Cabot Financial harass my 11 year old granddaughter

[ActionAgainstHarassment]

Cabot Financial appear to be the most unethical company currently operating in the UK.


Cabot have been telephoning my 11 year old granddaughter on her mobile telephone, (it is registered in my name) and despite her being very clear when speaking to them that she was an 11 year old girl they still continued to call.


On the 4th June a letter was delivered to Cabot requesting that they cease and desist from this activity. Again this has been ignored. Each and every day, (with the exception of Sunday's) calls are received on my granddaughter's telephone. At least one per day but more often two per day or more. The last call was at 12:47pm today 24th June 2013. Please be aware that by granddaughter has been made fully aware of Cabots behaviour and there is a call blocker on the telephone so she is not having to deal with their unethical tactics.


We are of course keeping a log of all the calls, and wait to see how long this extraordinary and unethical behaviour will continue. They will be reported to the authorities and the press will also be informed.


On the 30th May 2013 Encore Capital Group Announced an Agreement to Acquire Controlling Stake in Cabot Credit Management.


Encore's President and CEO Ken Vecchione stated “This acquisition represents a long-term commitment for Encore,” said Vecchione. “Our two companies are culturally aligned to enable outstanding collaboration, and share the same respect and concern for the consumer.”


Interesting perspective on sharing "the same respect and concern for the consumer" Mr Vecchione! The same press release stated "The company, (Cabot), prides itself on its ethical values and high standards"...Indeed.


The Board of Directors comprises of:-


Neil Clyne - Group Chief Executive
Glen Crawford - Group Managing Director
Chris Ross-Roberts - Group Chief Financial Officer
Steve Mound - Group Chief Operating Officer


Full details of the operating companies, their directors can be found on the Companies House website http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/


The person who leads the charge in terms collections is Andrew Hughes - who entiltles himself Head of Collections Strategy - and what a strategy Mr Hughes!You can find Andrew Hughes full details on LinkedIn.


Finally please help me to help you. Many here and on other forums appear to have suffered rudeness, unethical behaviour and more. Please keep a record of your contacts with Cabot, both good and bad.


This company must be stopped.

[ruthie59]

Re: Cabot Financial harass my 11 year old granddaughter

I too am having issues with this company. I have written to them on numerous occasions requesting that they cease their calls only to receive a letter today stating that they will agree to stop the calls for 28 days but if I do not complete an I&E form and return it to them within that time, they will commence telephone activity again, using 'whatever numbers we hold for you'.

They are not entitled to ask for details on an I&E form; only a judge can do that. I agree that they should be stopped at once. I am logging all calls from them and I find it hard to believe that anyone will have anything positive to say about them.

Good luck.

[charitynjw]

Re: Cabot Financial harass my 11 year old granddaughter

Hi ActionAgainstHarassment & ruthie59

Cabot are well known to us, as are many other DCAs.

The Office of Fair Trading has issued guidelines to them all, which they promptly ignore.
You can download from the OFT site - http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/...n#.UciKsDu-q4w

[solarnewt]

Re: Cabot Financial harass my 11 year old granddaughter

It is an offence to call a person against their wishes.
see:
http://www.allpaylegal.com/news/robe...ppeal-12062013
"Roberts v Bank of Scotland plc and another appeal


Tort – Harassment. The defendant bank made or attempted to make over 500 telephone calls to the claimant in respect of her accounts with the bank. The claimant brought proceedings against the bank seeking damages for harassment. The judge found that the calls had amounted to harassment and awarded £7,500 in damages. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the bank's appeal on the basis that the judge had been right to characterise the calls as intimidation and there was no possible ground for interfering with the judge's assessment of damages."

This means -

a company does not have the right to bombard anyone with calls.
It is for the person being called to decide whether they want to discuss the matter with the caller.
You do not have to go through data for them to accept your request for the calls to stop.
They should stop calling you if you tell them to.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Cabot Financial harass my 11 year old granddaughter

Cabot have been telephoning my 11 year old granddaughter on her mobile telephone,

How much does she owe?

