Jump to content

elizabeth1

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,718
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by elizabeth1

  1. Now that's a shame!! could have had great fun with some peoples that I cabnot mentions
  2. So when any Debt Collection Agency - carries out searches on consumers and use methods like calling neighbours, employer, relatives by telephone, and then uses tools like Land Registry, Electoral Registers and passes info from dept to dept, company to sister company to solicitors etc.. they need a license for this covering themselves and their employees? Or am I reading this wrong?
  3. Can you imagine asking their collectors that LOL I know we all need to earn a living BUT......
  4. They need converting to something pulling tricks like this - they need reporting for antics like this!! Let the authorities deal with them - the fines are huge - high time companies were stopped for antics like this.
  5. So they'll buy a debt of like £200 @ let's say 10p in the £ so it's = £20 They'll give yo a loan of £200 plus their lovely interest makes it a £400 loan for their outlay of £20?? Like we know statute barred debts are just that - shouldn't be collected!! Nice work if you can get it? How low can a company stoop? No wonder their profits rise ???
  6. Is there a link to this McLibel case anywhere - I have searched for it and can't find it. Thank you
  7. I couldn't agre more!!! And we thought Dinosaurs were all gone they still here thumping their feet aren't they? Seems lessons never learnt!!
  8. Now that site is interesting - I just played in there and it brought up Photographs, news articles, 192.COM = addresses all on one page allowing several links to a persons activities... no effort at all.
  9. Yes we've all read about people being tracked with using Facebook, Myspace, bebo, twitter.... thing is those place show your whole network of friends too. The family photos, nights out with your mates, last holiday etc... Then places like friends reunited and other social networking sites - it's amazing where data is these days!!
  10. Couldn't have put it better myself - there are too often no morals in what they do and the way they treat people. It's very much an industry that needs a clear out in a big way - across the whole of the industry. They've responsibilites too? What these companies forgot about in their greed was that this stuff works two ways and not always how they'd like it to be? The sooner they realise this and apply it to their "company models" the better me thinks. Like they say pay peanuts > get monkeys = the mess they dealing with today?
  11. Yes exactly - if any of you have over time applied for planning permission to change your propertiy (extentions, driveway alteration applications, use of parts of your land etc..) the details will be published in local newspapers, on display in local council planning departments and so on. This is where your neighbours and the general public will be allowed to review your plans and object or agree with those plan proposals before the council planning meetings take place. We can get copies of any of the minutes of such meetings from councils if we are interested.
  12. OK - we'll resist the urge shall we? No peeking it's bedtime??????
  13. Thanks Andy - yes it's a useful tool if we want to gather information on finances too as you say - it's a tool many of the Debt Collection Agencies will use to decide whether or not to take a debtor to court or not = they'll see whether a person has equity etc.. and can take a quicky loan out to repay debts owed etc.. it's simple and effective? Useful if you planning buying a house and want to know how much to push the sellers on price offered too?
  14. I have been posting on this forum for a long time now and it never ceases to amaze me how much data is out there at the touch of a keyboard if we look for it. I am going to keep this simple and issue a challenge to everyone. Put your name into Google and find out how much white data you can gather on yourself in ten minutes. For those of you who are Directors or Secretary of a company your data will be publicly available in Companies House along with all of your financial affairs relating to your business = your name, business and personal address, date of birth, fellow directors details, previous companies owned and so on the information available is huge even down to any CCJ's, credit score rising/falling etc.. www.Upmystreet.co.uk - will tell you lot of things regarding your home - use your postcode and you'll find in there the sale history info on your home ( and neighbouring properties). You'll find maps where you can do aerial views of an area, street view maps and you can see your own front door. Land Registry searches cost £4.00 a time, who holds your mortgage, dates loans were taken out and the like. www.landregistry.co.uk http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/direct/content/info/fees/default.asp All of this is in the public domain for any of us to use. There are electoral registers - and I learnt last year that many councils actually sell lists of data on paper or on discs for as little as £10 for a disc of 1000 names and addresses = ever wondered why we get junk mail? Look on your council websites and you'll see that this data is sold to anyone. www.Yell.com www.192.com may have your data too. There used to be a website which was www.b4usearch.co.uk but it was closed down for obvious reasons. Now if there are any posters into Geneology out there you'll be aware of sites like www.ancestry.co.uk and WWW.FREEBMD.CO.UK to mention just a few sites where there is information on Births, Marriages, Deaths etc.. we can find out a whole persons family tree in these websites and certificates cost very little to verify a persons marriage, parents etc.. amazing resources!! Not forgetting the Credit Reference Agency's and the little gems they hold if you subscribe to them - Equifax, Call Credit and Experian. We have all read over time people being wrongly pursued for debts they never had? Now how can tracing Agencies get it so worng? Challenge...see how much information you can collect on yourself. I'll be interested in seeing your replies to this - are any of you surprised as to what you found out?
