Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
    • Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation: The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved" in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof. It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested. Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Cabot's methods of buying debts?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5612 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

What with Cabot beginning to top many google search charts, I was wondering if another name change may be around the corner...

 

So suggestions please on a new name they may choose....(Keep it clean!)

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Kings Hill (No 666) Limited?

 

Who's says I've too much time on my hands...Did you realise that 'Cabot Financial (Uk/Europe) Ltd' is actually an anagam of

 

OFT TRIBUNAL KEN? CIAO (CLAP DUE)

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's says I've too much time on my hands...Did you realise that 'Cabot Financial (Uk/Europe) Ltd' is actually an anagam of

 

OFT TRIBUNAL KEN? CIAO (CLAP DUE)

 

 

Whilst an anagram of CABOT FINANCIAL UK LTD. is

 

FLOUT DATABANK CLINIC

 

or if you'd prefer another anagram; Cabot Financial Europe Ltd is

 

NOTICEABLE PLATONIC FRAUD

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the same poition as you Seahorse...bored waiting for reply so a couple more anagrams...

 

Ken Maynard = A Manky Nerd

 

(Ken's number 2) > Glen Crawford = Corn Leg Dwarf

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

ORRRRRRRRR... an anagram of mine would be, AM I IN ****?

 

last word will no doubt add to the confusion, as I'm sure the profanity checker will star it out.

 

(That'll give WW something to puzzle over with his morning coffee. :D)

 

Youre making it easy SH...You think Willem Wellinghoff is feeling left out? - best I can do for him (anagram wise) is :

 

WELL, ME WHIFF GIN LOL

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

As per Tberns thread and recent comments from Glen that Cabot are not creditors, it made me look...I realised that there's a message for somone on here to expose a certain DCA...Honestly! Because and anagram of: G.C. 'Cabot not a creditor'

 

is: CC Act: 'Go to Radio Tbern'

 

You see, they talking in code! ;)

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Right,

 

I now have written proof that Cabot have been (and probably still do) buying Barclay (if not all) debts under the Law of Property (1925) Act. For this reason, they feel they can squirm out of having anything to do wih the responsibilities. Whilst I appreciate this isn't original news to some of us, the fact remains that this all seems VERY dodgy.

 

Now this poses many questions;

 

a) Does this not mean that the Original Agreement becomes void ?

 

b) Does Cabots have any rights to add any interest to these debts?

 

c) Does it give Cabot the right to take over the files at any CRA's, considering this debt no longer exists under the Original Agreement.

 

d) Does this not mean that this is a totally 'new debt' and therefore Cabot can only recover the money they paid for the debt? After all, nothing has been signed with Cabot.

 

e) If they ever took you to court, wouldn't their 'prosecution' have to be carried out under the LoP 1925?

 

After spending the afternoon on the phone, the above is now being looked into by the OFT, the ICO, Trading Standards and the FOS. The person I spoke to at TS, whilst not qualified, feels that if a company do this - that is buy a debt under the LoP which was originally signed for under the CCA- then they have NO RIGHT to add any interest and when collecting the 'debt' they would have to collect the said debt under all the laws of the LoP 1925....

 

It's quite simple isn't it? Cabot can't say that they are adding interest etc, under the terms of the Original Agreement, if the terms of the OA no longer exist!

 

That just leaves me with one final assumption; all Cabot debts are purchased under the LoP. If this is the case, we just need to get a ruling which clarifies the point that they can't add interest to these debts - let alone log them with the CRA's- and it should help a hell of a lot of people.

  • Haha 4

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right,

 

I now have written proof that Cabot have been (and probably still do) buying Barclay (if not all) debts under the Law of Property (1925) Act. For this reason, they feel they can squirm out of having anything to do wih the responsibilities. Whilst I appreciate this isn't original news to some of us, the fact remains that this all seems VERY dodgy.

 

Now this poses many questions;

 

a) Does this not mean that the Original Agreement becomes void ?

No

 

b) Does Cabots have any rights to add any interest to these debts?

yes

 

c) Does it give Cabot the right to take over the files at any CRA's, considering this debt no longer exists under the Original Agreement.

yes

 

d) Does this not mean that this is a totally 'new debt' and therefore Cabot can only recover the money they paid for the debt? After all, nothing has been signed with Cabot.

no

 

e) If they ever took you to court, wouldn't their 'prosecution' have to be carried out under the LoP 1925?

no

 

After spending the afternoon on the phone, the above is now being looked into by the OFT, the Information Commissioners Office, Trading Standards and the FOS. The person I spoke to at TS, whilst not qualified, feels that if a company do this - that is buy a debt under the LoP which was originally signed for under the CCA- then they have NO RIGHT to add any interest and when collecting the 'debt' they would have to collect the said debt under all the laws of the LoP 1925....

wrong

 

It's quite simple isn't it? Cabot can't say that they are adding interest etc, under the terms of the Original Agreement, if the terms of the OA no longer exist!

