Argos Card & JB Debt Recovery

[ScarletPimpernel]

Hmmm....

 

Oh what a tangled web they weave:

 

No registered office address on the letterhead, so in breach of the Companies Act.

 

Perhaps they don't want anyone to look at Companies House website, which shows that Asset Collection and Investigation Ltd is a dormant company, whose accounts are overdue by several months.

 

Then again, maybe they don't want anyone to check out the Information Commissioner's website, which reveals that the company does not appear to be registered as a data controller, so they should not be processing any data. They aren't registered as a trading style of JB Debt Recovery, either.

 

The consumer credit licence appears to be genuine - except that it comes back to yet another address, and with a registered office address that is different to the one registered with Companies House. They are registered as trading under the name JBW Debt Collection (see below).

 

Companies House says:

Registered Office -

7 LEMON STREET

TRURO

CORNWALL

PL1 2NS

 

OFT Consumer Credit Licence database says:

Registered Office -

Homelea House

Faith Avenue

Qarriers Village

Bridge of Weir

PS11 3SX

 

The principal place of business is shown as 176, Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4SE - the same as JB Debt Recovery! JBW Debt Collection, on the other hand, is shown on the ICO website as a trading style of an entirely different company - JBW Enforcement Ltd., whose address is:

 

RESPONSE HOUSE

16 HEWETT STREET

LONDON

EC2A 3NN

 

JBW Enforcement Ltd. is a new company, formed at the end of Sept 08 - and yet they have been registered ith ICO since 2004. However, it is known that this is Jamie Waller, the bailiff who performs on television. So, it seems that Asset Collection & investigation may be posing as another company - potentially leaving themselves open to a charge of passing-off.

 

In summary, then, this dormant company appears to be a front for JB, who, with Argos, have third party responsibility for their activities. Processing data without registration is illegal, and they have lied about their registered office to either the OFT or Companies House. Their demands for payment are unlawful because JB are in default of a CCA request.

 

Personally, I'd have no confidence in having any dealings at all with a company which appears to be based upon a foundation of deception and non-compliance with legal obligations. Any contact, other than a suitably worded invitation to refer to Arkell v. Pressdram might be seen as condoning this gang of wretches' unlawful activities - and that would never do.

 

What would do is a robust complaint to Argos, enclosing copies of reports to all the relevant enforcement agencies.

Edited November 4, 2008 by ScarletPimpernel

[ScarletPimpernel]

I`ve just read your edited post.

 

This is getting VERY interesting. Does this mean I`m going to be on TV with that idiot?

 

 

I think not; Waller has JBW Enforcement Ltd., and J.B.W. Enforcement Ltd. registered at Companies House. It is this company that has registered the trading style JB Debt Collection as a trading style with Information Commissioners Office. I don't theink there's any connection - indeed, Waller's company might have a cause of action against JB Debt Recovery if they were first to use the JB Debt Collection name, and could show that JB Debt Recovery are profiting by using their trading name - this is known as passing-off. This may be a bit of a red herring, but I thought it worth mentioning.

 

According to the OFT, the people behind JB Debt Recovery are:

 

Celia & Jack Bunyer

 

The people behind Asset Collection and Investigations are:

 

Ann Neville

James Aitken

James Sherry Brown

 

It gets more interesting, however, because JB Debt Recovery don't have a consumer credit licence - it lapsed and has not been renewed.

 

The company registration number that JB Debt Recovery shows on their entry in the consumer credit licence database, and which is on their comp slip above, when entered on Companies House search, is returned as 'not found' - unsurprising really, because JB Debt Recovery Ltd., the company which held a consumer credit licence, doesn't exist - the registration number belongs to JB (Ventures) Ltd. - another company with a lapsed consumer credit licence - it was called JB Debt Recovery Ltd until 2001. Surely 7 years is long enough to sort their admin out?

 

JB's website says:

 

All of our tracing and collection activities are undertaken in full compliance with the relevant legislation. JB DEBT RECOVERY can present licenses for the key authorities:

 

CSA

OFT

 

Several self-stroking trade associations

 

So, JBDR can't legally collect debt if they don't have a consumer credit licence, and Assets etc. is dormant and can't process data.

