CPM – Uncovered! threatened with legal action

CPM – Uncovered! threatened with legal action

Posted on 13. Jan, 2009 by admin in CPM Asset Management, Site news, Threats of legal action

Back in May I received a letter from CPM’s lawyers threatening me with High Court and the enforced closure of the site. Their tactics were predictably heavy handed and bullying. I directly challenged their claims of defamation and several months of correspondence then ensued during which I let CPM and their lawyers paint themselves into a corner. This culminated in September when I offered CPM the opportunity to use the site as a conduit through which they could engage with the sites readers and address and resolve their various issues. This apparently did not appeal to CPM and the correspondence fell quiet. It is quite clear to me from their behaviour that they are more concerned with trying to cover up their horrendous service and its consequences by sweeping it under the carpet than they are in improving their service or addressing residents concerns. I have therefore taken the decision to publish the full string of correspondence.

I have used the comment funtion to post each part of the correspondance below and have manipulated the comment date to reflect the date that each piece of correspondance was sent/received. Apologies, this makes the page very long!

10 Responses to “CPM – Uncovered! threatened with legal action”

  1. from Maddersons

    14. May, 2008

    14th May

    Dear Sir,

    Re: CPM-Asset-Management.co.uk

    We act for CPM Asset Management Limited.

    Your above mentioned website contains falsehoods that are defamatory of our client.

    To allege that our client is guilty of “misappropriation offunds” , that it has demonstrated “ignorance ofand indifference to their obligations and responsibilities under the Lease” and is guilty of “near criminal negligence in performing their duties” is plainly defamatory and cannot be justified nor defended as fair comment.

    We enclose printouts of the above statements as published on your website.

    You have registered a domain name that is plainly intended to be flagged by internet search engines and indexed alongside our client’s own website. In so doing you are abusing our client’s trading style and seeking to maximise the damage that you intend to cause to our client’s reputation.

    In conducting a random internet search on Google for “CPM Asset Management” we found that out of the 10 entries on the first page, four of those entries took us to your website. We enclose a printout to confirm that result.

    We put you on notice that we are instructed to apply to the High Court for an injunction unless, by 4pm on 15th May 2008:

    (i) You remove all contents from http://www.CPM-Asset-Management.co.uk togetherwith
    any ‘mirror sites’ under your control;

    (ii) You provide us with an undertaking in writing not to repeat the falsehoods
    defamatory of our client as published on http://www.CPM-Asset-Management.co.uk;

    (iii) You undertake to meet our clients costs to date in the sum of £450 plus VAT.

    We look forward to hearing from you by return.

    Yours faithfully

    Maddersons

  2. admin

    15. May, 2008

    Thursday, 15 May 2008

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Re: CPM – Uncovered! [www.cpm-asset-management.co.uk]
    Your ref: MM/jd/CPM/2842/19

    Thank you for your letter dated the 14th May 2008.

    Firstly, please note that it is not necessary to print off large volumes of the website and mail them to me. I am well aware of its content, please save the paper.

    Secondly, I return to you the printed copy of the good lady’s email re her divorce and hope that she will not be overly dismayed by the breach of confidentiality. I am sure that you are aware it is your duty under the Data Protection Act to inform her of the accidental disclosure.

    If I may I will respond to your points in order of presentation with a view to correcting your various misconceptions:-

    Your statement that the particular quotes you are challenging (“misappropriation of funds … ignorance of and indifference to their obligations and responsibilities under the lease … near criminal negligence in performing their duties”) are “plainly defamatory and cannot be justified nor defended as fair comment” is inaccurate. Each can be adequately evidenced with multiple examples from my own experience. Not only am I willing to present these to court, I reserve the right to publish both examples and evidence in the public domain as was my initial intention.

    So, in negation of your opening statement, there is nothing defamatory about speaking the truth – embarrassing as it may be to your client.

    As other extracts from the same page, such as “catalogue of incompetence … mis-management … a level of customer ‘care’ that ranged from indifference – through obnoxious arrogance – to menacing intimidation”, are not included in your letter we take it that your client is not challenging the accuracy of these or indeed any other part of the sites text.