  15. I will echo Andrew1's sentiments - Rooster provided us all with lots of inspiration at the times when we all needed it. R.I.P.
  16. Not sure whether what I am going to say will help anyone BUT.... There is a knack to dealing with Cabot - my advice to anyone here is to read, read and read again. There have been many of us here who have dealt with the likes of Cabot quite successfully and the art to it is to keep reading here as we posted so much information here from our own dealings with this company. Look for postings and threads by Tbern, Seahorse, myself, DebtMountain, Andrew1, Rhia etc.. etc.. we wrote so much stuff and it's all in here to help posters. (look in my signature as some of it may help) The first thing I will always tell anyone is the devil is in the detail = you have to get the paperwork off any company and study each and every page as it holds the key to dealing with any of this stuff. If you Subject access request Cabot and get ALL info relating to an account you'll see a few interesting things. Amongst the Subject access request pages are some pages that lie landscape across the page (they read sideways) it's a diary of events that happen from when Cabots buy the accounts. Read through these carefully and you'll spot patterns appearing. You'll find logs of calls to you and letters that Cabot have sent to you. Cabot have been known to issue the default notices on templates - you'll spot amongst these diary pages where Cabot write the goodbye letter from company involved and the hello letter from Cabot (quite often you'll find it amongst the Cabot threads that both these letters turn up in same envelope where efficient staff are being cost effective with postage costs ) it's all written in the diary pages. Later before they issue proceedings you'll spot where they will check Land Registry to hazard a guess as to who is worth taking to court to try get charging orders on homes. By doing this Cabot staff can briefly see when last loan/mortgage was taken out against a persons home - they can see when home was purchased and how much for and with the tools widely available on internet (up my street, rightmove etc..) they can see what similar homes sell for in a given area it's gives a rough estimate of your homes value to them = they can guess whether or not you are likely to have equity in your home to repay them if they take you to court and scare pants of you with a court claim. In short by using these tools and a little calculation they'll cherry pick who to pick on. These checks are written up in the Subject Access Request diary pages - you'll see it written up "check Land Registry Positive, Issue claim" Odds are that many people that they pick on are not in CAG and similar forums so won't now their rights. So when a court claim drops through letter box many will pay up cause they take a quick loan out to pay the debts off, others will offer a monthly repayment to court showing income expenditure, others will be scared to defend so Cabot win by default - it's a game they play?? I advise anyone to Subject Access Request this company and read the Diary pages as there is lots of info amongst these pages you'll see the template letters written by this company on behalf of the lenders etc.. Their pattern hasn't changed it's all there and can be challenged.
  17. ????? can you say where? is this published anywhere we can link to?
  18. This is just one of the many summary versions of the McGuffick case that I saw - it may be of some use - but keep in mind that there are many summary views on this case - but it may be a starting point http://www.hammonds.com/FileServer.aspx?oID=22785 Credit Act 1974: More Good News for Lenders Introduction Consumer credit decisions are like the proverbial bus: following the recent and emphatic judgment in McGuffick1 comes the Court of Appeal’s equally emphatic decision in SouthernPacific Mortgage Limited v Jayne Elizabeth Heath [2009] EWCA Civ 1135 (‘Heath’) on multiple agreements under Section 18 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the ‘CC A 1974’). For many lenders, particularly those facing claims by consumers alleging a multiple agreement exists (typically on re-financing where part is used to pay off an old loan with the balance being free to use as the borrower wishes) but has not been properly documented meaning the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable, this decision will come as extremely welcome news. The Facts Put shortly, Ms Heath owned a property in Workshop subject to a charge in favour of the Halifax. The balance outstanding was around £19,000. She applied for and obtained a loan from a new lender for around £28,000. It was a condition of the loan that Ms Heath’s existing loan with the Halifax would be repaid on completion. Ms Heath accepted the terms and entered into an agreement with the new lender. Upon completion, her mortgage with the Halifax was redeemed and Ms Heath received the balance of around £9,000 to spend as she wished. The lender later assigned its agreement with Ms Heath to Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited (‘Southern Pacific’). The total credit advanced exceeded £25,000 (the statutory limit at the time of the loan) meaning it was not regulated by the CCA 1974 or subject to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (the ‘CC AR 1983’). The Proceedings After initially obtaining a possession order, suspended on terms both in 2004 and 2006,Southern Pacific applied for a warrant of possession. Ms Heath obtained legal advice and argued that the agreement between her and Southern Pacific was regulated by the CCA 1974 because it was a multiple agreement under Section 18 and should be treated as two separate agreements. She also argued that because the forms failed to comply with the requirements of the CCA 1974 and the CCAR 1983, the agreement was unenforceable and the Court could notgive Southern Pacific permission to enforce it.[/font] The arguments came before the High Court on 29 January 2009 and His Honour Judge Purle QC, sitting as a High Court Judge, (in a judgment described by Lord Justice Lloyd as a ‘clear and admirable judgment’) decided that the agreement was not a multiple agreement but an agreement not regulated by the CCA 1974. Southern Pacific could therefore enforce the debt and obtain possession of the property. Ms Heath appealed to the Court of Appeal.Commercial & Dispute ResolutionFor many lenders, particularly those facing claims by consumers alleging a multiple agreement exists. 