Taking Cabot to court for failing to supply HSBC CCA + Distress etc

[Seahorse]

Hi all,

 

 

Hang on!!!

 

I thought they didn't hold any personal data!!!???:???:

 

 

Jeff.

 

HOHO. You're a funny guy.

[Jeff2000]

HOHO. You're a funny guy.

 

 

:grin:

 

 

Jeff.

[Seahorse]

Well, THAT's weird. I check out the list of threads in the Cabot Forum, it says 29 viewing this one. I click on the last page in this thread, and by the time I've scrolled to the bottom, they've all gone, except one.

 

If there were 28 MIB reading, I'd say you've got them well and truly rattled, tBern me auld china.

[tbern123]

Is misleading the Trading Standards serious ?

 

Or charging for a SAR, when you say you hold no data ?

 

I won't hold my breath on Cabot answering any of my questions...

 

Be interesting to see what if anything, the ICO and Tradings Standards say though.

[elizabeth1]

Well, THAT's weird. I check out the list of threads in the Cabot Forum, it says 29 viewing this one. I click on the last page in this thread, and by the time I've scrolled to the bottom, they've all gone, except one.

 

If there were 28 MIB reading, I'd say you've got them well and truly rattled, tBern me auld china.

 

 

"abra - cadabra"!!! Like now you see me - now you don't ?

 

like pantomime season isn't it? :grin: :grin:

[Seahorse]

they're Behind You!

[andrew1]

Interesting comment from Sparkie on another thread - thanks Sparkie maybe our Ken will start taking notice of some of his employees comments and actions:

 

Quote:

 

"Great Paul,

Looks like you've thrown another log on the fire, don't know wether you read my last reply to you on my post, but Coporate law states that the chief man in any company is just as responsible and culpable as the employee who actual commits an offence of any kind ...

sparkie1723 "

 

Now that's Music to my ears

[Guest Battleaxe]

This applies to all the banks, credit card companies and DCA's who have been acting in a manner which is not quite according to the Acts.

[lookinforinfo]

If the Information Commissioners Office feel that an offence has been committed by Kingshill/Cabot they

can hold the data controller responsible regardless as to his/her culpability

Here is section 9.3 of the Data protection Act-

 

9.3 Personal liability where the data controller is a company or corporate body (section 61)

If a company or other corporation commits a criminal offence under the Act, any director, manager, secretary or similar officer or someone purporting to act in any such capacity is personally guilty of the offence in addition to the corporate body if:-

• •

the offence was committed with his/her consent or connivance; or

the offence is attributable to any neglect on his/her part.

Where the affairs of a corporate body are managed by its members, any member who exercises the functions of management as if he were a director can also be guilty of the offence that results from any of his/her acts or omissions.

Where an offence under the Act has been committed by a Scottish partnership and the contravention in question is proved to have occurred with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a partner, he/she, as well as the partnership, shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Government departments are not liable to prosecution under the Act but individual civil servants may be prosecuted if they personally are believed to be guilty of an offence under section 55 (the unlawful obtaining or disclosure of personal data), or obstructing or failing to assist in the execution of a warrant issued in accordance with the Act (Schedule 9 paragraph 12).

 

................................................................................................

In the following section [9.4] the offences are specified-

 

 

9.4 The Offences

This publication has already dealt elsewhere with the following offences under the Act:-

(a) processing without notification (section 21(1)- see Chapter 8),

(b) failure to notify the Commissioner of changes to the notification register entry (section 21(2) – see Chapter 8),

© processing before expiry of assessable processing time limits or receipt of assessable processing notice within such time (section 22(6) – see Chapter 8),

(d) failure to comply with written request for particulars (section 24 – see Chapter 8),

(e) failure to comply with an enforcement notice/information notice/special information notice (section 47(1) – see Chapter 7),

Version 1 [as print date] Data Protection Act 1998 100

(f) knowingly or recklessly making a false statement in compliance with an information notice or special information notice (section 47(2) – see Chapter 7), and

(g) intentional obstruction of, or failure to give reasonable assistance in, execution of a warrant (Schedule 9, paragraph 12 – see Chapter 7).

 

..........................................................................................

I have also included the two following sections since the acquiring of data by

one company and passing it on to another may come under these headings

 

 

9.5 Unlawful Obtaining etc., of Personal Data (section 55(1))

It is an offence for a person, knowingly or recklessly, without the consent of the data controller, to:-

• • • • • •

obtain or disclose personal data or the information contained in personal data, or

procure the disclosure to another person of the information contained in personal data.

