marlin nasty tactics

[gayles power]

Dear Caggers, I wonder if I could ask for a little advice.

 

I fell on hard times some years ago and was paying a very small amount to 2 different companies in 2011 for debts

I was told I had to pay by ex husband.

 

After we divorced I moved and changed banks and it looks like one or two DD's didn't get transferred over,

I heard nothing until last year and had assumed things were written off till I got a letter from Cabot last June.

I sent the CCA letter and heard nothing more.

 

Last Monday 9th June I received a phone call asking for me in my old married name.

I refused to answer the security questions, they refused to say who they were, and they hung up.

 

2 days later, 11th June, I get a letter from Marlin Financial Services saying I have 7 days to reply

as there is no good reason why the outstanding debt they now hold has not been repaid.

 

This alleged debt has been passed to them from Cabot.

 

I have no idea what debt this is, there is nothing on any of the letters that I can identify.

 

My credit record is absolutely clear.

 

The nastiness part comes in after sending Marlin the CCA letter and postal order on the 13/6/14.

 

I received 2 letters from them on the 19th.

 

One was my CCA letter and postal order back informing me that I hadn't filled in the postal order correctly,

so I wrote along the top on the line provided, ''Marlin Financial Services''

- and sent it all back 1st class recorded to sign for again.

 

The 2nd letter was threatening all sorts of litigation as there was no good reason why I hadn't arranged a payment plan with them

and the next step was solicitors and court.

 

It gave me 7 days to reply with a suitable repayment proposal, the letter is dated 14th June.

 

I received it on 19th June after coming home from work,

after the post has gone so there was no way I could reply in time for their 7 day deadline. NASTY!!

 

So the letter timeline. 1st dated 7th June, received 12th June. (To reply within 7 days).

 

CCA letter sent 13th June 1st class recorded to sign for.

 

2nd dated 14th June, received 19th June (To reply within 7 days).

 

3rd received 19th June,to fill in postal order - sent back 1st class recorded to sign for.

 

These people are not giving me any time to reply before their deadlines run out!

 

Letters are apparently spending 5 days in the postal system before they reach me!

 

The CCA request with correctly filled in postal order hasn't been signed for yet, its likely to be Monday for this:.

 

I would appreciate anyone's thoughts on what is likely to happen next.

[renegadeimp]

Ignore marlins threats. They relo on intimidation and lies to get money theyre not entitled to.

[letsgetitsorted]

Like you I am getting the same threats from Marlin, I am just ignoring, Marlin are actually now part of Cabot, they also have a company called F.I.R.E..

 

and yes the letters they send are giving 7 days to respond and are sitting in the post for 5 of those, in the hope that you will phone them to arrange a payment.

 

DONT be tempted to phone, I am not.

[gayles power]

Thank you for the reassurance. It is most appreciated. I have absolutely no intention of phoning, and am seriously considering complaining to the OFT, ICO and my MP as this appears to be an unfair and most stressful tactic on their part. fortunately I have the CAG, and, working in a job with the general public which involves chatting and its surprising what you get told, I recommend it to them at every possible opportunity.

[huggy41]

to put you at ease .

when it says within 7 days it's from when you recieved it not when they decided to post it that is why we say keep the envelopes the letters come in hope this puts you at ease.

[gayles power]

Actually Huggy41, it actually states at the bottom of the most recent letter, ''If an agreeable payment plan is not reached within 7 days of the date of this letter'', then it must have sat in an out-tray somewhere so it took 5 of those days to reach me. I think thats nasty. I have not replied to this one as the CCA request should put a hold on things...if they don't come back with more delaying tactics of course...

[dx100uk]

you say you ex husbands 'debt'

 

if you did not sign anything nor were a joint account holder

 

nowt to do with you not your debt!

 

what is the debt any ideas?

 

dx

[gayles power]

That's it, without seeing a signed agreement with my name on it and where it originally was from, I don't know. Cabot did not supply any information after I sent the CCA letter last June. They never even replied! If Marlin is part of Cabot, they should be aware of this...shouldn't they?