    Your comments concerning the reasoning behind my choice of domain name are equally inaccurate and misinformed. The group of people that this information is published for have favoured search terms. Top of these is “CPM Asset Management”. All good search engine optimisation (SEO) guides and websites state that a choice domain name should contain a high percentage of the chosen search terms. Quality content comes second. I am sure you agree that to publish a set of information specifically for a certain group of people and then place it somewhere they could not find it would be somewhat ridiculous.

    You allege I am abusing your client’s trading style. There is no scope for the site being mistaken for that of your client. It is about your client, but it is quite plainly not your client’s site. There is nothing ‘abusive’ in using well documented SEO techniques in open competition for popular search terms.

    Your allegation that it is my intention to cause damage to your client’s reputation is nonsense. Your client’s reputation is already in tatters through its own poor practices and lack of customer care. That such a site exists is, I am sure, an embarrassment to your client. However, it inflicts no more damage than a photograph of an already wrecked vehicle does to the vehicle pictured. Nor is it intended to. It is quite simply fair comment.

    To be clear; the purpose of the site is to assist people out of their misery or to help them avoid it in the first place.

    I suggest that your client’s time, energy and funds should be better directed toward improving its service to customers and residents rather than attempting to obfuscate the truth of its actions and the consequences of those actions. I am neither impressed nor intimidated by your client’s tactics in trying to remove from public view information that is pertinent to the situation of so many. This amounts to censorship of free speech and as such is abhorrent.

    Your closing demands are frankly ludicrous and are rejected out of hand. In addition I draw attention to the absurdity of your timescale which I am sure court would note.

    Should your client wish to proceed with action I am happy to attend court where its allegations of inaccuracy and defamation will be robustly defended with concrete evidence, no doubt in front of a business press ever vigilant for Erinaceous related tit-bits.

    Further, due to the present situation with Erinaceous being in administration and the uncertainty surrounding the residential arms financial backing I would necessarily be applying to the court for security for costs to ensure that your client is indeed in a position to cover the costs of my defending such vexatious litigation.

    I reserve the right to produce this correspondence at the conclusion of any proceedings. You have been put on notice of the nature of my case and I will apply to recover my own costs under CPR 48.6 at the appropriate time.

    In the meantime I would of course be happy to consider your client’s more reasonable and proportionate requests.

    Yours faithfully etc

  3. from Maddersons

    28. May, 2008

    Dear Mr Benson

    Re: CPM-Asset-Management.co.uk

    We refer to your letter of 15th May 2008

    Thank you for bringing the accidental disclosure to our attention . We have advised the client of this administrative error and acknowl edge, with thanks, your return of the document mistakenly included in your enclosures.

    We also write to request clarification of the last paragraph of your letter in which you state that you would be happy to consider “more reasonable and proportionate requests”.

    If there is scope for resolving this matter by agreement we are prepared to delay the issue of proceedings for a further 7 days.

    We would be grateful if you would please clarify by return , either in open correspondence or (should you wish) a letter marked “without prejudice”, whether you have any proposals that may avoid the need for litigation.

    For the avoidance of doubt this is an open letter to which we shall refer if ultimately it proves necessary to bring this matter before the court.

    Yours faithfully

    Maddersons

    • from Maddersons

      12. Jun, 2008

      Dear Sir

      RE: CPM-Asset-Management.co.uk

      It is with some disappointment that I have not received a response to my letter to you of 28th May despite having actually given you a further seven days beyond the deadline stated with in that letter.

      I would remind you that in your letter to me of 16th May, you indicated that you would be happy to consider my cl ient’s reasonable and proportionate requests and if that indeed remains the case, could I please hear from you by no later than close of business on Monday is” June with your proposals, failing which I am instructed to commence court proceedings without further reference to yourself.

      Yours Sincerely

      Maxine Madderson

  4. admin

    16. Jun, 2008

    Tuesday, 13 January 2009

    Dear Madam,

    Re: CPM – Uncovered! [www.cpm-asset-management.co.uk]

    Further to your letter dated the 14th May 2008, I return to you other ‘misplaced’ documents. Apologies, but these were not noticed amongst the initial volume until some time after my previous correspondence.

    In answer to your request for clarification in yours dated 28th May 2008, I reiterate that I am open to your considered suggestions. I would not be prepared to withdraw fair comment and factual statements and accordingly, requests for “editing” of the site to suit your client would not be acceptable. Otherwise I am flexible. You seem to be struggling with the way forward so I will venture some suggestions.

