Problems with Zinc Collections and Vanquis

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

breaches of OFT guidance

Section 2.4 (b) may apply as may 2.3 implying the threat of legal action

2.6 (i) disclosing matters to a third party

2.6(a) unreasonable contact frequency and times.

2.6 (j) acting in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing eg the calls your work place.

I would suggest reporting this to the OFT immediately.

[james2011]

Thanks everyone. Shall I wait to hear Vanquis position before say anything further to him? I send them a similar letter.

 

Also he asked me to send him the Section 40 requests to help him in his investigation. Shall I? I also have written statements from colleagues shall send him a sample like one of the statements to show I've got further proof?

[teaboy2]

I would send a response to him with the copies of the section 40 notices you original sent and copies of statements from your colleagues. It's best to help him to investigate by providing such information, as it also proves to them you have a strong case and witnesses to the events etc. So in the long run co-operating will strengthen your position. But once they start asking for payments again, then stop all communication and issue proceddings against them.

 

As for vanquis, well just wait see what there response is for now, as until we get their response theres not alot we can do and say further to them.

[RoyalIrish]

Bump!

[james2011]

Have send all the statements to him and the 2 Section 40 requests. In one of the statements my colleague states that he said he was chasing money from me, in the other 2 statements my two other colleagues have stated that he demanded to speak to my manager, he accused one of my colleagues for not telling the truth (that basically I was not in a meeting) and he asked for her name along with my manager's name. In two othe statements as written by my colleagues the person on the phone has stated that he has left me a number of messages and I haven't got back to him. So he was clever enough to admit this as well.

 

Anyway would be interesting to see what the response will be, Mr. McManus said he is going to Glasgow on Friday and will conduct the investigation himself.

Edited March 16, 2011 by james2011

[PriorityOne]

Hi James.... thanks for the PM... just found your thread....

 

First thing.... send a CCA request to whoever is currently chasing you for payment. Do not sign the letter; initial it, enclose the £1 fee (postal order) and send by rec. delivery.

 

Secondly, draft out a complaint to Consumer Direct and the OFT (if you have not already done so) about the calls to your workplace..... post on here/PM for checking if you prefer..... and then send be rec. delivery separately form the CCA request.

 

Then wait....

 

In the meantime.... how old is this account and how much is alleged to be outstanding on it?

[james2011]

Thanks PriorityOne,

 

Will follow your suggestion tonight.

 

One of the things I am worrying about is the fact that the minute I queried something they gave my account to another debt collection agency (or maybe it was Wescot who didn't want to deal with it can not possibly know what happened there), so effectively this might hapen again now and have to start all over again.

 

In any case to answer your question, they are chasing me for £421 original debt £200. The problem started after a failed direct direct which i did not realise at that point, Vanquis kept requesting money from my account(i think they presented the DD that month about 5 times) and the bank deleted the DD. Neither my bank or Vanquis told me about it and then the charges just started building up. Can't remember getting a default on the account, not saying there is not one but I haven't seen it. I had the card for quite a few years but the debt is only outstanding since summer maybe or September.

 

Sorry one more thing, been on the OFT website and it does not look that they are accepting complaints by individuals?

[james2011]

Reply from Zinc Recoveries:

 

 

Dear Mr Xxxx

*

Further to our discussions and your e mail below, I have returned from our Glasgow operation and would like to update you on our investigations so far.

*

In my opinion your situation falls into two categories, the original section 40 notice, issued to a previous company, which lead to your account coming to ourselves in error and our compounding of the situation with calls to your place of employment.

*

An investigation of why your account came to us, is underway between our clients and the previous company, however I would suspect that it is down to human error around a miss keying of a closure code when your account was returned to our clients, and hence it was subsequently sent to ourselves in error.

*

As advised I have interviewed our Mr Xxxx who is a relatively new employee with ourselves, he has confirmed that he did ask on a couple off occasions to speak with your manager, his reasoning for this, was that he had left a number of messages for you to which*he had not received a response, and required to ensure the messages were being received,*he would not have been aware of your section 40 notice at that time.

*

I have advised Mr xxxx that this type of action would not be condoned by ourselves under our TCF (Treating Customer Fairly) ethos, and that he should discuss any issues like this with our training and compliance division for guidance, and they can request*guidance from our regulatory bodies.

*

I do have to confirm that Mr Xxxx denies leaving any message pertaining to the detail of your account, or its monitory position.

*

I can assure you once again, that Mr Xxxx meant no malice in his attempt to contact you only that he wished to resolve the situation amicably, the above said and as I said in my previous mail I do not believe we have handled this account properly and lessons need to be learnt for the future, which I have instructed our compliance team to work on.

