I received a letter from ECI, offering, in huge letters and a lurid typeface, a discount. I shall use it as a style guide for my next letter of complaint.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I have now received a letter from ECI, confirming that no further activity will take place, that their staff were wrong in regard to statute barred debt, and offering an unreserved apology.

 

Not sure now whether to pursue Cabot over the data protection issue, or let sleeping **** lie.

[andrew1]

You HAVE to complain. Otherwise they will continue with others less knowledgeable than yourself. These practices have GOT to stop and the efforts on this site to clean up the Debt Collection Agencies will be much enhanced by your complaint - P L E A S E...... complain. The sleeping **** will only lay down once they have had their legs taken out. Thank you.

 

Oh, and well done too..

[Jeff2000]

I have now received a letter from ECI, confirming that no further activity will take place, that their staff were wrong in regard to statute barred debt, and offering an unreserved apology.

 

Not sure now whether to pursue Cabot over the data protection issue, or let sleeping **** lie.

 

 

Hello Scarlet,

 

 

Yes, well done! Now that you have it in writing from ECI that this "alleged" debt should not have been pursued, you can use this against Cabot!

 

I have a sneaky feeling that Cabot will otherwise try again from another angle at a later date.

 

Go get 'em!!!

 

 

Regards, Jeff.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Well, despite ECI hoping I would view their letter as an end to the matter, I have written again, reminding them that the timescale of their acknowledgement of my complaint was outside the requirements of the CCA 2006, as was their failure to send the requested details of their complaint procedure.

 

I have confirmed that I want full details of their client (I know it's Cabot Financial (Europe), but I want to see if any of the rest of the evil empire has any data), and a copy of my consent for Cabot and/or ECI to process my data.

[ScarletPimpernel]

An update.

 

I spoke to ECI this afternoon as they had failed to respond to my last letter other than to acknowledge receipt and say they'd reply within 5 days. I have to say that the chap I spoke to was entirely businesslike and helpful - perhaps because they have nothing to gain now.

 

Anyway, he's got some stuff to send me:

 

A copy of a letter from RBS assigning the alleged debt to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd. This is apparently dated Feb 2000, which is interesting, since Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd didn't exist until January this year. Either RBS had a crystal ball seven years ago, or Cabot have been busy with their printer and someone else's letterhead.

 

Details of ECI's client - Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd. Quite how they metamorphosed from UK to Europe is a mystery. No doubt Willem has the answer.

 

Alas, although he's asked Cabot for a copy of the original agreement, they don't have it, but are apparently trying to find some T&Cs. Quite how this meets the requirements for processing data is another little mystery.

 

ECI are asking me to confirm that I won't take any action against them, which is nice...

 

As soon as I receive the papers, I shall have pleasure in helping Cabot to contribute another £400 to FOS.

[Jeff2000]

 

ECI are asking me to confirm that I won't take any action against them, which is nice...

 

 

 

Ooooh! Name your price! I think.

[andrew1]

Actually Scarlet Pimpernel I sincerely hope you send these guys to their graves and Cabot with them ( that's after tbern, Seahorse and a few more of us have finished with them of course )

 

The word fraud might enter my mind if I were a legal person, but I'm not so it doesn't enter my mind at all. Cabot have repeatedly sent letters out on another company's headed notepaper and have used the same printer which had a mark on it to do it as their own letters. Skin them my friend, take action, sue them blast them if you can - this is disgraceful.

 

Rant over..

 

Sarah

[ScarletPimpernel]

I have at last received a copy of the letter purporting to be from the OC, notifying me that the alleged debt was assigned to Cabot in 2000.

 

Points to note:

 

- the letter is undated. This seems to me to be at best poor business practice, and at worst designed to be vague or misleading.

- the letter claims that the debt was assigned to Cabot Financial (UK) in Feb 2000, over six years before Cabot Financial came into existence. Whilst I don't doubt that anything properly assigned to Kings Hill No1 Ltd would be carried over when the name changed, but I do think that the veracity of the letter is doubtful.