[solarnewt]

Re: Cabot Financial harass my 11 year old granddaughter

this kind of behaviour ( ringing family members and/or ringing the wrong person ) appears to happen a lot.

it is an outrageous invasion of privacy and I am shocked to hear that this company is ringing a child despite it being obvious to them. It would be reasonable to think that they would have already removed the number.

could an adult use the granddaughter's phone or sim card for long enough to record the company being told that they have the wrong number and to stop ringing it. They should actually stop ringing but they probably won't.

these type of calls affect the people who, when making a Data Subject Access request, cant access records of the calls made because the company's know that it is arguable who the data belongs to or who the phone number call log records belong to.

some companies delete records of calls that were not answered, and then no records are kept.

Despite the company's saying the calls may be recorded, transcripts may not be available.

if you want to stop the calls, you may have to prove that they are happening yourself.

[bluebottle]

Re: Cabot Financial harass my 11 year old granddaughter

If no money is owed, then Cabot's actions are ultra vires. If they have been served with a Cease and Desist letter, but have threatened to resume harassment, I would take that as a clear indication that an ex parte (without notice) injunction under Section 3, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is required. You do not have to inform Cabot you are applying for one. Even if you do owe money, DCAs have no right whatsoever to engage in harassment.

I am attaching an electronic copy of Court Form PF39CH and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The form is the one used to apply for injunctions. A prohibitory injunction attracts a court fee of £175. On the day the injunction is applied for or within 3 working days thereof, an N1 claim must be made against the subject(s) of the injunction. This claim will be heard by a Circuit Judge who will then make the injunction permanent.

Sometimes, this is the only way to drive home to DCAs the law has a way of dealing with their behaviour. Breaching an injunction carries criminal sanctions which include a fine, imprisonment or both.

[ActionAgainstHarassment]

Re: Cabot Financial harass my 11 year old granddaughter

If no money is owed, then Cabot's actions are ultra vires. If they have been served with a Cease and Desist letter, but have threatened to resume harassment, I would take that as a clear indication that an ex parte (without notice) injunction under Section 3, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is required. You do not have to inform Cabot you are applying for one. Even if you do owe money, DCAs have no right whatsoever to engage in harassment.

I am attaching an electronic copy of Court Form PF39CH and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The form is the one used to apply for injunctions. A prohibitory injunction attracts a court fee of £175. On the day the injunction is applied for or within 3 working days thereof, an N1 claim must be made against the subject(s) of the injunction. This claim will be heard by a Circuit Judge who will then make the injunction permanent.

Sometimes, this is the only way to drive home to DCAs the law has a way of dealing with their behaviour. Breaching an injunction carries criminal sanctions which include a fine, imprisonment or both.

Thank you for this. To be clear to everyone in this thread, they have been made aware in writing that they are telephoning an 11 year old girl and have been formally requested to cease and desist.

However the calls continue at the rate of 2 per day.

I have no intention of them being allowed to continue and intend to continue to build a record of the calls before taking further action.

Thank you all.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Cabot Financial harass my 11 year old granddaughter

Why not change the number?

[bluebottle]

Re: Cabot Financial harass my 11 year old granddaughter

Thank you for this. To be clear to everyone in this thread, they have been made aware in writing that they are telephoning an 11 year old girl and have been formally requested to cease and desist.

However the calls continue at the rate of 2 per day.

I have no intention of them being allowed to continue and intend to continue to build a record of the calls before taking further action.

Thank you all.

That would be wise, but ensure the young lady is not distressed by Cabot's cretinous behaviour. However, evidence of distress is very persuasive to a judge when applying for an injunction.

[ruthie59]

Re: Cabot Financial harass my 11 year old granddaughter

I received a letter today today from Cabot assuring me that they have now deleted my telephone number from their system.

However, the previous letter to this (see above post) stated that if I failed to submit an I&E form they would commence contact by telephone!

Is this a case of left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing? I can't wait for their next phone call so that I can throw the book, and whatever else comes to hand at them.

Watch this space!

