Cabot's Licence

[Pinky69]

Whilst trying to find out who owned Cabot in 2002, I checked the OFT website. Their licence expired in October 2009 and hasn't yet been renewed. Unfortunately they can continue on their expired licence until the OFT processes their application. Still, it is not automatic, as it seems to have been before, and the OFT could hardly ignore the complaints about them. So now seems as good a time as any to complain about Cabot. The complaints are now counting, albeit the OFT are slow on the uptake. Ruthbridge's licence also hasn't been renewed yet and theirs expired 11 months ago:rolleyes: Keep those complaints rolling in CAGGERS!

[harrassed senior]

To be honest I find this amazing, would I be allowed to continue driving my car without a Road Fund Licence for 11 months, I think not.

 

In future when dealing with either of the above it might be a suitable reply to remind them that until they have a current licence I will not deal with them!

 

Open and shut as far as I am concerned.

[Bazooka Boo]

Maybe the new tactic to be employed by CAGgers and 'alleged' debtors should be that if the DCA's CCL isn't current, no correspondence will be entered into?

 

Defence in court being that their licence has expired and should they not be able to renew it then any payment to them would be null and void as they have no right or licence to collect monies from a third party...??

[cirian75]

interesting idea (strokes chin)

[veryweary]

Last complaint response I got from OFT about Cabot, thanked me for the helpful info as they continue to monitor this traders fitness to have a licence. Couldn't quite make up my mind what that meant, if anything, to be honest.:-?

[Pinky69]

I received exactly the same letter. It's different from their usual response - sign here so we can use the info you gave us if need be. I do think Cabot are being monitored by them in the light of complaints and it doesn't take 7 months to issue a licence. Cabot only submitted their application a month before the licence expired so they obviously weren't expecting any delays. Bet they got a shock that they didn't get it automatically as before. They breach the guidelines all the time and are such liars that they clearly aren't fit to have a licence.

[miss muppet]

Interesting stuff Pinky, when you consider that some people are actually paying this company, what guarantee do they have that the money they're paying is safe?

[Pinky69]

It is law (CCA 1974) that they must have a licence and I've just checked the OFT website. It states that their interpretation of the law is theirs alone and only a court could make a definitive decision. I am increasingly to the view that in spite of the OFT allowing them to continue trading after their licence has expired, that may not be the view held if anyone tested it in court. I think the OFT are wrong in this and that trading should be suspended whilst the OFT sit on the fence about renewing a licence. I cannot drive whilst I await a decision by DVLA to issue me with a licence or watch TV without one. What is the point of licences if you can carry on without one after it expires if the law requires that you have one?

[Seminole]

Yes, it's quite absurd. Members of the public would never be given this amount of leeway by the state. They should set a period of time before the licence is due for renewal for applications to be received. If they don't sufficient information from the applicant to renew the licence by the time it expires then it should expire.

[harrassed senior]

Letters to MPs perhaps? or Watchdog!

[ScarletPimpernel]

I am of the view that the Consumer Credit Licencing system needs to be overhauled where debt collection is concerned. Amongst the reforms I think are needed are these:

 

- introduce a zero tolerance policy in relation to compliance, with a system that results in suspension and fines where a complaint is proved, with 'three strikes and your out' as the ultimate sanction

- make directors personally liable for breaches of compliance, with a system banning them from involvement in any licenceable activity for 3 years where a company loses its licence, as well as personal fines. This will prevent phoenix companies.

- make compliance training for DCA staff compulsory

- OFT to work more closely with the SRA to ensure 'name for hire' solicitors are compliant

- ensure TS investigate complaints properly

[Pinky69]

Couldn't agree more.

[harrassed senior]

Not to mention being allowed to continue normal day to day business when unlicenced. Licence pending is not acceptable either they are licenced or they are not, same as almost every other licenced trade - imagine being able to sell alchohol whilst 'waiting' for your 'pending' licence, the police and authorities would not stand for it, and neither should we who are being threaten and chased by an 'unlicenced' company!!

