Not sure if this is an issue, but I don't like the way they hide behind "The Cabot Financial Group" A group of companies are ones where there is joint shareholding normally eminating from a common holding company. As we are talking here about the legal status of their position we should look at the legal entities they use. If your Notice of assignment is the same as mine, Cabot Financial(UK) Ltd bought the debt, but you are being chased by Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd, an entirely separate legal entity. Have you given permission for CF (UK) to pass your data to CF(Europe) Ltd? Answer NO. Your creditor is CF(UK) Ltd so they are hiding behind the "Group" statement. Did your NoA state that CF(UK) now owned your debt, but that you must pay CF(Europe)? Mine did. I refused to pay CF(Europe) It would be useful if someone more knowledgeable could comment my point. regards, Muscat

There is another issue you need to monitor. The claimant's solicitor going for the Interim CO notifies Land Registry and your mortgage company about the charge. I found that after I had the interim CO dismissed the system notified Land Registry that it was cancelled, but the claimant's solicitor did not notify my mortgage company that the application had failed. One year later when I was discussing payment options with the mortgage company, I was told that I had no options available because there was a charging order against the property. The Claimant's solicitors claimed that they had informed the mortgage company but I bet they hadn't. I had to send in a copy of the Court dismissal to get the record removed from my mortgage account. regards, Muscat

Regarding the POC. The Cabot companies are structured in a way for their own benefit. In my opinion the "Cabot Financial Group" is a meaningless statement. A group of companies have some common shareholding and are allowed to submit group accounts for tax and capital gains purposes. But the companies within the group are separate legal entities. I presume the debt was purchased by Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd, but you are being chased by Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd. Surely there is scope in attacking this arrangement. Your CCA will allow the OC to pass your data onto the new owner, C (UK) Ltd, but your data is with C(Europe) Ltd. Is this a breach of the Data Protection Act? My NoA from my OC stated that C(UK) had bought the debt , but that I must pay C(Europe) Ltd! I,ve told them to "bog off" There is too much of a conflict of interest between the 2 companies. What would happen if you paid C(Europe) Ltd but they went into voluntary liquidation before they paid C(UK) Ltd anything. In theory you still owe C(UK) Ltd all you,ve paid. Who is your claimant? If it is C(UK) Ltd, I bet the paperwork is from C(Europe) Ltd. Can we fight this arrangement? regards, Muscat

Hi Folks, Just a reminder about the Variation Order process. I have 2 CCJs which required monthly payments of £350. Due to a pension being wiped out and now being retired I have struggled to pay the monthly sum due, so I applied for a Variation Order. Cost was £35 each. I didn't have to appear in court, there was no arguing in front of the Claimant. The court accepted that I had considerably reduced income from when the CCJs were granted and and they were reduced to £15 per month each. I now feel a lot more comfortable about my monthly outgoings. If you are in a similar position, with CCJs and reduced income, request a reduction to what you can now afford. regards, Muscat

Many thanks for your 2 replies. That now raises a further question. Would it be best for me to satisfy the DN and make it go away, which then allows them to raise a second one in the future, or leave an unsatisfied invalid DN as future ammunition for me? I need to think about this! regards, Muscat

A question regarding Default Notices. I had a reduced payment agreement with LLoyds TSB to pay £20 per month. I wrote to all creditors before Christmas to state that I was reducing all monthly payments by 50% as one pension has been trashed. I also CCA'd all creditors, the LLoyds reply is that they are struggling to satisfy all CCA requests and they'll get back to me. So they have failed to produce my CCA. Lloyds have subsequently issued me with a DN. It looks OK and gives me 20 days to satisfy the breach. The breach is that I am now £30 in arrears. If I do not satisfy the breach they "will claim through the Courts" I will point out that they cannot with no CCA. However, if I pay £30 by xx Feb 09 it states that "no further enforcement action will be taken in respect of the breach" My question is, if I pay the £30 I have satisfied the Default Notice, therefore what could/would happen if afterwards I continued paying (if they produce the CCA) £10/month instead of £20 and they weren't happy, or stopped paying alltogether (with no CCA)? Can a second default notice be issued? If they took me to court could I argue that I satisfied the breach of the DN, so they can't sue for the debt? I'm unclear of what could happen. regards, Muscat