*

I fully appreciate that you have*found this whole situation unacceptable, and I would like to look to compensate you for the errors, before I can do this may I ask you to confirm your position.

*

Whilst I appreciate you are under no requirement to do so, but may I confirm why you did not return any of Mr xxxxx call and explain the section 40 to him, thereby alleviating the situation.

*

As mentioned above I am in discussions with our clients in relation to the section 40 notice, and before any further discussion around your account can take place, could you confirm if any action has been undertaken in relation to a complaint or questions being asked of*any of our regulatory or legislative bodies, as obviously we would have to await the outcome of their investigation should there be one underway, before we could propose a solution.*

*

In conclusion I would once again offer you both my own and the companies sincerest apologies for the inconvenience*caused and hopefully I can offer a resolution once I hear back from you.

*

Kindest Regards

*

D J McManus..................******

[RoyalIrish]

Go for the jugular mate!

 

Typical DCA crap when someone has the balls to fight them.

How many others has this outfit plagued at work and caused untold grief and despair?

Take them to the cleaners and your story may inspire many others to do the same.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Definitely a hefty compo claim in this one

Good Luck

[DonkeyB]

I think perhaps they should be recording their outgoing calls. Maybe a subject access request to see if there are recordings of the calls? Worth trying to pull his response to bits, cos you know the operative has lied to him.

[teaboy2]

Great to see they have admitted they were in the wrong. Looks like hes willing to pay you compensation after confirmation as to why you did not respond to his messages etc. Obivious answer was the account should never have been past onto them, which they admit. So why should you have responded to their messages when they should not even be dealing with the account or processing your data. Not only that, they should not be calling at your work place full stop.

[james2011]

Thanks everyone,

 

There are a few issues which if anyone could help would really appreciate it.

 

As to why I never answered to his calls:

1. Because is my right not to speak on the phone and I have put that in writing to them, he is not mentioning the 2nd Section 40 request in his response - hmmm very convenient.

2. Because they shouldn't be calling me at work, if their employee was not trained properly not my problem

3. If as they claim asking to speak to my manager was an innocent not malicious request to just leave a message why have they not attempted to send me a letter saying we tried to contact you but not returned our calls, can you please call us?

 

He also says that my account went to them in error. So basically my personal information has been floating around being passed from company to company? With my credit card number on it, name surname address, telephone numbers etc. Is that legal?

 

He also says that the information was passed to them in error. Why was my telephone number on that information then since I have a written confirmation from Wescott that they have deleted my phone number from their records - this is their actual wording of their letter. If it was deleted from their records how did it re-appear on the info that was passed to Zinc?

 

He mentions 4 times calling in my workplace this is a lie i have 4 written statements the number of calls where a lot more. Everyday, some days twice for 2 weeks.

 

Vanquis also send me a letter saying they are investigating my complain, they have the initial responsibility to this as well, do I need to bring them into the discussions or take each one seperately?

 

Anybody who can help with any of these really appreciated.

[Tingy]

Thanks everyone,

 

There are a few issues which if anyone could help would really appreciate it.

 

As to why I never answered to his calls:

1. Because is my right not to speak on the phone and I have put that in writing to them, he is not mentioning the 2nd Section 40 request in his response - hmmm very convenient.

2. Because they shouldn't be calling me at work, if their employee was not trained properly not my problem And against OFT Debt Collection Guidelines

3. If as they claim asking to speak to my manager was an innocent not malicious request to just leave a message why have they not attempted to send me a letter saying we tried to contact you but not returned our calls, can you please call us?

 

He also says that my account went to them in error. So basically my personal information has been floating around being passed from company to company? With my credit card number on it, name surname address, telephone numbers etc. Is that legal? Google Data Protection Act 1998. Go into the full version and near the very start are the eight fundamental principles of the DPA (these are enforceable!) - I think it's the very last one that is about transfer of data, maybe the penultimate one. Then if you go to the schedules at the end these principles are expanded on to explain in more detail what they mean. This will tell you whether a breach of DPA has occurred.

 

He also says that the information was passed to them in error. Why was my telephone number on that information then since I have a written confirmation from Wescott that they have deleted my phone number from their records - this is their actual wording of their letter. If it was deleted from their records how did it re-appear on the info that was passed to Zinc? CPUTR 2008 question to Westcott asking if they really did delete it, and if so when - there should be a record of this on your file. Remind them they could be put to strict proof of their answer should this go to court.

 

He mentions 4 times calling in my workplace this is a lie i have 4 written statements the number of calls where a lot more. Everyday, some days twice for 2 weeks.Again CPUTR 2008 question - ask him if he really only called four times. Point out again that this may be put to strict proof should it go to court which may result in them producing telephone bills which should, of course, show only four calls to your number. If he has changed his mind, again under CPUTR how many times did he honestly phone you? If it is more than four, why did he lie?