    As previously stated, the purpose of ‘CPM – Uncovered!’ is to assist people out of their misery or to help them avoid it in the first place. In this I am without doubt that it is successful. In truth however, and not without irony, it is your client that is better placed to accomplish such a purpose. I therefore suggest that your client engage directly with the issues of the sites readers, address and satisfactorily resolve each of their issues and have those readers post back to the site on the service and outcomes obtained. I am happy to mediate in this process.

    This process would provide CPM with a genuine point of contact and positive feedback for their improved performance. Provided the positive feedback continues I would then consider reconstructing the site to reflect and focus on this, rather than on the current and historic negative situation. Should your client then be able to demonstrate maintained improvement of standards, I would then consider a complete rewrite to reflect the progress that has been made – I may even be willing to hand control of the site to your client for your client’s continued use, although that step would be a matter for consideration at a later date.

    I reiterate that I have no nefarious intents. My purpose in maintaining the site to date has simply been to provide the conduit through which those affected by woeful mismanagement can find mutual support. You will appreciate of course that you will achieve nothing by your alternative heavy handed tactics, particularly with me. In any event, there are many others who would take my place and the only real answer to your client’s “publicity problems” is for your client to change its attitude.

    As previously stated, I am also more than happy to attend court. I maintain both the accuracy of my site and my right to fair comment. I reserve the right to produce and refer to this correspondence at any proceedings.

    Yours faithfully etc

  5. from Maddersons

    25. Jun, 2008

    Dear Mr Benson

    Thank you for your letter of 16th June 2008.

    I have now heard further from my clients who have responded to me in the following terms:-

    Although my clients do not wish to engage in a public debate regarding their service via an unofficial website, they wished me to stress that CPM is committed to customer service. In the last six months the business has invested in a Contact Centre, which ensures all customers contact is tracked in order that Resident Directors can be given information of the number of enquiries for their site; the action taken on each request; and within what timescale. They have further asked me to point out that this transparency of service is not evident across the industry and in order to demonstrate this further, Justin Herbert of my client company is more than willing to meet with you in Northwich to show you this system in operation.

    Could you therefore kindly revert to me with dates of when you would be available for a meeting with Justin Herbert in order that this matter can be finally resolved, hopefully, without further legal action being necessary.

    Yours sincerely

    Maxine Madderson

  6. admin

    27. Jun, 2008

    Friday, 27 June 2008

    Dear Madam,

    Re: CPM – Uncovered! [www.cpm-asset-management.co.uk]

    Thank you for your email of 25th June. Unfortunately, subsequent to 4 years experience of your client’s practices, and literally dozens of contacts from the disaffected, I am unmoved by their statement that they are ‘committed to customer service’.

    While I acknowledge the positive step taken in implementing a customer contact system, and am happy for Mr Herbert to demonstrate this to me, I cannot see how this as a course of action even begins to address the issues of the sites readership. Unless Mr Herbert is suggesting that I bring the sites entire readership with me? Your client is missing the most pertinent of points i.e. that the vast majority of the sites readership has already tried all avenues of approach available/offered by CPM and have found them to be as ineffective as CPM themselves. Any system is only as good as the personnel operating it.

    Whether or not your client wishes ‘to engage in a public debate regarding their service’ is irrelevant, the debate rages none the less. This is not in fact what is being offered in any case. What is being offered is an extra avenue of approach for your client to hear, address and resolve the issues of the sites readership (their customers) in a manner that will, hopefully, cast them in a more positive light. The simple question is – Is your client willing to do this or not? A possible further question is – Does your client even have the facilities in place to do this? Or put another way – Do CPM have the capability to provide the service they take payment for? It is my personal opinion that they do not, however, these are questions that only your client can answer and the answers themselves require evidencing. Anything less is merely rhetoric.

    As mentioned, while I do not fully understand the relevance of the offer, I am happy for Mr Herbert to demonstrate the contact system to me. However, due to the hostile nature of your clients approach I am unwilling to meet with Mr Herbert at the offices of your client without legal representation. I am further unwilling to offer my time, in company hours, free of charge. As a visit of this nature would render me unavailable from work for one half day it would be necessary for my company to charge £700 plus VAT and expenses.