Restons are a dirty bunch! They tried a similar trick on me. I had an instalment CCJ which was up to date. however, in their Interim CO application they ticked the box " The judgement order did not provide for payments by instalments". They made the mistake of not turning up in court, so using Mercantile Credit v Ellis, etc, etc, plus them lying in the application the Judge dismissed their application and awarded me £100 costs. All defendants dealing with these tactics must attend court. regards, Muscat

Sorry Lookinforinfo, but I totally disagree with your opening statement. A creditor wants a charging order, so the system allows him to apply for an interim order to stop the debtor selling his house quickly and hence avoiding the CO. The creditor now has to go to court and convince the judge that the CO should be granted. I know some judges are unsympathetic to debtors. I found a judge who was sympathetic to my arguments. He dismissed the interim CO and awarded me costs. Normally for a conventional CCJ, Mercantile Credit V Ellis should suffice, but I also used prejudical to other creditors and other arguments which I have previously written about on this site. The debtor should always go into court and fight. It doesn't help to give up before the court appearance. regards, Muscat

There is an other issues with the NoA's issued by Cabot, and some other DCAs, which are issued on the letterhead of the OC.My Cabot NoA, from the OC states, Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd has bought the debt but I should make my payments to Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd.I am in the middle of trying to establish from my OC by what legal right/basis they have told me they have sold the debt to Cabot (UK) Ltd, but that I must pay Cabot (Europe) Ltd., a totally separate legal entity. What is the debtors position if he/she pays Cabot (Europe) and they fail to pass on any money to Cabot (UK)? If Cabot (Europe) was placed into voluntary liquidation for say tax reasons owing Cabot(UK) funds, then (UK) could write to the debtor stating that the debt is still owed. I have told Cabot (Europe) Ltd that I will only deal with Cabot(UK) Ltd. I have a feeling that my second letter to the OC is with their lawyers. We should all refuse to play this game.regards,Muscat

Hi x20, Thanks for taking the trouble to sort this out. It is an interesting point. I have a collection of DNs from 2006 and 2007. They are all invalid as they have added 14 days from the date of the DN letter. Not sure how I will make use of the info, but it is certainly increasing my ammunition for my ongoing battles. Many thanks Muscat

With reference to "date of service" for DNs, several posters in this thread have said it is second day after posting for first class post. Without wishing to be pedantic, is it not the second "business day" after posting? I have 2 DNs dated on a Friday, surely the date of service is not the Sunday, but the Tuesday following? Also would any public/bank holiday days delay the date of service as well? regards, Muscat

I had an interim charging order dismissed, when I had a CCJ for an unsecured loan. I don't know which of my several arguments the judge was persuaded by, but one of them was the following. Lending money is about Risk and Reward, secured loans are low risk, therefore the lender gets low returns i.e charges low interest rates. Unsecured loans are high risk, therefore the lender gets higher returns, i.e. charges higher interest rates. What my creditor wanted to do was turn his high risk lending into low risk lending, without returning to me the difference of the two interest rates. The claimant wanted low risk and high return, which was unfair to me and to my other creditors. I asked the judge could I ask for a rebate if he granted the CO. He smiled, but didn't reply. regards, Muscat

