Why is transparency not an easy option

With regards to the    incident listed on Credit Consultants Debt Services scam ,   and  the   post on transparency Bullies won’t get a Retraction Notice ,  we have now  gone a further step.

Rather than supplying  any evidence  we send a lawyers letter.  I  have found int he past that this is a typical defensive move  and there is much to be learned from the  language which the lawyers use and the manner in which  events and facts are twisted.

The letter I received  was from Jaesen Sumner  of Ford SUMNER  the letter  can be found here Credit Consultants reply via Lawyer

By way of open letter to Mr Sumner I   reply as follows

Dear Jaesen

Thank you for your   reply , I suspect that there are a few things your client has  not told you or   perhaps in your haste you have not had time to research.

I will go though your   letter paragraph by paragraph so  that you can be certain to address each point

“We act for Credit Consultants Group NZ Limited and have been instructed with regard to a number of statements which concern our client made by you on your websites www.verisure.co.nz and www.transparency.net.nz.”

Jaesen Could you please advise

  1. How Credit Consultants Group NZ Limited and provide proof  of   their involvement
  2. What statements I have made  with regards to  Credit Consultants Group NZ Limited.

“Specifically, on 30 July 2011, you made a number of allegations regarding the legal existence of our client, the legitimacy of their business and the operation of their website and phone system.”

3.   I have never made any statements  with regards to the legal existence of  Credit Consultants Group NZ Limited .I have no doubt  that your  client exists  and is legitimate  however  I  have had no evidence  that  “ your client”  is  trading in any name  or that  Credit consultants Debt services  which is an undefined set of words and not identifiable as being any  legal person,  and/ or is a name which  your client uses . . Please advise why you believe that I have made statements with regards to your client Credit Consultants Group NZ Limited

4,   Further if you insist that your client is    Credit consultant’s debt services   why is it using a    name other than its own legal name and hiding behind anonymity  in   letters such as the one  that was sent to me in the name  of Credit consultant’s debt services    only

Our client has subsequently provided a full response to your allegations, demonstrating them to be false and requesting that the offending allegations be removed and an apology be issued.

 5. I received an email from   someone  who  purported to be  acting for  Credit Consultants Group NZ Limited  and  linked to  a web site  owned by  “Credit consultants “    who give their address as  3-9 church street  wellington    which is not an address  which is shown  on the registry as being an address for your client. Please advise  how this web site is connected to your client  and how anyone  would be able to identify thee true identity of the  registered owner  given that the web site  has been  down more often than  it has been up  in the  last  days .

6. Please further advise why some one should  apologise for questioning the lack of transparency   and for speaking and expressing the truth.

7. I have served in the police for  15 years  and have worked as a PI  for  8    what makes you think that I am a kind of person who  will simply accept the uncorroborated  word of any one,  if you wish me to believe you please provide evidence and answers which make sense.  This is the second  “do as  we tell you or we will sue you  ” letter – that is  in my opinion bullying and   now harassment.

You have refused to comply with this request and have posted our client’s response to www.transparency.net.nz, accusing our client of bullying and threatening behaviour.”

8. My statements were “Giving  a full  28 minutes  to    jump  to attention is what in my book is called bullying “  and  “And  You are now making threats   to me   because I received    a letter which  I considered to be   an anonymous bullying demand.”   Please tell me  why my opinion  is  wrong  ?

9.   and  why   being told  that if I don’t  comply with he  demands within 28  minutes legal action will be taken  is not considered a threat?  I take it to be a threat  .

“Our client has operated under the trading name “Credit Consultants Debt Services” for a number of years.”

10.   Could you please provide evidence of this statement.. saying something  does not make things true.

11. Please  refer to the status of Credit Consultants Debt Services NZ Limited on the  companies office  CREDIT CONSULTANTS DEBT SERVICES NZ LIMITED (866101) Struck off NZ Limited Company     I know  what struck off means , It means that it no longer exists , its like a person dying  .   It amalgamated with other companies   and  became a part of another company  , it did not keep   an independent or any existence of its own. Please tell me if I have got this wrong.

” While our client appreciates your desire for transparency in business dealings, the allegations that you have made and published are incorrect  and appear to be designed to cause our client commercial and reputational damage.  ”

 12 I can assure you   that the  only questions I have raised are with regards  to openness and transparency , if your client   is a legitimate  debt recovery agency    why

a.Did Telstra clear not write to me to say that he debt was being passed to them  (aside from the fact that  there is no  debt

b. Could your client not have disclosed the  legal name behind the so called trading name and choose to hide behind anonymity like a scammer would.

c.   Why threats  of legal action   rather than providing  evidence of the facts and a nice letter explaining  a possible slip up?

13.  Could you please advise if you have considered the    fact that this looks  so much like a scam  that some one  could easily adopt it and cheat people  from their hard eared cash, people have the  right to know who they are dealing with   because   scammers use the  veil of secrecy which your client  appears to condone for  its  practices.   In other words  if  I owe you money  and Trevor Blogs  sends me a demand letter saying Pay me instead of you    is that  acceptable ?   How  am  I supposed to know  that Telstra clear considered my  account unsettled  and how was I supposed to know that   your client using an undefined name had a right to collect it ( if it was still outstanding )

14    My comments are not malicious   , they are fair comment   please advise  why you think they are malicious  considering  that I still have not had any evidence that the letter  sent  by the fictional Credit Consultants Debt Services   was in fact sent to me  by  the legal entity  Credit Consultants Group NZ Limited

15 I would like to further know  why you think that the public has no  right to transparency and the right to know  which legal entity is pursuing them for   money.

By denying transparency and accountability you are condoning corruption and fraud.  In all  matters, the public has a right to be informed , if your client does not like bad press they could act ethically and put their name to any demand letter and  supply evidence to prove the debt.

On that point  the evidence of my debt and communications from Telstra clear to  your so called client   has not been provided   and until that evidence  is provided your argument is hollow. I also would  like to know  why the demand letter was  sent out in a  unidentifiable name  rather than the  companies legal name.

I do not consider that  my posts are offending,  They   provide information and protection  to the  public  and informs them of   what they have a right to  know.

I have now  had two unlawful  threats  made against me   by your clients,  one  from Mr Foster and one from  you  each  threatening    legal action  when    you have not  disclosed any  offense or  transgression which   I may have committed. I invite you  to look at the  harassment  act.

I cannot remove material with regards  to your client from  my sites  as  I have not written about your clients  although you are now  setting me up  in a manner  akin to  entrapment. I think readers are astute enough to see what is happening.

We have freedom of speech and I defend it vigorously   .

I wish to point out that the PDF links which Mr Foster  had on his document   did not open and  He will need to send the files as my privacy request  has not been addressed  and I would still like to know    what legislation      your  client purportedly works under  and if they are    licensed  under the   Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010.  I think section 5  of the act warrants looking at    and therefore request  that you advise  what  the  number is of the COA of the person I  was approached by and what number the license is of    your client.

If you believe your client does not  need to be licensed please advise me of the reasoning     if it makes sense it will prevent me from making a complaint to the  authority.

I will reassess   the situation when evidence  and  replies as requested of both you and Mr Foster   has been provided.

In the meantime this is an open letter and  in the interest of transparency and  both   your letter and the reply will be posted on Transparency.net.nz

Regards

Grace Haden

update: the news item relating to this issue can be found  at this link

 

Leave a Reply