Possible strategy against Capquest

[basharun]

I'm thinking of putting together a possible strategy to be used against Capquest, and wanted to briefly outline what I'm considering, so that you good folk can comment and contribute, and advise.

The idea is to have a template for lodging complaints against Capquest to the Information Commissioners Office for breaching the Data Protection Act (in particular the First Principle: "Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully") in that, in its trace practices, Capquest obtained private information about you (eg. Your current address, contact numbers, work details, family and associations etc.) through unfair, misleading, and deceptive methods. The template will then list all these methods used by them and point out why these they are unfair and misleading. I'm a former Capquest trace agent, and I'll use my inside information for this.

This could potentially cause major problems for Capquest! And all comments, suggestions are welcome, especially if you have some knowledge about the Data Protection Act. I'll post more details at a later stage.

[teaboy2]

Re: Possible strategy against Capquest

By the sounds of things it will cause major problems not just for capquest but for all DCA and finanical companies!

Can you give any further details as to what questionable practices are used?

[basharun]

Re: Possible strategy against Capquest

By the sounds of things it will cause major problems not just for capquest but for all DCA and finanical companies! Can you give any further details as to what questionable practices are used?

The questionable practices relate to how Capquest obtains information about its "debtors" (the data subjests) in the process of tracing these "debtors". I'll list the practices:
1. "Fishing" letters sent to unconfirmed addresses of "debtors" (eg. known previous or last known addresses, family addresses, etc.) purport to be from DVSL (Data Verification Services Limited), and state words to the effect of "We act on behalf of our client, who is trying to re-establish contact with ..., whose previous address was ..."
2. A Capquest trace agent attempting to trace a "debtor" will phone any and all numbers for the "debtor" at any and all known addresses for the debtor, as well as neighbours at these addresses, family, associates, etc. During these calls the agent will say something along the lines of "I'm calling from DVSL and we're trying to send some correspondence we're holding for "debtor's name". I'm just trying to confirm the correct address to send it to. Do you know if he still lives at ..." the agent also asks for other information about the "debtor", such as "how long ago did he move away?", "do you know his new address?", "do you have his phone number?", "Do you know where he works?" (ie. ANY and as much information as possible that the 3rd party can give).
3. When speaking to the actual "debtor" the agent says the same as above (ie. "calling from DVSL, we have correspondence for you", and also try to obtain as much information from the "debtor" as possible.
4. When asked what DVSL is, and what it does, the standard answer by the agent is "we send out correspondence on behalf of our clients", and does NOT give any further information about this. From Capquest's perspective the idea here is that DVSL will be sending collections letters to the "debtor" on behalf of DVSL's client, Capquest, and hence the statement is true.

The practices above are misleading, deceptive and unfair (according to the 1st principle of the Data Protection Act) because:
1. While DVSL (Data Verification Services Limited) is a registered company (at Companies House), and is a registered data controller at the ICO, and is registered at any other official/legal authority, it essentially exists only on paper. Capquest Investments Ltd. owns Capquest Debt Recovery Ltd. (the company that does the tracing and collecting), and ALSO owns DVSL. The SOLE reason why Capquest created DVSL was so that it's agents can tell people that they are calling from DVSL. It is, therefore, misleading to purport that letters are from DVSL because DVSL and Capquest are essentially the same company.
2. The name "DVSL" was deliberately chosen because it can easily be confused with the DVLA. Prior to 2011 the name was "Telogram", a name also deliberately chosen in order to be confused with the "telegram" service. this indicates a deliberate attempt to mislead people.
3. Trace Agents calling people are employed by Capquest Debt Recovery Ltd, and NOT by DVSL. They are also calling from the premises of Capquest Debt Recovery Ltd, and not from the premises of DVSL. DVSL does NOT have ANY employees or premises. The statement that "I'm calling from DVSL" is, therefore, a clear and deliberate misrepresentation.
4. DVSL does NOT hold or send any correspondence on behalf of Capquest, or any other "clients". It is NOT a mail/correspondence company in any way (or, at least, in the way that is deliberately implied to people).
5. Capquest is NOT a client of DVSL, and in fact, DVSL does NOT have ANY clients. The statement that "we send out correspondence on behalf of clients" is, therefore, also a deliberate misrepresentation.

Schedule 1 to the Data protection Act states that the 1st data protection principle is that "personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully". Under the Act "Processing" means "obtaining, recording, holding, etc.".
The website of the Information Commissioners Office further states that the 1st principle means that data controllers (like Capquest) "must be transparent about how they intend to use the data, and give individuals appropriate privacy notices when collecting their personal data." The website further states that "Assessing whether information is being processed fairly depends partly on how it is obtained. In particular, if ANYONE is deceived or misled when the information is obtained, then this is unlikely to be fair", and "The Data protection Act says that information should be treated as being obtained fairly if it is provided by a person who is legally authorised, or required, to provide it."

Since the methods used by Capquest to obtain information about individuals are misleading, deceptive and unfair, and since the people providing this information (ie. 3rd party neighbours, family etc.) are not legally authorised, or required, to provide it, I strongly feel that Capquest is in breach of the Data Protection Act.

I would really appreciate any help in drafting this, and any input about where t go with this.

[Crispybacon]

Re: Possible strategy against Capquest

The questionable practices relate to how Capquest obtains information about its "debtors" (the data subjests) in the process of tracing these "debtors". I'll list the practices:
1. "Fishing" letters sent to unconfirmed addresses of "debtors" (eg. known previous or last known addresses, family addresses, etc.) purport to be from DVSL (Data Verification Services Limited), and state words to the effect of "We act on behalf of our client, who is trying to re-establish contact with ..., whose previous address was ..."