How's this for a thought CABOT (UK) LTD is sitting on lots of "assets", being the debt portfolio it has bought. CABOT (EUROPE) LTD is sitting on lots of cash, being the money it has collected. The directors of the "Cabot Group" put Cabot(Europe) Ltd into voluntary liquidation, split the cash as appropriate and retire to Barbados. The Directors also sell Cabot (UK) Ltd to another DCA for a tidy sum. The new owners write to all of the Cabot(UK) customers stating that "you owe us the full balance on your account" because unfortunately Cabot (Europe) didn't hand over any cash before it went into liquidation. Reading other Cabot threads I am surprised by the number of people who are happy dealing with Cabot (Europe) Ltd, when their creditor is Cabot (UK) Ltd. The question needs to be asked - why do Cabot buy the debt with one company and collect money in another company? It certainly isn't for our convenience! A similar situation to that above happened to me with a business joint venture. I had formed a new 50%/50% Ltd Company with a group of companies. Later the MD of the overall group company withdrew all cash from my JV company leaving me to pick up the pieces. I lost a lot and learnt a hard lesson! regards, Muscat

24th Oct was a Friday. Date of service for 1st Class post is plus 2 business days. = following Wednesday 29th. + 12 days = 10th Nov. That how I would calculate it. regards, Muscat

Thanks for the input Rameses Do any of the CAG legal eagles have a different view, or do I just forget it? regards, Muscat

The CCJ was obtained in late June 2007, well before I had heard of CAG and understood my rights. Details are, I defaulted on an unsecured loan, balance about £4,500 and a Credit Card, balance about £11,000, both with the same high street bank. Both debts were included in the one CCJ. I admitted the debt apart from one penalty charge. I have recently examined the paperwork I have, and the evidence bundle submitted by the banks solicitor. Regarding the loan, the evidence included the front of a CCA, but they didn't include the terms and conditions which are printed on the back. They didn't include the Default Notice. I have a DN dated 28 July 06, which was a Friday. Date of service therefore 1st Aug. The DN gave 11th Aug as the payment date = 9 days. Regarding the Credit Card, the bank's written evidence states "the application form is not available (ie no CCA) but I exhibit copy statements from xxx to yyy". They didn't include a copy of the Default notice. I have a DN dated 13 Oct 06, a Friday. Therefore date of service is 17th Oct. The breach payment date is 27th Oct = 9 or 10 days. In summary, both DNs are defective, one CCA is missing and one didn't have Ts & Cs. So the $64,000 dollar question, how would the Court view an application from me now to have the CCJ set aside, when I have been paying instalments for 18 months? regards, Muscat

My solicitor was concerned about ensuring the transaction was not done at an undervalue. That was why I provided him with a written estate agent's valuation and offset the mortgage plus selling costs to get the total free equity. Cash did change hands, although if I had drawn up a loan agreement and allowed my wife to pay in instalments I am not sure that a conventional DCA creditor would fight this arrangement in court. I am not corncerned about post death complications. This is not for everyone, it has worked for me once, but it might not work the second time. However, I am more relaxed now about a CO against my 1%. My solicitor was happy that what I had executed would be difficult to overturn because it was not done at an undervalue. regards, Muscat

My solicitor charged £250. My mortgage Co is not one of my creditors, Yes you do need the mortgage company approval. That is why I kept 1%, ie I was not taking my name off the deeds, just rearranging the shareholding for inheritance tax purposes! Unmoderatethe net, based on your last sentence, which is rubbish, you certainly are a cynic. My wife now sleeps at night knowing she has 99% of the house, which was not the case when I had aggresive DCA's chasing me. Cut me some slack, I'm trying to offer assistance to people who are not as pro-active as me in sorting out problems with "out of the box" solutions!

