The Scarlet Pimpernel v. Robinson, Way **WON**

[ScarletPimpernel]

This morning I received a luridly-coloured letter, purportedly from the local branch of this bunch of eejits. It was in relation to an alleged debt that Moorcroft had previously dealt with some months ago, but as they could not produce an executed agreement, it was passed back.

 

Anyway, I called RW (I am confident in doing so (I have been told I am 'calm but scary'), recorded it and will follow up with a letter). The first phone-monkey did his best to be assertive, but I told him not to interrupt, as I was certain his mother had brought him up to have better manners, and that he should listen carefully and take careful notes. He lasted about three sentences before interrupting, at which point I told him that I couldn't deal with someone incapable of demonstrating basic manners, so he should put me thorugh to a manager at once... and he did.

 

The manager took the 'obviously you owe this money, or our client wouldn't have passed it to us' line. However, after only a short verbal slapping, and a short lecturette on OFT Guidelines and Civil Procedure Rules, he said that they would pass it back and write to me to confirm that they would take no further action.

 

I shall be reporting them to Salford TS anyway. Who can I report them to for dire telephone technique (I know who I am; I don't need them to say my name at the start of every sentence), and whiny Manc accents?

 

Interestingly, their clients did send me a blank copy agreement, and re-reading it I find it does not mention data sharing or indeed data protection at all.

[Jeff2000]

Well done!

 

It sounds like you put them well and truly in their place!

 

 

Best wishes, Jeff.

[diskmandave]

I shall be reporting them to Salford TS anyway.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/71386-diskmandave-robinson-way-co.html

 

Report them to Manchester Trading Standards. Their Salford postcode is merely a postal drop for their Mount Street address in Manchester. You'll waste 3-4 weeks by sending it to Salford as they'll just pass it to Manchester (eventually).

 

City of Manchester

Trading Standards Office

1 Hammerstone Road

Gorton

Manchester

M18 8EQ

 

t: 0161 234 1555

f: 0161 957 8379

e: [email protected]

w: Manchester City Council Trading Standards Service

 

Good luck, Dave.

 

[ScarletPimpernel]

Thanks Dave.

[ODC]

Excellent post Mr Pimpernel. You called the bluff of the bullies. Not only that but you have got them to commit a couple of OFT breaches. Soory cant tip your scales anymore.

[rory32]

Well done. Perhaps stick a pamphlet on where they can get some basic elocution lessons from in the post.

[ODC]

They apparently were on a course called 'How till spoke proper english like what we do.' It ran alongside the 3 minute course on the CCA, DPA and OFT Guidlines Course

[Tau]

:) Pmsl:)

[ScarletPimpernel]

Having heard nothing more from the Manchester Morons in the matter referred to above, today I received another of the familiar stripey envelopes from Salford. Could it be that they have actually written to confirm that they have passed the matter back to their client?

 

No. This one contains a letter purportedly from HSBC (with whom I am currently enjoying a many-pronged battle), telling me that they have sold an old alleged debt to Robinson Way. Excellent! It just happens that as a result of sending a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to HSBC, I know that they have no agreement relating to this matter. Curiously, HSBC flogged it to RW shortly after they sent the SAR info to me - coincidence? However, upon checking my records, it transpires that in between RW buying the debt and sending out the fake HSBC letter, I made a claim against HSBC for refund of unlawful charges and they have acknowledged the claim.

 

So, here's my missive to RW (I can't be bothered to wait for some tedious drivel from them, valid even if not used as lavatory paper by me):

 

 

 

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

 

I am in receipt of a letter dated 23 July 2007, and sent to my former address, which purports to be from HSBC but which is not in an HSBC envelope. There is other evidence that it was not originated by HSBC. It is my intention to inform the police that an offence of attempting to obtain money by deception may have taken place, unless you can shed any further light on the matter.

 

The letter states that the alleged debt was sold to you, that my relationship with HSBC in respect of this account is ended, and that it is now your sole responsibility.

 

In case the letter is valid, take notice that the alleged debt is disputed, as it consists wholly or partly of unlawful penalty charges. You are reminded that under the Office of Fair Trading Guidance on Debt Collection, by which you are bound, no collection activity may be undertaken whilst any dispute is unresolved.

 

Further, I have to advise you that I commenced action against HSBC for the return of the charges, and they have acknowledged the claim. However, in light of the information in the purported HSBC letter referred to above, it would seem that this action should have been directed at Robinson Way. I therefore enclose details of the claim with this letter for your urgent action.

 

Take notice that I will only deal with this matter in writing.

 

Just working on my claim, which I am hoping will be an artistic triumph in the style of Robinson Way! I will post it later.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I thought I'd send the covering letter in a style Robinson Way will be familiar with:

 

[diskmandave]

[ScarletPimpernel]

Corrected my small grammatical error in the original.