 

It goes without saying that the pompous CSA is not a licencing authority. However, JB say that they comply with the CSA Code of Practice - indeed, they claim to have written it. We all know that CPUTR considers that failing to comply with a code a trader has subscribed to is unfair trading, and the very first sentence of the CSA Code is (drum roll) that business must be conducted lawfully. So, add a complaint to the CSA to the list, and follow it up to Trading Standards and FOS.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I'd hold fire on that for the moment, and let them keep digging.

 

I'll stick something up later that you could send to Argos, and something for OFT.

[ScarletPimpernel]

It seems that Jack Bunyer, who was named as a former 'officer' of JB Debt Recovery on the OFT website, is the owner of Global Debt Recovery. Debt collecting does seem to be a somewhat incestuous world, doesn't it?

 

Incidentally, it seems that a Celia and Jack Bunyer gave £50 to 1 LANCS who did the London Marathon for charity, so at least a tiny bit of their ill-gotten gain is going to good use.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Indeed. The further they go, the more trouble they will end up in. In many ways, letting them go to court would be the best way to ensure that they get a good shoeing. The various enforcement agencies are flaccid to say the least.

 

If they brought a claim, the defence would be most interesting!

 

I think it's worth chasing Argos. I had an unexpectedly busy day today, but will doa suitable letter later on.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Dear Argos

 

I am writing to you because under the Office of Fair Trading Guidance on Debt Collection, you have third-party responsibility for the behaviour any debt collection agency you employ.

 

In this case, one of the debt collection agencies, JB Debt Recovery Ltd of 176 Bath Road, Glasgow G2 4HG has been pursuing me, as has its alter-ego Asset Collection and Investigations Ltd.

 

This letter is a formal complaint about the following points:

 

JB Recovery does not possess a valid consumer credit licence; trading as a debt collector without the correct licence is a criminal offence. The company registration number on their stationery is false, and belongs to a different company. This company appears to have supplied different registered office addresses to the OFT and Companies House.

 

Asset Collection and Investigation is a separate company, and is shown as dormant, i.e. not trading. Its statutory returns are considerably overdue. It's letterhead fails to show its registered office, contrary to the Companies Act. Asset Collection and Investigation is not registered as a data processor with the Information Commissioner, yet is clearly processing data - an offence.

 

Notwithstanding your choice of debt collection agencies, the facts remain that Argos remains in default of a formal request pursuant to s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Whilst in default, no payment may be demanded, and yet the agents you have employed have continued to ignore their legal obligation - but then, they seem to have had plenty of practice.

 

Whilst I will be reporting the above companies to the relevant enforcement agencies, I still require your proposals to resolve my complaints.

 

Yours etc

 

Alter to suit.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I note that s.36(A) of the CCA 2006 imposes a duty upon holders of consumer credit licences to notify the OFT of any changes to its circumstances, such as registered office address. It is already an offence to fail to notify Companies House of any change. I suspect that if you look at my earlier posts the DCAs involved here may not have complied with their obligations.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Just back from a wedding...

 

Change this:

 

Notwithstanding your choice of debt collection agencies, the facts remain that Argos remains in default of a formal request pursuant to s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Whilst in default, no payment may be demanded, and yet the agents you have employed have continued to ignore their legal obligation - but then, they seem to have had plenty of practice.

to (unless they sent you an agreement, T&C at the time of execution, and a compliant statement of account - which I doubt):

 

Notwithstanding your choice of debt collection agencies, the facts remain that Argos remains in default of a formal request pursuant to s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, in that all the required documentation was not supplied. Whilst in default, no payment may be demanded, and yet the agents you have employed have continued to ignore their legal obligation - but then, they seem to have had plenty of practice. From the papers that were supplied, it is clear that the document your agent averred is the executed credit agreement does not contain the terms prescribed by s.61 of the CCA 1974, and is thus unenforceable by virtue of s.127(3).

Personally, I'd leave the illegibility bit out for the moment.

 

I mentioned the bit about s.36(A) for when you report the DCA to OFT/TS/FOS/Companies House. I think we've given Argos enough to think about for the moment.