[dx100uk]

are your old addresses showing on your cra file?

 

 

dx

[gayles power]

Yes my old addresses show, and the names I was known by before.

[theoldrouge]

if you receive any further nonsense from Marlin,

 

send them a letter headed Formal Complaint informing them that you made a s77/78 request in respect of this account together

with the statutory fee to Cabot Financial on xx/06/2013 and as of todays date no reply has been received.

 

You therefore require Marlin to pay due regard to the guidelines of the Financial Conduct Authority,

 

Consumer Credit Sourcebook, in particular CONC 13.1.6in dealing with matter.----

Failure to comply

 

CONC 13.1.6

01/04/2014

FCA

 

(1) Failure to comply with the provisions means that the agreement becomes unenforceable while the failure to comply persists, and the courts have no discretion to allow enforcement.

(2) In such cases, a firm should in no way, either by act or omission, mislead a customer as to the enforceability of the agreement.

(3) In particular, a firm should not in such cases either threaten court action or other enforcement of the debt or imply that the debt is enforceable when it is not.

(4) The firm should, in any communication or request for payment in such cases, make clear to the customer that although the debt remains outstanding it is unenforceable.

(5) In the judgment of McGuffick -v- The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2009] EWHC 2386 (Comm) Flaux J held in a case under section 77 of the CCA that passing details of a debt to a credit reference agency and related activities do not constitute enforcement under the CCA. He also held that steps taken with a view to enforcement, including demanding payment from a claimant, issuing a default notice, threatening legal action and the actual bringing of proceedings, are not themselves 'enforcement' under the CCA. On the other hand he confirmed that the actions listed under sections 76(1) and 87(1) of the CCA did amount to enforcement notwithstanding that some of the actions 'less obviously' amounted to enforcement. These actions are demanding earlier payment, recovering possession of goods or land, treating any right conferred on the debtor by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, enforcing any security and terminating the agreement.

(6) While Flaux J agreed with the decision of HHJ Simon Brown QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Tesco Personal Finance v Rankine [2009] C.C.L.R. 3 that commencing proceedings was not enforcement, but a step taken with a view to enforcement, both he and HHJ Simon Brown appear to have been drawing a distinction between commencing proceedings and entering judgment in those proceedings.

(7) This guidance deals only with the question of whether an agreement is unenforceable in relation to sections 77, 78 and 79 of the CCA. A lender's rights to enforce an agreement may be restricted for a variety of reasons, by the Act, by or under the CCA and by virtue of the general law.

(8) However, where a firm is aware that an agreement is unenforceable because of non-compliance with an information request under section 77, 78 or 79 of the CCA, a firm should make it clear when communicating to a customer about a debt that the debt is in fact unenforceable. Failure to do so, in that case, would in the FCA's view unfairly mislead the customer by omission. Any communication that implies expressly or otherwise that a debt is enforceable when it is known that it is not, would be misleading. One way to avoid this would be for the firm to explain to the customer the full meaning of 'unenforceable'.

[gayles power]

Thanks very much for your information Theoldrouge!

 

Provided the CCA comes back with nothing, and the time limit runs out so I can put this into dispute,

 

that is a HIGHLY useful piece of information

 

I can then use if they persist with the threat-o-grams,

 

well as complaints to everyone I can think of including my MP!

 

I feel SO much better than I did this morning!

[Deb T]

Just to add a little to this, Cabot are the pits, they really should be put out of business for their underhanded tactics.

 

Some time ago they threatened on a debt they said they'd been assigned,

various requests were sent to them for various bits of paperwork,

they were informed that the person they were attempting to collect from was vulnerable/disabled and in no position to negotiate with them.

..but still the letters kept on coming.

 

They were asked to provide an amount of the by then dated paperwork (under the correct procedure), to which they duly obliged

..all well and good you might think?

Not so, unbeknown to Cabot the alleged debtors family already had hard copies of the paperwork requested

...Cabot were not aware of this and sent out their own paperwork.