The Act provides specific exceptions to liability for this offence where the person can show:

that the obtaining, disclosing or procuring:

- was necessary to prevent or detect crime; or

- was required or authorised by law,

that he acted in the reasonable belief that he had the legal right to obtain, disclose or procure the disclosure;

that he acted in the reasonable belief that the data controller would have consented to the obtaining, disclosing or procuring if the data controller had known; or

that in the particular circumstances the obtaining, disclosing or procuring was justified as being in the public interest.

A person will not be guilty of this offence if the personal data in question fall within the national security exemption at section 28 (see Chapter 5).

It should be noted that an offence under this section, cannot be committed by a data controller in respect of data of which he is the data controller. However, a data controller who discloses personal data of which he is the data controller may breach the First Principle if the disclosure is unfair or unlawful.

Where employees of a data controller organisation have authority to obtain and disclose personal data in the course of their employment (for example bank employees who can access customer accounts for bank purposes), they will commit these offences if they use their position to obtain, disclose, or procure disclosure of personal data for their own purposes.

Version 1 [as print date] Data Protection Act 1998 101

 

 

9.6 Unlawful Selling of Personal Data (sections 55(4) and (5))

If a person has obtained personal data in contravention of section 55(1) above, it is an offence to sell or offer to sell personal data.

It is also an offence to offer to sell personal data which the person subsequently obtains in contravention of section 55(1).

An advertisement indicating that personal data are or may be for sale is an offer to sell the data.

Personal data includes information extracted from personal data for the purposes of these offences.

A person will not be guilty of this offence if the personal data in question fall within the national security exemption at section 28 (see Chapter 5).

9.7 Enforced Subject Access (section 56)

Unless one of the statutory exceptions apply it is an offence for a person to require another person or a third party –

• • • • • •

to supply him with a relevant record (see below); or

to produce a relevant record to him;

in connection with:-

the recruitment of that other person as an employee;

the continued employment of that other person;

any contract for the provision of services to him by that other person; or

where a person is concerned with providing (for payment or not) goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public, as a condition of providing or offering to provide any goods, facilities or services to that other person.

The statutory exceptions to liability for such offences are:-

a) that the imposition of the requirement was required or authorised by law; or

b) that in the particular circumstances the imposition of the requirements was justified as being in the public interest.

The Act provides that the imposition of the requirement is not to be regarded as being justified in the public interest on the ground that it would assist in the prevention or detection of crime.

Version 1 [as print date] Data Protection Act 1998 102

The term “relevant record” is defined in section 56 of the Act by reference to a table which lists data controllers and the subject matter of subject access requests that may be made to them by data subjects. Generally, the term relates to records of cautions, criminal convictions and to certain social security records relating to the data subject.

Section 56 will not come into force until the Criminal Records Bureau is in operation. This is unlikely to happen until 2002. However, the practice of requiring subject access may still breach other provisions of the Act, or the Human Rights Act 1998 or the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

9.8 Unlawful Disclosure of Information by Commissioner/Staff/Agent (section 59)

This offence applies to the Commissioner, a member of the Commissioner’s staff or an agent of the Commissioner, past or present. Below, these are referred to collectively as the “Supervisory Authority”.

[TideTurner]

Has anybody noticed that the ICO is getting behind consumers a lot more lately? I know they are providing more help than they used to. Also the FOS?

[ODC]

I think a lot is due to forums like this who make ordinary folk aware of their RIGHTS unlike the DCAs who demand and bully. When they step over the line they now get reported because we are now aware of the law. Before people were afraid to complain because they were scared of the lies and threats. Three cheers for the Rogue Debtors

[elizabeth1]

Has anybody noticed that the Information Commissioners Office is getting behind consumers a lot more lately? I know they are providing more help than they used to. Also the FOS?

 

 

FOS were really good for me - they got my Abbey charges back for me and it didn't take too long either - I couldn't afford to pay two cc court claims straigtht away in the new year - so I did my own being the smaller claim with FOS and it was easy really.

 

I wouldn't complain at all considering the workload they have increasing more recently!!

 

I say well done them!! a real good effort!!

[Rhia]

IOC have been very thorough for me too. Have upheld one case of non compliance and are investigating another but have indicated I have cause to complain. I also read where the IC wants greated powers to act in cases relating to data processing.

[tbern123]

Thanks for the post lookinforinfo.

 

Missed your input recently...