[ScarletPimpernel]

So, Argos say:

 

We can confirm that JB Debt Recovery and ATI (Asset Trace & Investigation) are trading names of J B Ventures Ltd.

 

What they don't explain is the total absence of any mention of ATI under the ICO registration:

 

Data Controller: JB VENTURES LIMITED

Address:

176 BATH STREET

GLASGOW

G2 4HG

Other Names:

JB DEBT RECOVERY

 

Nor do they explain why the letter you had was from ATI Ltd., a limited company in its own right, which, as previously revealed, is dormant and has failed to file its accounts.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Won`t that be under the Data Protection Register? They have quoted a Registration Reference of Z7075075.

 

 

 

ATI is not shown under that registration number, or any other.

[ScarletPimpernel]

JB Ventures are registered under the number given. However, they are supposed to also register all 'other names' that they use, and this is what they have not done.

 

There is no registration relating to ATI as a seperate company - which the letterhead they sent you shows it to be. If the company is a 'trading name' of another company, then they shouldn't be using the letterhead showing it to be a company in its own right.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Why not remind MIL that they need to comply with the Companies Act 2006. Here's the information they've unlawfully missed off their letterhead:

 

Registered office:

 

WOODLANDS COURT, TRURO BUSINESS

PARK, TRURO

CORNWALL

TR4 9NH

 

Their correspondence address is:

 

Palace Building

Quay Street

TRURO

Cornwall

TR1 2HE

 

This is it. They just have an office in the building:

 

 

According to their entry on the OFT database, MIL's 'legal formation' status is as a charity or trade union - could they have provided incorrect information? I strongly suspect that 'Paul Edwards' is really Alan or Karina Davis, the pair that own the company. As if operating a DCA wasn't enough, MIL are apparently also marketing consultants - what busy people!

[ScarletPimpernel]

Mmmm, interesting SP.

 

Where do you find this info?

 

 

[ScarletPimpernel]

GREAT BRITAIN SPEND THE NUMBER THEN BLAME SOMEBODY ELSE

 

Thank you for that insightful contribution. Please feel free to tell us all what it means.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I thought it sounded like a New Labour policy statement...

[ScarletPimpernel]

I think the letter is too long.

 

Stick to the facts and the points you need to stop them in their tracks. I don't think it's necessary to quote chunks of law - let them spend their own time looking it up.

 

 

Dear Clowns

 

Re: Acct no.xxxxxxx

 

I refer to your letter dated (date), which included the threat of issuing a Statutory Demand Notice. I do not acknowledge any debt to you or any company you claim to represent.

 

This alleged debt is disputed on the grounds that it includes unfair and/or unlawful charges. In addition the PPI connected to the account was missold and I will be claiming a full refund of all premiums paid. I do not understand why your clients, who are well aware of the dispute, continue to pass the account to one debt collection agency after another, knowing that failing to suspend collection activity when a debt is disputed is contrary to the Office of Fair Trading Guidance on Debt Collection.

 

Furthermore, your clients remain in default of a formal request dated (date) made pursuant to s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and s.78(6) therefore applies. Although your client failed to comply fully with my request, they did send a document they averred to be a true copy of the credit agreement, which did not contain the terms prescribed in s.61 of the Act and is therefore unenforceable under s.127(3).

 

In the circumstances, your threat to issue a Statutory Demand is contrary to s.7(2)e. of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Be assured that if, notwithstanding the above, you issue a Statutory Demand I will bring your failure to comply with your legal and regulatory obligations to the Court's attention when I have the SD set aside with costs.

 

You should take this letter as a formal complaint about your breaches of the OFT Guidance and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. I require you to deal with my complaint under the complaint procedure required by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. You should send me a copy of the procedure without delay.

 

Take notice that I require any further communication in this matter to be in writing. For the avoidance of doubt, this means that you must not telephone me again; if you do, I will consider your actions amount to harassment and respond accordingly.

 

If you do not understand any part of this letter, you should seek professional advice.

 

Yours etc.

 

 

Don't tell them about their breach of the Companies Act - just report them. You can do this by email to Companies House.