 

Climbs off soapbox

[PGH7447]

from the oft website

 

The Act includes where credit is arranged to finance the purchase of goods or services. Licensing arrangements may also be required by debt collectors, debt advisors and businesses that offer goods for hire or leasing. Trading without a licensing arrangement is a criminal offence and can result in a fine and/or imprisonment.

 

-------------

 

An agreement for the services of a credit broker, debt collector, debt adjuster, debt counsellor, debt administrator, credit reference agency or provider of credit information services cannot be enforced if the agreement was entered into when the business was unlicensed.

--------

So does this mean that if you have arranged a debt payment plan with an unlicensed debt collector, and you default they cant do anything??

[Bazooka Boo]

Very interesting!

Anyone got crapbot on their case? Willing to test a new method?

[Pinky69]

Which is why everyone believes the OFT are wrong. Maybe it is time for CAGERS to have nothing to do with either Cabot or Ruthbridge given that their licences have expired and new licences are "pending." What makes the OFT think they have the right to break the law in favour of DCAs??????

[Fred Bassett]

Very interesting!

Anyone got crapbot on their case? Willing to test a new method?

 

I have on 2 cases, neither of which I am paying. I might just slip this into the next letter that I write to them. They'll be getting heavy soon on a big debt that they bought from Cahoot which was default by Cahoot with no DN ever being issued.

 

I'll pop back here when I get my next letter from Cabot.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

Edited June 1, 2010 by Fred Bassett

[vengeancedemon]

Interesting to see what Cabot say to a note that they are "unlicenced"

[Brigadier 1JCS]

Tried the your are not licensed ploy with Ruthbrige last year and threatened to go to the financial press about it then Mr. Emmauel Amissah wrote he had no idea why I had been contacted as they had no record of ever having been asked to so so.

no contact for over a year!

Edited June 1, 2010 by Brigadier 1JCS
sticky fingers

[pookeymonkey]

Do you know what date in October 2009 their licence expired?

 

Mrs Pookey had an alleged account bought by them in mid October and they have recently issued a claim, their POC's are dire. We have put in an embarrassed defence but I am quite keen to write to the Court to point out they are operating without a licence. I suppose even if they had one the day they 'bought' the account they certainly didn't when they issued the claim.

 

Otherwise it may be a misuse of Court time if they push for enforcement only to find they don't get a new licence:D.

 

If they are allowed to get away with this can I get away with not paying to renew my passport to go abroad, I still have my old one!

 

Pookey

[Angel104]

Well I am about to reply to a letter cabot sent me. So I shall be only to happy to mention the fact that they have no licence.

[Delta-Charlie-76]

This is interesting as they aquired my disputed account in October last year!

[cymruambyth]

Due to our lack of interest in playing letter ping pong, thy have just threatened legal action....... maybe a letter asking them what their legal grounds are for trying to act as a credit agency when they do not have a licence may be due.

[Guest HeftyHippo]

The situation should be clarified with the OFT.

 

Are cabot being allowed to trade by the OFT whilst the OFT do something (investigate, monitor etc)? If so there should be a formal procedure to denote such an arrangement (which could be understandable/reasonable in some circumstances).

 

Anything other than a formal procedure for allowing a business to trade whilst investigations are being performed would be open to abuse - just imagine a business is found to be a bit dodgy, but they bribe someone in the OFT to turn a blind eye to their failings and not reject their licence application whilst they take many months to sort themselves out. Meanwhile, most of the OFT and the public are unaware of whats going on.

 

There should be no reason why they are able to trade with an 'informal' licence or permission. If they're not fit, they're either closed down or allowed to trade whilst enforcement activities are underway, in the same way a food outlet with hygiene problems is given advice on what they need to do, but also a deadline to do it, after which they are prosecuted and/or closed.

 

Any period of grace should be a matter of weeks or a couple of months at most, not 9 months like this. As already said, when your licence expires, or car tax, so does your permission to use that facility.

 

Are there any cabot victims volunteering to get the official explanation from the OFT, after which maybe we could all make a noise about it?

[Windywoo]

Pity I wasn't aware of this when they unsucessfully tried to make my bankrupt recently, it would have been good to have drawn that to the judges attention, something else he could have ripped them apart over!!!