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[tbern123]

Sorry this is the email I sent

 

----- Original Message ----- *From:* tbern123

*To:* [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]

*Cc:* [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]

*Sent:* Monday, May 07, 2007 3:04 PM

*Subject:* Fw: Urgent Response Required - Please do not ignore this email

 

 

 

7th May 2007

 

Mr Ken Maynard

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited

10 Kings Hill Avenue

Kings Hill

West Malling

Kent

ME19 4LT

 

 

Dear Mr Maynard

 

Further to my previous email of 8 April 2007 and your subsequent response of 10 April 2007, sent by Mr Willem Wellinghoff, Head of Compliance, Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd. Firstly, can you please confirm why a response was sent by Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd, when my correspondence was clearly addressed to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd.

 

As advised on 28 January 2007, I made two separate Subject Access Requests to both Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd (now called Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd) and to Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd. I made two separate requests, as previously confirmed by the Information Commissioners Office, both companies are registered as Data Controllers. Enclosed with each request were cheques to pay the statutory fee of £10.00.

 

Cheque number 300064 was payable to Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd and was debited from my account on 12 February 2007. However, cheque number 300063, payable to Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd did not debit my account until 3 April 2007.

 

As I have not received any documentation or correspondence from Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd (previously called Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd), I was surprised that this cheque debited my account 65 days after I made my original request. Naturally, I contacted you to raise my concerns.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to refer you to Mr Wellinghoff's letter of 10 April 2007, he states:

 

"Furthermore I would wish to clarify that Cabot has not presented any cheque reference 300063 for payment on 3 April 2007"

 

I understand that a representative of your company has also informed Mr Jeremy Marsh of Kent Trading Standards that you did not present cheque number 300063 for payment.

 

Please find attached to this email, a copy of cheque 300063 obtained from my Building Society. payable to Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd.

 

I have taken the liberty of sending a copy of this email to Mr Marsh, as I am sure he will share my disappointment that you misinformed him in relation to the payment of this cheque. I have also sent a copy of this email to the Information Commissioners Office, as Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd have charged me for a Subject Access Request and have failed to send me any documentation or contact me directly in relation to my request.

 

I would respectfully ask that you answer the following questions in their entirety.

 

1. What happened to my cheque between the day it was received and the day it was presented for payment.

2. Why was my cheque presented for payment, so long after it was received.

3. Can you please explain why you have charged me for a Subject Access Request and not provided me with any documentation. As Kings Hill (no.1) Ltd incorrectly registered and updated a Default on my credit file, you must have data relating to me.

4. Why have I never received any correspondence directly from Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd / Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd

5. Why did Mr Wellinghoff, deny that cheque number 300063 had been presented for payment, by yourselves.

6. Why was Kent Trading Standards misinformed in relation to this cheque.

7. In relation to my personal data, are Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd acting as a Data Controller.

 

I hope that on this occasion, you will treat my correspondence with the seriousness that it deserves and not ignore it as previous occasions.

In summary, Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd have exceeded the maximum time frame of 40 days to comply with a Subject Access Request and I feel that deliberate attempts have been made by your company to mislead Kent Trading Standards.

In addition to answers to my questions, I would also very appreciate your comments in relation to this matter and a refund of this cheque and reimbursement of my costs.

Regards

 

Mr tbern123

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message ----- *From:* tbern123

*To:* [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]

*Cc:* [email protected] ; [email protected]

*Sent:* Sunday, April 08, 2007 5:39 PM

*Subject:* Urgent Response Required - Please do not ignore this email

 

 

 

 

 

 

8th April 2007

 

Mr Ken Maynard

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited

10 Kings Hill Avenue

Kings Hill

West Malling

Kent

ME19 4LT

 

 

Dear Mr Maynard

 

 

I am very disappointed that I am forced to write to you again, in relation to the conduct of your company. As you are fully aware on 28 January 2007, as per my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, I made two Subject Access Requests. My first request was made to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited and my second request was made to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to refer you to the letter I received from your legal representatives Hodsons Solicitors, dated 20 February 2007. Mr Dean Spencer states:

 

"Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited is contracted to act as an agent for Cabot Financial (UK) Limited (formerly Kings Hill (No.1) Limited) Your subject access request sent to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited was passed to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited in order to process the request. We are instructed that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited does not hold any data to which relates to your request."

 

He continues....

 

"For the avoidance of doubt we are instructed that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited does not hold any data about you. *_It is Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited that holds the data_* and therefore it will be that company which responds to any subject access requests directed to the Cabot Group."

 

Following receipt of my Subject Access Request, cheque number 300064, payable to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited was presented for payment on 12 February 2007. As confirmed by Mr Dean Spencer, it is Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited that holds the data, so I can understand why this particular cheque was presented for payment.