[Curlyben]

Hey Sp, why not fill in an N1 and send it over to them.

See how they like official looking documents.

 

oh now that reminds me:

falsely implying or stating that action can or will be taken when it legally

cannot, for example, referring to bankruptcy or sequestration proceedings

when the balance is too low to qualify for such proceedings or claiming a

right of entry when no court order to this effect has been granted

[ODC]

I thought I'd send the covering letter in a style Robinson Way will be familiar with:

 

F King Brilliant

 

 

I hope you sent it in a stripey envelope

[Jeff2000]

Hi,

 

 

Brilliant!!!

 

I especially like the reference!:grin:

 

 

Best wishes, Jeff.

[Brassed off]

SP - Subscribing:D

 

This thread has really made me chuckle! Have my own issues with these numpties - as Jeff said, brilliant reference!

 

Bo

[Eddownrobway07]

I thought I'd send the covering letter in a style Robinson Way will be familiar with:

 

 

class, pure class ! like the Ref !

[ScarletPimpernel]

Amongst their other failings, Robinson Way appear to have neither a sense of humour or good business manners; they have failed to respond at all. On the other hand, they haven't tried to get anything out of me either.

 

Time to pursue them - anyone got any examples of RW 'follow-up' letters?I'll run them through iThreat (I'm a Mac user), and see what comes out.

[sosumi]

SP - my hero for the day!

[ScarletPimpernel]

Update. Robinson Way failed to respond in any way. However, I discovered that they have been sending letters addressed to my ex-wife at an address we used to live at some years ago (she lives abroad and the current occupant has returned everything marked 'gone away', yet still they come). Perhaps they thought that they could trick her into paying since I am on to their dubious tactics.

 

Other matters have led to me neglecting poor old RW for a while; however, as they are fond of saying, this matter will not go away. I have now sent a formal complaint about their misrepresentation, and included a CCA for the agreement I know does not exist.

[wildheart83]

Excellent thread, I wish I had you to answer the phone when Thames Credit phone me!

[ScarletPimpernel]

A response from Hayley Fenton today.

 

With regard to the bogus HSBC letter, she tells me that it was sent 'on behalf of HSBC', and RW do not accept that any attempt was made to mislead or decieve. So, on Planet Robinson Way, one company using something that looks like another company's letterhead is neither misleading nor deceitful. What breathtaking arrogance!

 

She tells me the agreement has been requested from HSBC and will be forwarded; this will be interesting, since HSBC did not provide an agreement when I S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'d them, and confirmed in writing that all data had been disclosed. So, if an agreement surfaces, it is either a forgery or HSBC lied about disclosure. Given RW's record on fake HSBC documents, you can guess which my money will be on.

[ScarletPimpernel]

My cup runneth over - another letter from Ms Felton, dated one day after the last, in which she informs me that HSBC have advised RW that they have no agreement. She goes on to say that whilst this means that the debt is unenforceable at law, "we have a legal requirement to accurately reflect the account status with the credit reference agencies". She's quite right, of course - they are legally obliged to comply with the Data Protection Act, and since there's no agreement they don't have consent to process my data, so should ensure that the CRAs show nothing at all.

 

I shall be writing to her to ensure she isn't in any way confused about this.

 

Keen readers will know that I also sent RW a claim for charges, since they told me they had full responsibility. I confess to being surprised to see that Ms Felton asks for details of the claim, so she can 'progress' the dispute. Now, they already have them, so it's LBA time.

[ScarletPimpernel]

...and today, the latest from the pen of La Felton.

 

Her latest excuse for the bogus HSBC letter is that there was no intention to mislead - they were just keeping me informed, apparently.

 

Next, her response to my s.10 Notice. According to Robinson Way, they acquired the rights but not the duties, apparently under s.189(1) of the CCA 1974, and this means that they also acquired the rights to process my data and so don't need my consent.

 

S.189(1), eh? Ah yes, that'll be the bit that talks about the rights and duties of an agreement passing by assignment, then.

 

Poor old Hayley; she's forgotten that in her last letter, she admitted that there is no agreement, so not only does s.189(1) probably not apply anyway, it also means that they have no evidence of my consent to process or share data.

 

In my last letter I asked for my quid back, since they'd failed to comply with my request for a copy agreement. Hayley says I can't have it back, because although they didn't provide the agreement, they did send me some copy statements. I've read my copy of the Act really carefully, and I just can't find the bit that allows them to substitute one document for another.

 

Time for a bog off, in which I will demand my quid back again, and tell her that I won't be entertaining any requests for payment anyway. Then it can all go to FOS.

[tooth_fairy]

SP,

 

I feel very upset now because of your letter from Hayley....

I got that letter yesterday (re default removal) and she said the same thing.....here's me thinking I was special!!!!

 

Shall we link arms and go to the FOS together then?