 

Vanquis also send me a letter saying they are investigating my complain, they have the initial responsibility to this as well, do I need to bring them into the discussions or take each one seperately?

 

Anybody who can help with any of these really appreciated.

 

Hope this helps a bit!

[james2011]

I got a reply from Zinc Recoveries today saying they are working with Vanquis and Wescot to propose a solution on behalf of all three of them.

 

I will let you know as soon as I hear something. I think they've realised that I won't let it go and I also think reading my responses they also realised that I must have somebody behind me advising me so it looks like they are taking me seriously. We shall see

[teaboy2]

Sounds like another success for CAG. Let us know what you hear back from them as am looking forward to hear them grovel lol

[james2011]

Reply from Zinc Collections on behalf of Zin, Wescott and Vanquis:

 

Further to our previous e mails, and after discussions between our clients and them with Westcot, I have been asked to clarify the points as follows.

Whilst the account was placed with Wescot, you requested that your telephone numbers were removed. This was actioned as requested however when the account was sent on to Zinc there was a process failure and they were not advised that telephone numbers should have been removed.

Wescot also requested statements on your behalf, but these were not provided as there appeared to have been some confusion at Vanquis that this was a Subject Access Request which requires payment and the request in writing directly to Vanquis

Zinc should not have attempted to speak to your Manager at work to leave messages and the employee in question has been advised that this is not how the account should have been handled.

Section 40 request that you previously mentioned is usually a Subject Access request, but I believe that you are referring to the removal of the phone number in this context.

I hope that this answered all your questions regarding the complaint and once again apologise for the inconvenience caused.

Regards

 

xxxx

[DonkeyB]

Apologies? Sue their hides! They have admitted everything! Job done.

[teaboy2]

"Section 40 request that you previously mentioned is usually a Subject access request"

 

Err since when has a section 40 request under the aministration of justice act, been a subject access request under the data protection act? Err never. Section 40 request is not that they remove your phone number but that they cease calling you and harassing you by phone, and instead are to communicate in writing only. It is in no way a request for data or removal of data under the data protection act. Muppets lol.

 

Seems to me they whole reasoning for the way they have dealt with this account is based on a section 40 of the administration of justice act request being a subject a access request when it is not. Also reasonable requests for statements are just that which under OFT guidelines such reasonable requests should be honoured, so request for account statements can be made without the need for a subject access request, so their excuse that vanquis was confused as to it being a "Subject Access Request which requires payment and the request in writing directly to Vanquis" is no excuse for their failure to adhere to OFT guidlines (2.2e) by honouring a reasonable request for account/balance statements.

 

 

I would respond by saying a section 40 request is a formal legal notification of protection against harassment by telephone under the administration of justice act, and is in no way connected to a subject access request under the data protection act and attach a copy of the section 40 request as a reference to for them. Also inform them that a reasonable request for account/balance statements is not subject to a subject access request either, but such reasonable request must according to OFT guidelines 2.2e be honoured by the creditor/debt collection company failure to do so would be a breah of the said guidline. Then say their excuse of their being confusion between a section 40 legal notice and a subject access request is nothing but a poor excuse when it is clear their is no relation between a section 40 and a subject access request. As such they are making up excuses to cover their backs and poor a excuse if ever i saw one. Jesus a judge would have a field day with thier excuse lol

 

These people as suppose to be well informed on leglislation yet here they clearly showing they have no idea on leglisation, but clearly they do know perfectly well what a section 40 is and what a subject access request is. So i can only conclude that they are simply making up excuses to cover their backs as its simply impossible for a person of reasonable intelligence to mistake a section 40 for a subject access request, especially when they both refer to the relevant leglisation that they are made/given under.

 

Despite their excuses they are clearly admitting they are in the wrong, but given their poor attempt to cover their backs with their extremely poor excuses, probably in order to fob you off and offer you a small goodwill gesture to as a damage limitation excerise. If i was you i would take everything to a solicitors and enter a claim against them and get some nice compensation out of them.

[james2011]

So will I need to get a solicitor for this? Is not something I will be able to take at the small claims court?

[teaboy2]

Hi James

 

It is upto you, as you can take it to the small claims court and represent yourself, or you can have a solicitor represent you in a higher court. But as they have clearly admitted they are in the wrong, regardless of their excuse, any solicitors costs would likely be awarded to you aswell, though you may want to take it to a higher court for a bigger payout, as such awards for legal costs and compo are limited in the small claims courts and may not cover your total legal costs as a result.

 

A solicitor would beable to advise you on the best course of action.