1 If you want to know more about the Court’s decision in McGuffick, please see our Review dated 8 October 2009 entitled “First Consumer Credit Test Case decided in Bank’s Favour” available from our website: http://www.hammonds.com or by contacting Russell Kelsall by e-mail at [email protected] The Issue The Court of Appeal was, as Lord Justice Lloyd says at the beginning of his judgment, asked to decide the correct interpretation of Section 18 of the CCA 1974. Tellingly, he noted that the decision may have (if Ms Heath was right) “serious consequences for transactions of a commonplace nature.” The precise issue to be decided was whether the transaction (not the credit) fell under Section 18, meaning it had to be split into parts and require separate documentation. Section 18 Notoriously difficult to understand and with differing academic views, Section 18 says: (1) This section applies to an agreement (a “multiple agreement”) if its terms are such as - (a) to place a part of it within one category of agreement mentioned in this Act, and another part of it within a different category of agreement so mentioned, or within a category of agreement not so mentioned, or b) to place it, or a part of it, within two or more categories of agreement so mentioned. (2) Where a part of an agreement falls within subsection (1), that part shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a separate agreement. (3) Where an agreement falls within subsection (1)(b), it shall be treated as an agreement in]each of the categories in question, and this Act shall apply to it accordingly. (4) Where under subsection (2) a part of a multiple agreement is to be treated as a separate agreement, the multiple agreement shall (with any necessary modifications) be construed accordingly; and any sum payable under the multiple agreement, if not apportioned by the parties, shall for the purposes of proceedings in any court relating to the multiple agreement be apportioned by the court as may be requisite. The Decision After considering the various arguments, the Court noted that if Ms Heath’s argument was right (ie that the agreement was a multiple agreement because there were two loans: one for restricted-use credit to pay off the Halifax loan and another for unrestricted-use credit which Ms Heath was free to spend as she wished), it would pose substantial practical difficulties. For example, if part of the loan was to be used to pay off an existing debt then the amount may not be easy to work out: it would often alter on a daily basis. To state the precise figure on the agreement may therefore be difficult meaning (if the agreement were regulated) that it may be unenforceable. This, Lord Justice Lloyd said, must be a relevant consideration. The Court of Appeal went on to dismiss Ms Heath’s appeal and said, in particular, that: The starting point is the terms of the loan. From this, one must work out whether the agreement is one advance, under which there are two or more parts in different categories, or whether it (or part of it) falls into two or more categories. • It was wrong to start from the proposition that if there seemed to be more than one disparate category (ie restricted use credit to pay off the Halifax advance and unrestricted use credit for the balance) then the agreement must fall into two or more parts. • Instead, the question is whether the agreement falls into one or more categories, not the credit provided under it. • Section 18 is, in part, aimed at attempts to avoid the application of the CCA 1974. This was a bigger issue before the removal of the £25,000 limit. • The use of the word “category” in Section 18(1)(a) and (b) was the same and meant disparate categories (for example, restricted-use and unrestricted-use or running-account credit and fixed sum credit): it did not mean compatible categories (like unrestricted-use, debtor-creditor and running-account credit). • Section 18(1)(b) recognised that the agreement as a whole could fall within more than one category without being an agreement in parts (which would require separate documentation). Taking these considerations into account, Ms Heath’s loan was not split between the amount to be paid towards the Halifax charge and the amount which Ms Heath was free to use. Instead, there was simply a term of the agreement requiring part of the loan to be used to pay off the outstanding mortgage. This was not a multiple agreement and it would be an artificial exercise for the Court to notionally apportion the monies between the two categories. Summary During these tough economic times, lenders are facing an increased number of consumer credit challenges from borrowers, many of which are stimulated by claims management companies. The decision in Heath further erodes the prospects of such claims succeeding. Lenders can also take considerable comfort from the Court of Appeal’s decision that it is the agreement that must be considered. Lenders will often advance monies to borrowers who wish to use part to pay off existing debts and part for unrestricted use. Lenders may even include a contractual provision requiring certain debts to be paid off as a condition of advancing the loan. This, the Court of Appeal said, did not automatically make the agreement a multiple agreement. Instead, it is clear that the Court will look at the agreement and see whether it (and not the credit) falls within Section 18. This is likely to seriously reduce the number of claims under Section 18 and Courts are likely to treat with suspicion any such claim, particularly where the consequences may have serious implications for the credit industry. Lenders defending claims under Section 18 should seriously consider the impact of Heath on the facts of its dispute. It is likely that applications for summary judgment under CPR 24.2 or strike-out under CPR 3.4 will no doubt follow with obvious costs consequences for borrowers, claims management companies and after the event insurers.