 

That just leaves me with one final assumption; all Cabot debts are purchased under the LoP. If this is the case, we just need to get a ruling which clarifies the point that they can't add interest to these debts - let alone log them with the CRA's- and it should help a hell of a lot of people.

 

OK, here it goes:

 

it's quite permissable to assign absolutly a credit agreement using the LOP 1925, even if it is a regulated credit agreement, assuming they have consent for such an assignment.

 

an assignment under the LOP 1925 can only be an absolute, or legal, assignment.

 

Under such circumstances, the new credit agreement would be on the same terms, and with the same rights and duties as the original credit agreement.

 

e.g. cabot could charge interest.

 

This level of assignment is the necessary requirement for Cabot to sue in their own right. it is my opinion that the court does not have jurisdiction for an equitable owner to sue.

 

 

If cabot claims they have the rights and not the duties of a credit agreement, they are only the equitable owner, and a legal/absolute assignment has not taken place.

  • Haha 1

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here it goes:

 

it's quite permissable to assign absolutly a credit agreement using the LOP 1925, even if it is a regulated credit agreement, assuming they have consent for such an assignment.

 

an assignment under the LOP 1925 can only be an absolute, or legal, assignment.

 

Under such circumstances, the new credit agreement would be on the same terms, and with the same rights and duties as the original credit agreement.

 

e.g. cabot could charge interest.

 

This level of assignment is the necessary requirement for Cabot to sue in their own right. it is my opinion that the court does not have jurisdiction for an equitable owner to sue.

 

Has there been a ruling on this ?

 

I'm not sure I understand your very last sentence > the court does not have jurisdiction for an equitable owner to sue. If I'm being thick then I am sorry, but could you explain it please, I'm very interested in this now.

 

And, If it is under the same terms etc, then Cabot's argument that they don't have to supply agreements etc is wrong ?

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there been a ruling on this ?

 

I'm not sure I understand your very last sentence > the court does not have jurisdiction for an equitable owner to sue. If I'm being thick then I am sorry, but could you explain it please, I'm very interested in this now.

 

And, If it is under the same terms etc, then Cabot's argument that they don't have to supply agreements etc is wrong ?

 

Put it this way; I've now advised two people with this as a defence, and in both cases the claim was struck out. You don't need a precident; it's there in black & white in the primary legislation.

 

the jurisdiction of the court in relation to consumer credit agreements is set out in s141(1) CCA 1974 - this section specifies that the owner or creditor may sue;

 

the definition of owner and creditor is in s189(1), and does not include an equitable owner;

 

the explicit requirement for all parties to a contract to be included as parties in any litigation in s141(5) .

 

The fact that someone may become a creditor or owner through assignment of all rights and duties is set out in s189(1) and since no mention of the method of assignment is described, the existing legal method (loP 1925) remains valid.

 

If someone buys the rights but not the duties they are under no legal obligation to provide the credit agreement on request, but they have a duty as an agent to forward payment and request for the credit agreement s.175. They would have no legal right to demand payment after the 12 working days, if the creditor remains in default.

 

The LOP 1925 is irrelevant for Scottish CAGers, as LOP 1925 does not extend past england and wales.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi TomTerm8

 

Can I ask a question about

 

the jurisdiction of the court in relation to consumer credit agreements is set out in s141(1) CCA 1974 - this section specifies that the owner or creditor may sue;
The owner or creditor may sue;

 

Is an agent of the owner or creditor entitled to initiate legal action on behalf of the owner or creditor.

He didn't come looking for trouble, but trouble came looking for him.

When the smoke clears, it just means he's reloading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi TomTerm8

 

Can I ask a question about

 

The owner or creditor may sue;

 

Is an agent of the owner or creditor entitled to initiate legal action on behalf of the owner or creditor.

 

Certainly, if the agent is acting with a power of attorney or acting as a soliciter on behalf of the original creditor.

 

Further, a party in the proceedings can be represented by another party, with the permission of the court, but is bound by all orders of the court in relation to the case.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, if the assignment is EQUITABLE, then the new owner may only sue alongside the original creditor, IMHO.

 

As I have said earlier, we should take this up with the original creditor, and ask them if they would like to join the new owner in court. I think this would at the very least get them p1ssed off with their bestest buddies in the debt purchasing industry. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, if the assignment is EQUITABLE, then the new owner may only sue alongside the original creditor, IMHO.

 

As I have said earlier, we should take this up with the original creditor, and ask them if they would like to join the new owner in court. I think this would at the very least get them p1ssed off with their bestest buddies in the debt purchasing industry. :D

 

Weird, now you're reading my mind..Plans are afoot for me to do this as we speak...will let you know via our other form of cabot communication

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...