 

Cabot's supplied paperwork, inclusive of statements, balances, letters of assignment

along with various other bits of correspondence from them were all there..

 

..however, 90% (and that is the actual figure) of the Cabot supplied paperwork did not in any way shape or form

correspond to the hard copies the alleged debtors family had...

 

.In short, they appear to have simply pulled up some pre-loaded templates,

added in the details and sent them on thinking that would be it.

 

The dates on the letters were the same but any balances quoted were different,

any interest payments added were different (non existent mostly )

in fact all manner of things differed.

 

..for sure the occasional letter tallied but they were usually the non relevant 'We have been trying to contact you' sort of thing.

 

The alleged debtors family never let on that they had the hard copies,

to this day the situation remains the same,

 

on one day in the time period Cabot were collecting they added thousands ( I kid you not ) onto the debt,

no reason was given, no letter from them showed as to why and the balance they kept sending never showed the interest addition,

instead it was just the alleged outstanding balance and nothing more.

 

It was only when Cabot were informed whilst the account was in dispute that no further payments would be made

that they decided to show their hand and add the inflated balance.

 

Even the credit file of the alleged debtor did not show the increased Cabot balance even though Cabot were regularly updating it.

 

Cabot had no legal authority to increase the debt/charge interest,

they certainly never entered into any payment agreement with the alleged debtor

but the letters/threats just kept on coming with the balance always increasing

(currently at 14k (figure correct as of Sept 2013) from a debt of some 10k less originally.

 

Cabot fabricated evidence and out and out lied through the skin of their busted teeth in an effort to collect a debt

that they had no real authority to do so.

 

They were asked to consider taking the matter to court, nothing was heard from them again (directly)

but of course they sent out letters via their other 'sister companies' even this was wrong given the account was still supposedly in dispute .

 

Personally and is my opinion only is that along the way somewhere Cabot for whatever reason were looking to make their books look healthie

r by making upping their portfolio of debtors/debts, easy isn't it,

 

add interest by stupid amounts to dormant/dead/not active/in dispute alleged debts so as to make their (Cabot)

worth look more than what they actually were...Was it so they could raise finance to buy yet more debt?

 

The bottom line is, do not cave in to the likes of Cabot/Marlin/Fire and any other of their appointed hired hounds,

they are the absolute lowest of the low and should always and only ever be treated with the utter contempt they deserve.

Deb T

[dx100uk]

it happens to 10'000's of people every day

 

most just blindly cough

because they think a DCA is a BAILIFF

they are NOT

 

75% of DCA's debts are not even owed to anyone let alone a fleecing DCA.

 

dx

[spamheed]

They inflate the values of debts in this way so that when they eventually sell them on, they are more attractive to any other prospective bottom feeders who purchase unenforceable or Stature Barred debts.

 

Be wary of Marlins and Cabot, they will litigate if they believe you will not defend, or present yourself as not knowing the ropes.

 

Standard rules apply: Never telephone a DCA, They tell lies and will promise you the earth to get you to pay, always refuse to go through their initial security process, in reality they are more than likely getting you to fill in the blanks in their records. state simply "In writing only" then hang up

 

CCA the DCA immediately, include a PO for £1 is included and correctly filled in. Ensure all correspondence is sent recorded/signed for and receipts or proofs of delivery are obtained.

 

 

If appropriate, SAR the original Creditor asap and ensure that any figures are checked against those provided by Cabot/Marlin. do not SAR the DCA, they will have very limited information and it would be a waste of £1

 

 

It really is all in the detail - Attention should be given to any Notice of Assignment (NOA) The Law of Property states that an NOA can be provided by either the assignee, or the assignor, but as yet, there is nothing legal about a DCA sending a letter purporting to be from another organisation

 

 

Pay particular attention to any PPI and/or charges applied to the account, ensure any Terms and Conditions provided match the information provided by the DCA, ie. interest being applied, default sums, and where PPI is included, there should be either a separate set of T&C for it, or it should have its own section within the T&C of the debt.

[renegadeimp]

If thats true, then they must be reported.

