Transferring data between (Europe) and (UK)

[djdave]

Here's one for you.

 

Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd are a registered data controller (Z5415234 if anybody's counting) who claim to own my alleged debt.

 

At no time have I ever given them my consent to process or share my personal data.

 

And yet my Experian credit report contains an entry from Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd, for the purposes of the Data Protect Act a seperate data controller (Z7064593).

 

Obviously they're part of the same parent company, but if they're registered as seperate data controllers do they have any right whatsoever to pass my data around amongst themselves like this?

 

[debt_mountain]

Our belief is no, there are a few court case looming that are taking up this point so we should have a legal answer in the next couple of months.

 

Cabot will argue that they have a right to do this and try to quote chunks of the DPA in support of their claims but as said in many other threads it is down to the CCA or the LoP. If their is no CCA then what gave them the right and if there is a CCA then they fall at the LoP as the assignment is very dodgy indead.

 

they are trying to be soooo cleaver with this stuff never expecting anyone to ever question their hard handed tactics.

[Seahorse]

DJDave, it's actually Cabot UK who own the debt. Europe act as their "collection agents". (Aye, right. A company with no employees owns a debt. Pfffttt.)

 

So the question really is, why do the OC's pass your data directly to Europe, bypassing UK? Which MUST happen, as UK claim not to hold any data.

 

So the OC's would appear to be unlawfully passing data to a third party who has no right to it in the first place.

[patrickq1]

THE DATA PROTECTION ACT

WE may well wonder why we have this act in the first place,so many millions and so many hours spent formulating our rights to protection against abuse this act when FOUR LITTLE WORDS can completely destroy the whole point of the ACT,

What does it mean THE DATA PROTECTION ACT...Protection from what ?

the "WE/I WAIVER OUR/My RIGHTS"

an anti-avoidance provision designed for evasion of the Data Protection Act.in other words the REPUGNANCE RULE should now take precedents over this statement WE/I WAIVEROUR/MY RIGHTs ,this Waiver is unlawful as we have no alternative it is an agreement within an agreement ,their is no alternative to negotiate this term unless it comes in the form of another contract wether we would like to agree or not to agree..the need for the credit is paramount otherwise you would have no need for borrowing,

even when you open an account with anyone or anybody wether it be finance or not this term is in whatever contractual basis you happen to find yourself in...it is unfair and makes a mockery of the LAW as i have said so many times it is Another device for securing control. the formulation of the act was for our protection against abuse in particular against finance and banks from abusing our RIGHTS TO PRIVACY...yet now we see a massive wholesale abuse of our rights a wholesale abuse of the Law and wholesale abuse of the LAW IN GENERAL ..because no alternative was offered ,this waiver should have been first noticed by the FOS/FSA/Information Commissioners Office/TS...all of them still have the opertunity to right this wrong.and give us back our rights to privacy...if companies want to put our names on a list be it equifax experium etc their are proceeding within the courts to help them but it also then protects them of their intrests...

patrickq1

BERR - Search results

[Seahorse]

You cannot waive your rights under any law in this manner. The words are meaningless. Ignore them if they are present in any contract you sign.

[patrickq1]

Cabot UK every time i go on your blog i have a chuckle,cant help it brilliant blog and all i can say if only we could put a stop to them behaving like gangsters and being accountable to their own set of lawless terms one day you will more than likely put cabot out of the game sooner rather than later seahorse,i know i go on about data protection but it is all we have at this moment even though it is meant to stop abuse they carry on,so i await your good fortune and admire the superb work you do...it is good for everyone else to see someone with the tenacity and determination to take on the unlawfullnes...

patrickq1

due to my illness i will not take any matters up with my debt problems but after oct when i get my ops i will then be able to start some positive work in this dept

[Seahorse]

If Cabot lose their licence, it will be a miracle. Does anyone honestly believe that the various regulatory bodies actually do anything more than give give naughty companies a stern telling off?

 

Look at Ruthbridge. They blatantly break the law to such an extent that you'd imagine they would have been shut down ages ago. But despite all the complaints that must have been made about them, they continue to operate like the gangsters they are.

 

I actually think there is a need for companies like Cabot. But ONLY if they operate ethically and within the law. Sadly, they either genuinely consider that they already do, or don't care because they know they can get away with it.

 

So really, the aim of the site is to help educate those Cabot "customers" who have the wit to check them out on the internet, so they realise they DON'T have to just pay up in blissful ignorance without checking facts for themselves.

 

And as the blog reates rather highly in the search engines, it's a safe bet that a LOT of Cabot income will be reduced as a result. Shame. But then, if folks don't owe it, why should they pay it?

[djdave]

If Cabot lose their licence, it will be a miracle. Does anyone honestly believe that the various regulatory bodies actually do anything more than give give naughty companies a stern telling off?

I share your frustration, but it's catch 22. Very few people bother reporting rogue companies because they don't believe anything will happen, very little happens because so few people bother complaining.

 

For my part, I've reported Cabot to the OFT, Information Commissioners Office and FOS; and will take them to Court if necessary. My complaints may very well fall on deaf ears, but if enough of us make it clear to the regulators that we are not prepared to tolerate unlawful and unethical behaviour then eventually they'll be forced to act.

 

Two years ago the banks weren't scared to ride roughshod over individuals. Now after a succession of court cases they've realised it's costing them millions. I believe it's the turn of the debt purchasing industry.