 

You can imagine my surprise, to learn that Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd presented cheque number 300063 for payment on 3 April 2007. My letter of 28th January 2007, clearly states, that payment was in relation to a Subject Access Request. As Cabot Financial (UK) Limited were unable to fulfil my request can you please let me know why this cheque has now been presented for payment.

 

I cannot understand the completely unprofessional conduct of the Cabot Group of companies. I have already commenced legal proceedings against Cabot Financial (UK) Limited and I am in the process of making a formal complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, in relation to some of my other concerns. I would have thought that given the circumstances, you would have ensured that I would not have further cause to complain. Sadly this is not the case and I require your urgent response. I have taken the liberty of sending a copy of this email to the Information Commissioners Office and to Kent Trading Standards, both of which I will now be making formal complaints too.

 

Regards

 

 

Mr tbern123

CC Information Commissioners Office

Kent Trading Standards

 

I got this response today

 

----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected]

To: tbern123

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:35 AM

Subject: RE: Urgent Response Required - Please do not ignore this email

 

 

 

Dear tbern

Thank you for your further e-mail addressed to our Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Ken Maynard.

I have forwarded your e-mail to our solicitors, Hodsons, in order to respond.

As previously advised, any correspondence must be referred to our solicitors as your matter is the subject of legal proceedings. I would therefore be grateful if you can forward any further correspondence to Hodsons Solicitors. Please be advised that any further correspondence relating to your matter and received by any company within the Cabot Financial Group shall be forwarded to our solicitors.

The address for Hodsons Solicitors is:

Hodsons Solicitors

2 Clifton Road,

Rugby,

Warwickshire,

CV21 3PX.

Thank you for co-operation.

Kind regards

Willem Wellinghoff

Head of Compliance

Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited

10 Kings Hill Avenue, Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent, ME19 4LT

DDI: +44 (0)1732 775 084

E-mail: [email protected]

www.cabotfinancial.com

[elizabeth1]

Mmmm!!! So now do we tell him the bit where "their solicitors" have a tendancy to ignore correspondence - poor Dean probably can't find the template to answer with? :D

[InKogneeToh]

Hi

 

Obviously WW can't answer your questions (truthfully ) so is bailing out!!

 

Regards, Pam

[ODC]

Im amazed that the people at Cabot towers are still pursuing this matter. Its obvious they are on a hiding to nothing. Hodsons could hardly be described as the best solicitors in the business. Why dont they admint bdefeat by yet another Rogue Debtor

[Rhia]

As a lawyer he must be aware that you have every right to refuse to deal with their appointed agent and insist on dealing with them direct and they have to agree. It is complete madness.

[ODC]

As a lawyer he must be aware that you have every right to refuse to deal with their appointed agent and insist on dealing with them direct and they have to agree. It is complete madness.

 

Reading earlier threads we havent actually established WWs alleged legal qualifications. We know for certain that he is not a UK recognised barrister and that internet law degrees are not really the same as a British University one. Yet again these fools dig the hole deeper and deeper for themselves. They better hope someone dosent fill it in on top of them

[louiboy]

One things for sure. If WW's job is putting people off legal action, it's not working. The slightest mention of WW sends me straight to the depths of my growing Cabot files.

 

Just back from the Cabot files. God bless you WW's and Cabot 1,2,3 and all. Somebody owes me money.

 

Checked a statement, more than enough paid to clear the original debt and £400 of charges padding out the sums. Cabot have clearly indicated they are the owners of the account now.

 

So who gets the demand for payment Cabot (uk) or the original creditor?

No CCA available.

[tbern123]

The things that has annoyed me, is that as I have told them before the litigation I have started is in relation to the HSBC account. The other two accounts will be the subject of further and separate litigation.

 

They seem to use this as an excuse to push me to one side. Big Mistake !!!!

 

Has they deny banking my chq, my bank are investigating this as fraud and the Police have been notified.

 

If they want to play tough, I will write to the court this weekend and ask request for the defence to be struck out as it does not comply with the order of the hearing judge.

[tbern123]

I wrote directly to Dean Spencer and he replied to me last week, stating that he will reply once he has refered to to his clients.

 

Now the clients say they won't respond and have referred to Hodsons.

 

I get the impression my chain is being pulled...

 

*note to self, wash the word mug from your forehead

[elizabeth1]

IT'S LIKE WALKING THROUGH TREACLE?

 

But never mind - these people aren't so smart and above the Law as they think - the clock is ticking and it sure will strike with a BANG!!!