[charitynjw]

Re: Cabot Financial harass my 11 year old granddaughter

Good old British Gas - they paved the way!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02...bt_collection/

[wales01man]

Re: Cabot Financial harass my 11 year old granddaughter

surely you can block a number on mobile phones?you can do everthing else with them.this would save everyone fron grief or im im wrong

[jon1965]

Re: Cabot Financial harass my 11 year old granddaughter

Not all ordinary or non smart phones allow call blocking. However the ability to block the call is not the issue, the issue is the calls being made in the first place. I did use a call blocker when a certain pDL were phoning me up to 15 times a day although sadly I lost the phone so now have no proof

[pt2537]

Re: Cabot Financial harass my 11 year old granddaughter

All England Reporter/2013/June/Roberts v Bank of Scotland plc and another appeal - [2013] All ER (D) 88 (Jun)

[2013] All ER (D) 88 (Jun)

Roberts v Bank of Scotland plc and another appeal


Court of Appeal, Civil Division

Arden, Jackson and McCombe LJJ (judgment delivered extempore)


11 June 2013

Tort - Harassment - Prohibition of harassment - Damages - Claimant's accounts with defendant bank being overdrawn - Bank inundating claimant with telephone calls - Claimant bringing proceedings seeking damages for harassment - Judge finding bank's actions amounting to harassment - Bank appealing - Whether judge erring.

Abstract
Tort - Harassment. The defendant bank made or attempted to make over 500 telephone calls to the claimant in respect of her accounts with the bank. The claimant brought proceedings against the bank seeking damages for harassment. The judge found that the calls had amounted to harassment and awarded £7,500 in damages. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the bank's appeal on the basis that the judge had been right to characterise the calls as intimidation and there was no possible ground for interfering with the judge's assessment of damages.

Digest

The claimant was an account holder with the defendant bank (the bank). The bank wanted to speak to her as she had exceeded her overdraft or credit limit on one or more of her respective accounts with the bank. The claimant did not want to speak to the bank and requested that they desist from calling her. The bank refused to do so and continued to call or attempt to call the claimant. Between December 2007 and May 2008, the bank made or attempted to make 547 telephone calls to the claimant regarding her accounts. In April 2010, the claimant issued proceedings in the county court seeking damages for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The bank denied harassment and counterclaimed for outstanding charges on the claimant's accounts totalling just over £10,000. The claimant did not contest the counterclaim. Shortly after the bank had filed its defence and counterclaim, it made a 'drop hands' offer of settlement to the claimant (the offer). That was the second such offer that the bank had made and it also included a confidentiality clause. The claimant did not respond to the offer. At a hearing in February 2012, the judge held that the bank's conduct had amounted to harassment and awarded the claimant £7,500 in damages. The counterclaim also succeeded. Both parties applied for their costs in the claim. The judge concluded that the claimant was entitled to her costs up to the date of the expiry of the offer, from which point each party would bear their own costs. The bank appealed against the findings on liability and quantum in respect of the harassment claim, and against the decision on costs.

In respect of the harassment appeal, the principal issues that fell to be determined were whether the judge had erred in: (i) failing to take into account the context of the calls, in particular that the bank had had a good reason to contact the claimant; and (ii) assessing damages at £7,500. In respect of the costs appeal, the bank submitted, inter alia, that the judge's decision on costs had been perverse.

The appeals would be dismissed.

(1) The existence of a debt did not give a lender the right to bombard the debtor with calls. It was for the debtor to decide whether they wanted to discuss the matter with the creditor.

In respect of the harassment appeal, the claimant had made it perfectly clear that she had not wanted to speak to the bank, and she had been perfectly entitled to do so. Once the bank had phoned a few times, it had been clear that no progress was to be made. Further calls had been futile and should have been stopped. The judge had been right to characterise the calls as intimidation and they had been wholly unjustified. In respect of quantum, there was no possible ground for interfering with the judge's assessment of damages.

Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2003] IRLR 102 considered; Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust [2006] 4 All ER 395 considered; Conn v Sunderland City Council [2008] IRLR 324 considered; Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] 3 All ER 304 considered; Da'Bell v National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children [2010] IRLR 19 considered.

(2) In respect of the costs appeal, the order which the judge had crafted had been one which he had been entitled to come to in the exercise of his discretion.

The claimant appeared in person.

Note all the calls no matter how trivial, make sure even unanswered calls are noted. then take them to Court under the PFHA