[andrew1]

Lets just keep thrashing this issue about. Uk buy the debt (Europe)ltd process everything. In the Sales Agreements between the banks and Cabot it clearly states that only a % of basic data will be transferred with the sale document. ie: if they bought 2000 debts they are not accompanied by any proof of alleged debtor owing the debt. Yet the debt is chased, a default registered by (UK)Ltd despite them never writing to the Debtor saying they own the debt and yet (Europe) Ltd have a free hand to pass your data about to suit themselves on the premise that (Europe)Ltd is the owners (UK)Ltd ' Administration agent '

 

I would like as many views as possible as to the lawfulness of this no matter how controversial to put with our other legal challenges ......

[djdave]

Well in my case it's claimed that "the Cabot Group" bought my alleged debt. As there's no such limited company as "the Cabot Group" I've asked them to clarify the exact name of the company which they claim owns my alleged debt, and to provide details of any other companies to whom they've passed my data along with evidence of my consent to do so.

 

I'll let you know what they say....

[Seahorse]

Did you not get a letter saying Cabot Financial (UK) Limited are now the owner of your account? What, no Notice of Assignment? Oh dear, Cabot. What are you playing at?

[elizabeth1]

Lets just keep thrashing this issue about. Uk buy the debt (Europe)ltd process everything. In the Sales Agreements between the banks and Cabot it clearly states that only a % of basic data will be transferred with the sale document. ie: if they bought 2000 debts they are not accompanied by any proof of alleged debtor owing the debt. Yet the debt is chased, a default registered by (UK)Ltd despite them never writing to the Debtor saying they own the debt and yet (Europe) Ltd have a free hand to pass your data about to suit themselves on the premise that (Europe)Ltd is the owners (UK)Ltd ' Administration agent '

 

I would like as many views as possible as to the lawfulness of this no matter how controversial to put with our other legal challenges ......

 

Would be interesting to hear what ICO say on this matter.

 

I don't feel that these two companies should be sharing data - they are registered as different companies albeit they do have same directors. The registrations are completely independant for each company - I thought and understood that only one company could be Data Controller for any given accounts?

 

 

For my hubbies stuff Kings Hill No1 are the people who write the crap to CRA's and share Data - but Cabot Europe is who'd they have loved us to pay money to - the phrase "Yeah!! wat eva" springs to mind LOL

 

You see the problem also is the CCA - while a valid CCA is missing neither of the Cabot companies have rights to that Data anyway - so they shouldn't be passing anything to anyone - let alone amongst their own group. I think these experts at Cabots had better pack it in - they shouldn't be doing it.

Also if it was found out that this data sharing shouldn't be going on - wouldn't the Fraud act give us more teeth to pull at Cabot with? There are more laws coming out soon as well that do give the consumer more teeth to pull these companies with December 2007 when the "Unfair Commercial Practices Directive" is supposed to become effective.

 

So never fear - it's going to be Fun, Fun, Fun for such companies in future anyways - they think they got it tough now? Tick Tock - Let's see what is around the next corner I personally can't wait to see the contents of this Directive :D

 

If this Data sharing crap isn't covered already - it may very well be amongst the "Unfair Commercial Practices Directive" -

[patrickq1]

even the goverment departments are now going to share the data in effect the DPA is defunct as i cannot see anyone prosecuting now on the basis of this report

BERR - Search results

[patrickq1]

and this is data past the six year rule so now in effect old data will become new data debts warts and all it is like a free for all

[elizabeth1]

even the goverment departments are now going to share the data in effect the Data Protection Act is defunct as i cannot see anyone prosecuting now on the basis of this report

BERR - Search results

 

Yes - but the point would be there would have to be "proper enforceable" CCA's in place for this to happen. Fair Processing would take place?

 

With the Cabot UK/Europe data sharing issues - in most (if not all) the CCA's aren't in place so Cabots have no rights to be sharing data with anyone anyway?

[Seahorse]

Correct. Elizabeth. IF Cabot had a lawful right to collect on a debt, then theoretically, the DPA would allow them to share data with a 3rd party if that sharing was to facilitate the administration of the account. Just as the OC would have the same right to share data in a similar fashion, eg Barclaycard with Mercers.

 

BUT. In the face of no agreement, therefore no right to chase for money, therefore no right to data in the first place - by definition they cannot share that which they have unlawfully obtained.

 

I guess their saying that UK does not hold any data gets THAT company off the hook, as they cannot pass on what they don't have. Which just leads to the conclusion that the OC's have passed data directly to Europe, a company which they have NO agreement with, and therefore cannot pass data to.

 

I might sound like pure pedantry, but to abide by the letter of the law, the OC MUST pass data to Cabot UK. What happens to that data afterwards is up to Cabot UK, and if they, lawfully or otherwise, feel the need to pass it on to an authorised 3rd party such as Cabot Europe, then that is their concern.

 

It is NOT OK for the OC to pass data directly to Cabot Europe. They did not assign the account to Europe, so by passing on that data to them, it is my not-so-humble opinion that the OC is acting unlawfully.

 

I think I'll just write to Barclaycard seperately about that issue. Maybe make that a seperate formal complaint. Then I can include it in my illegal seling of data when the ICO get back to me.

[andrew1]

The trouble with this Seahorse is that in the Sales Agreements between the Seller and the Buyer, the sale is in all cases, between xx bank and Cabot Financial (UK)Ltd aka Kingshill (No 1)Ltd. but all instructions are the for the information to be passed to their "Buyers Servicer" meaning in the agreement definitions Cabot Financial (Europe)Ltd and payment for said transaction into the "Buyers Servicers Account" (Got the account number too if you want it? ).

 

So, the only thing that seems to pass between the Buyer and the Seller is the Agreement document itself all 50 odd pages of it - nothing else.

[Seahorse]

So you think I'd be on dodgy ground by complaining? Well, then. I think I need to see that sales agreement between Barclaycard and Kings Hill.

 

Or at least, go via the ICO to see if that is indeed the case.