1970 vc Cabot YES, THEY ARE TAKING ME TO COURT

[1970]

Having sent off my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to XXXXYZ CREDITXXX and XXXXYZ CREDITXXX and copied it to Cabot, within 3 days of sending it off I have a claim form through the letter box from Cabot from Northampton claiming the total of the two accounts.

This could be interesting.

Firstly I have not admitted either debts but have simply requested the usual Subject Access Request info with the view of bringing my own claim against them.

I am also intending to send a CCA request for both accounts as I suspect this will not produce an executed credit agreement.

I have not been home yet to read the particulars of claim but will update you in due course.

I will be needing your help.

Some questions to start with:

1. Do I send the CCA to Barclaycard and Providian or Cabot or all 3?

2. If the debt was sold but no credit agreement exists can Cabot still make a claim against me?

3. If there is a credit agreement and the Subject Access Request produces a load of charges (it will im sure) resulting in me having a counterclaim, who would I sue if the charges were applied by the credit card companies but it's the DCA that's suing me?


Cheers,
1970.

[tbern123]

Originally Posted by 1970

Some questions to start with:

1. Do I send the CCA to Barclaycard and Providian or Cabot or all 3?

2. If the debt was sold but no credit agreement exists can Cabot still make a claim against me?

3. If there is a credit agreement and the Subject Access Request produces a load of charges (it will im sure) resulting in me having a counterclaim, who would I sue if the charges were applied by the credit card companies but it's the DCA that's suing me?


Cheers,
1970.

1 - this is still open to debate, but I would send the CCA request to Cabot.
2 - No no no no no
3- You would sue the original creditor as the applied the charges. I would also make it a request of any settlement, that they send your refund by cheque to you. This will stop them from simply reducing the debt with Cabot

[1970]

Hi Tbern123, thanks for your support.

I'm going to send a cca to the credit card companies, cabots and hodsons just to be safe.

Having now read the claim, there are two credit card debts which they have put together as one debt on the claim form with a total amount of £3000.

The claim form says that the debts were purchased by cabot and the defendant has failed to pay them.

A week ago I sent a Subject Access Request to the creditors, cabots and hodsons, so I'll wait and see what that produces.

Interestingly, on the claim form where the claimant declares "the facts in this claim for are true..." it is signed Kings Hill No1 Limited?? I thought this was a previous Cabot company but no longer operating.

I will acknowledge the claim on the last day as by then the 12 days will have passed in regard to the CCA.

Here are my thoughts (correct me if I'm wrong here)

Option 1: If there is an agreement then I will go down the unlawful charges route. I'll make a separate claim to the credit card company. If so, what happens to the debt on Cabots books?

Option 2: No agreement - unenforceable. End of story.

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

1970.

[debt_mountain]

if theyy don't provide the agreement you should counterclaim them for damages as they are sharing your personal details with CRAs without your permision, plus is it kingshill who have made the claim?

[1970]

Cabot UK PO Box 250 are making the claim.
Cabot Europe PO Box 241 is the address for documents and payments.
Kings Hill is authorised by the claimant to sign the statement of truth.

What a mess.

1970.

[tomterm8]

I am no longer welcome on CAG

[andrew1]

Originally Posted by 1970

Cabot UK PO Box 250 are making the claim.
Cabot Europe PO Box 241 is the address for documents and payments.
Kings Hill is authorised by the claimant to sign the statement of truth.

What a mess.

1970.

Kingshill No1 Ltd is now a dormant company and this should be brought to the attention of the court. It didn't used to be until Jan 15th 2007 when the original Kingshill No1 Ltd changed its name to Cabot Financial (UK)Ltd. If Kingshill have now 'signed' a statement of truth, I'd be very interested to see a copy of it and so would a few others on here like tbern and Debt Mountain to see who has actually signed it and when. This could be a serious mistake of theirs.

Can you post the ACTUAL company names listed on the claim, putting their names in full - not just 'Cabot UK ' PM one of us if you prefer.

Sarah

[tbern123]

I would be very interested, as my statement of truth was signed by WW Cabot Financial (Europe) who are not actually involved in my case.

[1970]

Hi,

It's a MCOL document issued by Northampton CC.

The exact wording as follows:

Claimant:
Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd
PO BOX 250, WEST MALLING, KENT ME19 4NA.

Address for sending documents and payments:
Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd
PO BOX 241, WEST MALLING, KENT, ME19 4NA

In the final section where is says "The claimant believes that the facts stated in this claim form are true and Iam duly authorised by the claimant to sign this statement"

Signed: KINGS HILL (NO1) LIMITED

(CLAIMANT) (CLAIMANT'S SOLICITOR)

"Claimant's solicitor" is xxxx'd out so it seems to me that there is an error that Kings Hill have signed as the claimant.



1970.

[1970]

There's something strange about the name changing business. It seems Kings Hill is a trading company. Here's what I found at companies house:

Company No 03757424
Cloudhaven Ltd was formed 21/04/99
Changed its name to Kings Hill No1 Ltd 09/06/99
Changed its name again to Cabot Financial UK Ltd 15/01/07

Also...

Company No 03514391
Commercial Financial Services UK Ltd formed 20/02/98
Changed its name to Cabot Financial UK Ltd 12/03/99
Changed its name again to Kings Hill No1 Ltd 15/01/07

So...

Cabot UK became Kings Hill and Kings Hill became Cabot on the 15th Jan this year.

This means that Kings Hill is a trading company but it's Cabot UK in disguise.

Why would they do that? There must be a very dodge reason for it.

Question is, who holds my information? Who is the debt owed to?

If Cabot UK formally Kings Hill are making the claim then it's invalid. Any deed of assignment that may exist would be in the name of Cabot UK dated prior to 15/01/07 which means I should be sued by Kings Hill formerly known as Cabot UK.

That took me ages to write - but it makes sense. Perhaps this is why the claim is signed by Kings Hill

1970

[1970]

A further thought...

Perhaps this name switching is to avoid litigation.

If you are suing "Cabot Financial UK Limited formerly known as Kings Hill No1 Limited" for unlawful charges, then on a technicality you should really be suing "Kings Hill No1 Limited formerly known as Cabot Financial UK Limited"

Man this is hard!

But having said that, mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself but talent instantly recognises genius.

1970.

[tomterm8]

I am no longer welcome on CAG

[1970]

I have just downloaded my credit file from experian.

Cabot Financial UK Limited has registered 2 defaults for the two credit card debts dated 2003 and 2001.

Surely, Kings Hill No1 Limited should have registered the defaults (that's if they should have been registered in the first place) as Kings Hill No1 were the alleged owners of the debt in 2003 and 2001?

1970.

[psykix]

Well, as I posted on my thread... 2 defaults that were on my Experian report under Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd, have suddenly changed name in the last month to Cabot (UK) Ltd.

Funnily enough, they (Kings Hill) had a linked address on my report which I disputed with Experian about 10 days ago or so. Experian replied to me saying they had written to Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd, and they had replied back to say remove it. This letter was dated last week, so someone somewhere is replying to Kings Hill mail!

I have my N244 all lined up and ready to go, cos Cabot are trying to get heavy now... In for a penny, in for a couple of grand

[Jeff2000]

Hello,

Subscribing. Very interesting!


Jeff.

[Seahorse]

Originally Posted by tomterm8

So... has anyone checked that all the Credit Licensing requirements have been carried out properly?

Unfortunately, they are correctly licensed.