    I have provisionally available the 3rd, 4th, 14th, 15th, 16th July, subject to council’s availability.

    Yours faithfully etc

  7. from Maddersons

    24. Jul, 2008

    Dear Mr Benson

    Thank you for your letter of 27th June and I apologise for the delay in reverting to you but I have been absent from the office during the last couple of weeks.

    Whilst my clients’ offer to meet with you remains open, since as previously mentioned my clients are keen to resolve this matter, my clients cannot possibly accede to your demand that your time for such a meeting be paid by them.

    I remain of the view that my clients have a strong case against you for defamation and that in the event that they decide to proceed with Court action, they will undoubtedly obtain the requisite Injunction and will also be awarded costs. I say this merely to reiterate that it would be out of the question to offer to pay your costs at the point when my clients are attempting to reach an amicable settlement.

    Could you therefore please confirm by return, that you will waive this requirement, as it would clearly be helpful for you to view the Contact Centre during the daytime in order for you to fully understand our client’s customer service model. It does seem to me wholly disproportionate that whilst you are prepared to invest your free time in damaging my client’s reputation, you are not prepared to invest the same amount of time in resolving the issues.

    Should you refuse to reconsider, I reserve the right to bring this letter to the attention of the Courts in any subsequent proceedings when the matter of costs is raised.

    I look forward to hearing from you with dates when you would be available to meet with my clients in order that an appointment can be set up without further delay.

    Yours sincerely.

    Maxine Madderson

  8. admin

    29. Jul, 2008

    Dear Ms Madderson,

    Thank you for your email. Unfortunately your comments are simply repetition and do not move us forward. I will of course respond to them but must apologise for repeating myself.

    Firstly, I do not invest my free time in order to ‘damage your client’. As previously explained, I invest my time in assisting and supporting those who find themselves, through no fault of there own, in a similar miserable predicament to that in which I and my colleagues at Lancaster One found ourselves for over 3 years. I do so free of charge, my intent is altruistic in nature. Your client is already damaged in the eyes of these individuals. I consider the insinuations of your comments to be a slander on my integrity.

    Secondly, and again as previously stated, while I acknowledge the positive step taken in implementing a customer contact system, I cannot see how Mr Herbert demonstrating it to me in any way addresses the issues of the sites readership. You have merely repeated the suggestion without elaborating and are expecting me to waive my companies expenses. This is obviously unacceptable.

    Thirdly, regardless of your personal view, your clients do not have a case at all. I can only assume that you are not in full receipt of the facts. Mr Herbert should, through our previous contacts, be well aware that I have multiple examples to evidence the accuracy of the sites content. If he is not then either he has a poor memory or he was not paying adequate attention at the time! In further repetition, I am more than happy to attend court. I maintain the accuracy of the sites content and my right to fair comment.

    I cannot help but notice that you deliberately evade the subject of my own suggestion, first put forward in my letter dated 16th June and repeated in my letter dated the 27th June, that your client engage directly with the readership of the site and in which I offer to mediate – in continued response to your own comments, free of charge – and request feedback on the results. In stark contrast to your clients suggestion this does address the issues of the sites readership (your clients clients) and has the potential to provide positive results.

    It is worth noting at this point that, since our correspondence began, the number of contributions the site has received has more than doubled. Not one of them is positive. This is clear indication that despite your clients claims of recent investments there is little or no improvement to be seen. My offer is therefore considerably more valuable than your clients suggestion. It remains open.

    Unless you are able to elaborate on the benefits of your client demonstrating their contact system to me I am unable to justify my time, in company hours, free of charge. If your client has a secondary or alternate motive for wishing to meet I would appreciate it if you would state it. If you so wish you may do so in correspondence marked ‘without prejudice’ and I will honour that.

    I reserve the right to produce this and all previous correspondence at any proceedings.

    Yours sincerely,

    Mr L Keir Benson

  9. admin

    13. Jan, 2009

    And here endeth the correspondance! I have had no response to the last email dated 29th July 08. For the record, my offer remains open should CPM find it within themselves to start righting wrongs.

    I would like nothing more than for this site to be unecessary – this can only happen if one of two things occurs (i) CPM improve to the point where all feedback is positive (ii) They go out of business (this does not include re-inventing themselves as RMG, Caley or whatever!)

    Your comments are welcome and invited.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.