You mean like this one:

Letters from DCA's - Some sample letters you may have received - Page 3

Should be treated like the toilet paper it is written on!

Best
Crispy

[basharun]

Re: Possible strategy against Capquest

You mean like this one:

Letters from DCA's - Some sample letters you may have received - Page 3

Should be treated like the toilet paper it is written on!

Best
Crispy

Yes, exactly. This is the fishing letter used by Capquest. It breaches the 1st Principle of the DPA because:
The recipient is made to believe that it comes from DVSL (and may also even confuse this with the DVLA). The letter appears to be something like an innocent "mix-up", and an innocent request for information about the named person so that the letter can be sent to the right address. Notice that the letter specifically asks for information about the person's address (ie. private information). According to the DPA the method of obtaining private information about a person must not be unfair, deceptive, or misleading.
Since DVSL exists only on paper, is owned by Capquest (DVSL IS Capquest), and the true purpose of the letter is to obtain the debtor's address for the purpose of debt collection by Capquest, it's clear that there is deception involved in obtaining this info from the recipients.

[Crispybacon]

Re: Possible strategy against Capquest

Yes, exactly. This is the fishing letter used by Capquest. It breaches the 1st Principle of the DPA because:
The recipient is made to believe that it comes from DVSL (and may also even confuse this with the DVLA). The letter appears to be something like an innocent "mix-up", and an innocent request for information about the named person so that the letter can be sent to the right address. Notice that the letter specifically asks for information about the person's address (ie. private information). According to the DPA the method of obtaining private information about a person must not be unfair, deceptive, or misleading.
Since DVSL exists only on paper, is owned by Capquest (DVSL IS Capquest), and the true purpose of the letter is to obtain the debtor's address for the purpose of debt collection by Capquest, it's clear that there is deception involved in obtaining this info from the recipients.

It is also a breach of OFT664 and the Credit Services Association standards (of which Cr@pquest are allegedly members) for letter formats (a standard which apparently was drawn up with guidance from the OFT).

Doesn't stop them. The problem is that the income generated by these scumbags from these letters far outweighs the fines and slap on the wrist they get when they get caught, because unfortunately enough people do not complain about them to the OFT.

Theres many reasons for this; naivety, fear (of being in debt and DCA's), shame (of being in debt), or people just being ignorant of how these companies should conduct themselves.

Until there are proper mechanisms for really hurting these companies they will continue. The best an individual can do is arm themselves with the knowledge of the rules and guidelines these companies should adhere to, and when they inevitably breach them, complain to the DCA and the regulatory bodies, and let the DCA know you have done this. They soon back off, and if the FOS or OFT do investigate they may get fined.

The only way Cr@pquest are going to stop, is if the toothless OFT decide to revoke their CCL. Lets face it, how many years and complaints did it take the OFT to finally revoke the license of Yes loans?

But I appreciate your insight as someone who has worked there!

Best
Crispy

[susieq]

Re: Possible strategy against Capquest

Capquest (DVSL) strike again, I have just phoned after an elderly lady I have never met living in the same street called at the door to say she had been called by someone asking if she knew who lived at my house, she did a 1471 and brought me the number. I rang them ( on a witheld number) spoke to ANDY on 01252576376, and told him i was giving his name and this number to the oilice for harassing elderly people. Legal People, is it not illegal to ring random people and ask for details on others????

[MIKE770]

Re: Possible strategy against Capquest

Capquest (DVSL) strike again, I have just phoned after an elderly lady I have never met living in the same street called at the door to say she had been called by someone asking if she knew who lived at my house, she did a 1471 and brought me the number. I rang them ( on a witheld number) spoke to ANDY on 01252576376, and told him i was giving his name and this number to the oilice for harassing elderly people. Legal People, is it not illegal to ring random people and ask for details on others????

Right now you have them --- forward a complaint to F.O.S. they have broken Financial Guidelines for this deed.

[whmb]

Re: Possible strategy against Capquest

Hello folks. I've had my first dealings with this company when they phoned out of the blue relating to a small matter from a number of years ago. Rather than simply respond to their methods I'm interested in taking the approach outlined here.

My case could be a useful test. Basically I want to force transparency and reveal as much about the company as possible. I'd like to help reveal the illegal aspects of their practice and ultimately help tell a story and develop the templates mentioned above.

I'm being deliberately vague as I think the particulars are best discussed privately. If there's any interest in this can you message me directly? I hope to hear from you. Thanks.

[bluebottle]

Re: Possible strategy against Capquest

Capquest (DVSL) strike again, I have just phoned after an elderly lady I have never met living in the same street called at the door to say she had been called by someone asking if she knew who lived at my house, she did a 1471 and brought me the number. I rang them ( on a witheld number) spoke to ANDY on 01252576376, and told him i was giving his name and this number to the oilice for harassing elderly people. Legal People, is it not illegal to ring random people and ask for details on others????

Yes it is. And it's also a breach of CapQuest's CCA Licence. This should be reported to the OFT Credit Fitness Team without delay. The best way is by email to enquiries@oft.gsi.gov.uk. Insert CREDIT FITNESS into the subject box. Give a clear and concise resume of your complaint and include the following details in your complaint -

Company Name: CapQuest Debt Recovery Limited
Credit Licence No.: 475757

Forward a copy of the email to Trading Standards.