I don't know if this has been covered before on CAG. If so, apologies This could apply to married couples with a conventional joint mortgage, who are not planning on getting divorced. With house prices on their knees this is a great time to do it. It assumes that you have a standard "joint tenancy" registered at the Land Registry Steps: 1) Get several written house valuations from estate agents stating that you are looking at the value for a quick sale. 2) Work with the lowest, burn the others! 3) Deduct mortgage, estimated agents fees, estimated solicitors costs from the value to calculate the free equity in the house. 4) Divide by 2 to get the 50% beneficial interest of the debtor side of the couple. 5) Go and see a solicitor and request, a formal legal letter to state that you both agree to sever the "joint tenancy" agreement and substitute it for a "tenancy in common" 6) Solicitor draws up a trust deed for the debtor to sell 49% of his/her 50% to the other half. I kept 1% as I believe a remortgage would have been required and it would involve the mortgage company far more. As it was I said we wanted to do it for inheritance tax planning purposes (true!) 7) Next consideration is how to handle the sum of money involved, which is 98% of the 50% to get to the 49% sale. If it is zero or low you do not have a problem. If it is higher than you can handle, I think there are 2 choices. For us, my wife borrowed money from her mother and I used the money to repay some debts. However, a strategy which I have not tested is that you could give the buyer of the 49% a deferred repayment plan. You could draw up a formal loan agreement whereby the OH pays say £50 per month until the house is sold. 8) The solicitor must register the changes with the Land Registry. 9) When your creditor states they will go for a charging order, point out that you only have a 1% beneficial interest in the property, which in todays housing market is worth £3.75 I defeated an Interim Charging Order application following this strategy Note, I am not legally qualified, so take your own legal advice before following this up. Any comments from more knowledgable CAGers regards, Muscat

Last thought, if you win don't forget to ask for your costs to be paid. Research at £9.25 per hour, phone calls, travel, lost wages etc. I asked for £250. The judge thought I was being cheeky but awarded me £100. I enjoyed receiving the cheque from the "dark side" regards, Muscat

I agree with Scabhunter. The redetermination has changed your judgement from a forthwith to a monthly payment plan. The creditor assumed that you wouldl default on the forthwith judgement, so applied for a Charging Order at the same time. Now that you have a monthly payment plan, as long as you have not defaulted on that, the Mercantile Credit case states that a CO should not be granted. So you must push this in court. Take all the paperwork you have to court and even if you don't get the valuation, make that part of your argument. If you have other creditors argue that they will be disadvantaged by the CO. Get emotional and fight! Also, you may find that the other side do not turn up but rely on paperwork. If so, you should be able to win. Let us know how you get on. Remember that the arguments I have put forward helped me get a CO application dismissed, so you can win. Good Luck regards, Muscat

Sorry meant to say something else. After a CCJ that allows for monthly repayments, A CO should not be granted if the debtor has not defaulted on the repayment plan. This is established as a law precedent. Do a search, I think it was a case involving Mercantile Credit. I quoted this in Court and the judge agreed with me when he rejected the Interim CO. regards, Muscat

To answer your question. You will never be forced to sell the house!! The Court Order states that they need court permission. If you keep up the payments that would never be granted. All the CO means is that when you sell the house the CO must be paid off from your 50% beneficial interest. If due to market conditions there isn't enough cash they may get stroppy about allowing the sale to proceed, but hopefully you will have reduced the debt anyway. Hope this helps regards, Muscat

Hi Pushbike, This is my first ever post on CAG, so while I am a newbie I am not new to your situation. Unfortunately you do not have much time. First an application form is not a Credit Agreement, there are lots of threads on this. However the CCJ has already been obtained so you can only go for a Set Aside, based on an argument that the CCJ should not have been agreed to. Second Joint Tenancy means the benificial interest is split 50%,50% beteen you and your husband. The Charging Order will be against your 50% If you can get a friendly estate agent to give you a written valuation today for a forced sale today. Subtract your mortgage and selling costs and see what your 50% is worth. If it is less than the CCJ take all the paperwork to court and argue that it dosen't cover the CO For the future, and for anyone else reading this in a similar situation. Go and see a solicitor and change from joint tenancy to tenants in common. Then sell 49% of your 50% to your OH. Keeping 1% means you do not need to remortgage if it is a joint mortgage. If they cant afford to pay you the 49% benificail interest in cash, draw up a loan agreement and accept payments over x years. I did this but my wife got cash from her mother to pay me and I used it to reduce debts. A CO application which I new was coming was rejected by the judge because it was for far more than my 1% value, and more importantly granting it to one creditor would seriously prejudice the interests of my other creditors Hope this helps regards Muscat