- the letter states that the account was assigned to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd, and that all communication must 'therefore' be addressed to Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd. Apart from the questionable logic of the statement, if this wasn't statute barred anyway, I think I might have tried a technique I shall call the reverse-Cabot, which involves writing to them to acknowledge that the debt belongs to me, but that all communication must be addressed to someone else entirely. Furthermore, if pressed, I should then claim to be sometimes the same person, and at other times that there is no connection between us. For good measure, I will occasionally refer to old laws that are no longer extant.

 

I am already in touch with the bank to determine whether or not they sent the letter. It seems to me that Cabot will not have any eveidence of my permission to process my data, so I shall complain to the ICO about that. It occurs to me that if the letter is a fake - i.e. it was not originated by the apparent sender, and has been prepared simply because I asked for evidence of Cabot's right to be involved, then it is evidence of deception, and that isn't unlawful - it's illegal. I shall speak to some police contacts on this.

 

In the meantime, if anyone has any suggestions as to how to proceed, I shall be interested to hear them.

[tomterm8]

I have at last received a copy of the letter purporting to be from the OC, notifying me that the alleged debt was assigned to Cabot in 2000.

 

Points to note:

 

- the letter is undated. This seems to me to be at best poor business practice, and at worst designed to be vague or misleading.

- the letter claims that the debt was assigned to Cabot Financial (UK) in Feb 2000, over six years before Cabot Financial came into existence. Whilst I don't doubt that anything properly assigned to Kings Hill No1 Ltd would be carried over when the name changed, but I do think that the veracity of the letter is doubtful.

- the letter states that the account was assigned to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd, and that all communication must 'therefore' be addressed to Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd. Apart from the questionable logic of the statement, if this wasn't statute barred anyway, I think I might have tried a technique I shall call the reverse-Cabot, which involves writing to them to acknowledge that the debt belongs to me, but that all communication must be addressed to someone else entirely. Furthermore, if pressed, I should then claim to be sometimes the same person, and at other times that there is no connection between us. For good measure, I will occasionally refer to old laws that are no longer extant.

 

I am already in touch with the bank to determine whether or not they sent the letter. It seems to me that Cabot will not have any eveidence of my permission to process my data, so I shall complain to the Information Commissioners Office about that. It occurs to me that if the letter is a fake - i.e. it was not originated by the apparent sender, and has been prepared simply because I asked for evidence of Cabot's right to be involved, then it is evidence of deception, and that isn't unlawful - it's illegal. I shall speak to some police contacts on this.

 

In the meantime, if anyone has any suggestions as to how to proceed, I shall be interested to hear them.

 

Don't admit the debt.

 

Just send;

 

"DATE

 

YOUR ADDRESS

 

The Data Controller

DCA ADDRESS.

 

Dear Sir,

 

 

I note your recent correspondence. Please note that I am unaware of owing any money to your organisation, or having any enforceable or valid debt with barclaycard.

 

The last contact I had with barclaycard on any matter is over 6 years old. Any debt or claim is therefore statute barred.

 

I have never given you my consent to process my data, and since any contract has long expired, and any legal right to enforce any alleged debt is statute barred, you have no legal right to process my data.

 

I therefore serve upon you a section 10 notice under the Data protection Act 1998 to stop processing all data, effective upon the date you receive this letter.

 

I am aware of my legal rights, and of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance, and would ask you to send me a copy of your company complaints procedure.

 

Please note that if you continue to attempt to correspond with me, or harass me or libel me in any way, I will take legal action against your company.

 

Yours Sincerly,

 

XXX.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Thanks Tomterm8.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Curiouser and curiouser...

 

I have just spoken to a most helpful lady at the bank, who tells me that they have no record of the account number quoted by Cabot. Perhaps unsurprising, since the alleged debt goes back some 23 years. As they have no trace of the account, they do not hold any records such as, for example, an executed agreement. So, Cabot cannot have had any evidence of my permission to process my data, let alone attempt to enforce any debt, were it not statute-barred.

 

Most interestingly of all, she confirmed that neither Cabot nor any other company has authority to use the bank's letterhead - which is nice.

[Jeff2000]

 

Most interestingly of all, she confirmed that neither Cabot nor any other company has authority to use the bank's letterhead - which is nice.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Regards, Jeff.