  19. Beau, Not sure whether what I am going to say will help anyone BUT.... If you SAR Cabot and get ALL info relating to an account you'll see a few interesting things. Amongst the SAR pages are some pages that lie landscape across the page (they read sideways) it's a diary of events that happen from when Cabots buy the accounts. Read through these carefully and you'll spot patterns appearing. You'll find logs of calls to you and letters that Cabot have sent to you. Cabot have been known to issue the default notices on templates - you'll spot amongst these diary pages where Cabot write the goodbye letter from company involved and the hello letter from Cabot (quite often you'll find it amongst the Cabot threads that both these letters turn up in same envelope where efficient staff are being cost effective with postage costs ) it's all written in the diary pages. Later before they issue proceedings you'll spot where they will check Land Registry to hazard a guess as to who is worth taking to court to try get charging orders on homes. By doing this Cabot staff can briefly see when last loan/mortgage was taken out against a persons home - they can see when home was purchased and how much for and with the tools widely available on internet (up my street, rightmove etc..) they can see what similar homes sell for in a given area it's gives a rough estimate of your homes value to them = they can guess whether or not you are likely to have equity in your home to repay them if they take you to court and scare pants of you with a court claim. In short by using these tools and a little calculation they'll cherry pick who to pick on. These checks are written up in the SAR diary pages - you'll see it written up "check Land Registry Positive, Issue claim" Odds are that many people that they pick on are not in CAG and similar forums so won't now their rights. So when a court claim drops through letter box many will pay up cause they take a quick loan out to pay the debts off, others will offer a monthly repayment to court showing income expenditure, others will be scared to defend so Cabot win by default - it's a game they play?? I advise anyone to SAR this company and read the Diary pages as there is lots of info amongst these pages you'll see the template letters written by this company on behalf of the lenders etc..
  20. Look on any council website and there is info on how they'll sell batches of information to people in hard copies or discs (something like £10 for a 1000 addresses etc.. ) how in depth the info is I couldn't say - you'd have to check it out with your council etc.. There is an option on electoral register papers to "opt out" and they'll keep you off the electoral register public view - but that has other repercussions with credit reference agencies where when you apply for any credit you won't show up as living at your address etc.. I don't know lots about it - have a look on your council website and make enquiries - they'll tell you what you want to know. The lists they sell can go to anyone who pays the fees for the info - we can all buy this info from any council as far as I am aware - we don't have to justify the purpose that we want the info. Just like anyone can go public library to view electoral registers off the reference shelves for free.
  21. They can sell the electoral registers to anyone who wants them for small fees etc..
  22. Is there a link you can post up to link us to the Australian regulations/laws on debt collection from consumers? Maybe if some of us have a look through to see how Aus regs differ to our would be a useful point to begin with? I would think that once a UK debt becomes statute barred it's done with and these companies can't go on chasing it in another country - let alone bring it back to life with a new lifespan as in your Aus 5 year life thing. It's very interesting how they've had the nerve to do this. My initial thoughts are that these debts would predominantly be "UK" debts and they can't just rebirth into a new country and get a new life like these companies trying to do. I'll watch this with great interest as it's a lousy cheek from these companies - seems they'll stop at nothing?
  23. Good thinking Batman We should all just call to say hello while we are calling them - they can't be calling us? should keep them busy
×
×
  • Create New...