opps

tbern, I do not feel that you have acted as a bully. Your posts have been factual and very informative, keep up the good work

I was watching Little Britain last night on UKgold... There was one sketch that reminded me of this thread. Everytime someone posts facts or produces evidence which is contrary to the OP personal opinion, the usual response is no but, yes but, no but, yes but:p I think the time has come to lock this thread, it is of no real benefit to anyone and only serves to increase the confusion in relation to Cabot. I would recommend that everyone reads, Debt_Mountain's, tbern's and Seahorse's threads as these are based on facts not opinions. Please accept my gratitude for everyones messages of support. Have a Good Bank Holiday everyone

In an artical written by Mr Glen Crawford, he has quoted a source (the under_secretary) and this same source also confirms that Cabot become the creditor. They have simply got it wrong.

I am really finding hard, what point you are making. Cabot are using sections from the LPA and CCA for their own benefit and ignoring the sections they don't like.

My mistake sorry Rhia... See what happens when you have had 1 WKD to many

Is your theory a "winging it theory" Rhia ?

I think the previous quotes from the under_secretary and of Dr Roger Lucas, both clearly explain the "creditor" bit. However Cabot, do not want to be the creditor. As they are fully aware, this would mean that they have certain obligations. As long as they live in denial, they can ignore these obligations.

Again, I apologise I just wanted to clarify and respond to your post: "Yes there may well be a deed of assignment but if no payment has been made upfront and there is instead a charge then it is not an absolute assignment. Poor Ken must be getting rather fed up of the Cabot Fan Club not understanding why none of the Cabot companies are the creditor after all he does tell everyone exactly where to look! Bet he wonders why people love to write to him instead of exercising their right to deal with the actual creditor."

The easiest way to understand it is, Cabot can't have their cake and eat it. The statements in their letters are wrong and contradictory.

Here is another quote from Ken.. "Given that the majority of companies file their accounts on 31st December or 31st March, deciding how best to deal with the debt on your balance sheet is a major consideration for firms at this time of year. Debt sale is a useful answer as once a portfolio has been written-off by an originator, any value achieved on sale is immediately added back on the bottom line. This gives the lender certainty over their cash flow by allowing them to unlock the valuable working capital tied up in the sales ledger."

Boy, your not going to give in are you. Why are you so unwilling to accept that you may be wrong, when it comes to Cabot ?

Your theory may be correct in relation to other DCA's, however not in relation to most of the accounts "purchased" by Cabot. I must apologise for the number of my posts tonight. Something snapped, when I read the remarks in relation to the Cabot Fan Club. I admire the time and effort they have spent researching. I wish each one of them, the best of luck.

I have no proof, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Tade and Industry, knows what he is talking about.

Sorry, I have no proof I said Big Mac was a poor example but you have to agree, I made my point

To quote Mr Maynard: "Most purchasers are flexible in their approach to buying debt and will construct a transaction to suit the exact requirements of the seller, based upon one of two types of purchasing model. The first is outright debt purchase, where the client is seeking immediate value and therefore the agreed purchase price is paid up front at the point of sale." He also said: "The fundamental benefits of debt sale for lenders are that they can substantially reduce the number of accounts they need to actively manage and they gain the certainty and confidence of receiving an up-front cash payment." In summary, Ken has freely admitted that payment is made to purchase, UPFRONT at the POINT of SALE. This means that the assignment must be absolute.

I am off to McDonald's to "purchase" a Big Mac. I will tell them that I will pay them next week. Sarcastic example I know, but it clearly demonstrates the flaws in your argument.

There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding in this thread. To clarify, I will use Cabot as an example... When they "purchase" a debt.. They buy it. They do pay the OC's money for the debt. Any money they reclaim, in relation to the debt is not returned to the OC. If a DCA is unable to reclaim funds, due to lack of documentation etc.. They have an agreement with OC's that they can sell these back to them. I appreciate that this concept may be hard for some to accept, but this is the way the industry operates. tbern, has already posted that he has proof of this in relation to Cabot... tbern please , to stop this from going on can you please post your proof. I think you will find that both Debt_Mountain and tbern have both already started legal action against Cabot.

Thought some of the readers of this thread, may find this case interesting. This is the one, that DCA's really hate.. Dimond v Lovell [1999] EWCA Civ 1311 (29 April 1999)

sorry

sorry

sorry

sorry

sorry

sorry