[gayles power]

Thanks Spamheed,

 

I immediately CCA'd these people,

 

got the original letter back cos I hadn't written on who the postal orders were for,

(standard delaying tactics I believe) and re-sent it recorded to sign for.

 

It becomes in dispute on Monday.

 

I have the in dispute letter ready from the library.

 

Marlin, amongst other threats, say the alleged debt has come from Cabot,

but the original creditor is named as Britannia,

who I have never heard of,

never purchased anything from,

and havent received any letters from.

 

From research on here they appear to be yet another DCA, so they cannot possibly be an original creditor.

 

Since there's no original creditor named,

I can't SAR them cos I simply do not know who the alleged debt originally allegedly belonged to (allegedly)!

 

 

My logic is sound right?

[dx100uk]

yep usual deceitful chain

 

 

a dca chasing a debt for a debt buyer

by another dca,

 

off and bugger you fleecers.

 

pers I would not bother sending the failure to comply letter

 

they know the score.

 

dx

[theoldrouge]

the account has been in dispute for over a year already when cabot failed to reply to your lawful request

[gayles power]

Received today, letter from Marlin,

 

advising that they have ''previously requested a statement of this account and copy of the agreement from the original creditor

and we are still to receive this information. we will forward to you upon receipt.''

 

Sounds like they requested this info when they took on the alleged debt and are still waiting for it.

 

The alleged original creditor is a company I have never had any dealings with,

and there was no CCA reply from Cabot when asked for the same information a year ago.

I can't help but hope that Marlin realise that this is unenforceable and drop it.

 

Funnily enough, their last 2 letters took 5 days to reach me, this one was sent by return of post.

 

They also state my CCA letter was received by them on 23rd June.

 

My CCA letter was originally sent on the 13th June, but they sent back the whole thing on the 19th

so I could correctly fill in 3 words on the postal order.

 

In dispute letter is ready to go thanks to the CAG library.

 

The tone of this letter is so very different from the other 2,

 

its like the difference between night and day.

[2Grumpy]

A blank postal order is like cash. There's nothing to stop them using a pen rather than crayons to fill it out themselves ...

[OnMyWayOut]

In my experience of this bunch and their legal sidekicks, they: -

 

 

• use the slowest possible postal methods,
  
• (possibly) backdate their letters so that they pressurise you into reacting to a 'deadline',
  
• constantly lie about what they can do,
  
• not know what the true balance is,
  
• send you letters offering discounts if you'll only let them access your bank account to obtain payment
  
• claim you have missed payments
  
• claim you have agreed to higher payments than arranged
  
• pester you by phone
  
• keep repeating all of the above
  

OMWO

[gayles power]

They certainly have used the slowest possible postal method.

Perhaps the ''leave in the tray for another 3 days'' has been found to work before.

 

By the time I'd got the last letter threatening action, the deadline on their letter had already passed and I did feel a bit panicky.

..till I remembered all I had to do was ask on here.

 

I have all the means on here to counter any lies, my printer will be very busy, what with complaints to 5 different places if they step out of line.

 

I don't know if the balance they state is true or not, since there is no original recognisable creditor for this alleged debt so I cannot do a SAR.

 

If I were to get a discount letter, that implies to me desperation on their part to get something!!

 

I can't have missed a payment since I haven't made any payment, as there is no proof a debt exists and none has been provided.

 

I DO NOT AGREE to paying higher payments than currently.

Since that is £0.00 per month I will quite happily keep it that way.

 

They can try pestering me by phone, they will get reported to all regulatory bodies till they stop.

 

This alleged debt becomes statute barred in 3 years, and with the help of the CAG,

whatever is thrown at me I know I can cope with.

 

You are all awesome,

 

thank you.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Who exactly is the original creditor??

[gayles power]

Hello Brigadier!

 

Original creditor is apparently Britannia SARL. Never heard of them, never had dealings with them, never had a letter from them, never purchased or borrowed anything from them. Cabot sent me a letter last year, never replied to the CCA request. Then I get this letter from Marlin!