Sorry, not on this one..

This is the thing... Either way it is going to cost them money. They do have a 3rd option though Settle this claim and the amount I have indicated that my second claim will be for and I would happily sign a confidentiality agreement and never tell a soul.. But, if they want to play. I'll play and I am having so much fun

You can certainly email and ask him.... I did a couple of months ago... I won't post his email address here, but you can find it on their website

I would strongly advise, everyone dealing with cabot to read the following document: www.b-mag.org.uk/memos/Cascading%20Memo%2032.doc Take a look at their website B-MAG - Home they know their stuff

Aktiv, please don't take my response to your OP personally. This is a forum and we may not always like what other people post, but we read the posts and then have the opportunity to respond. People see things differently, this is the beauty of this site. I have learnt so much from the people here. If we all agreed, it wouldn't be so much fun.

When a debt is sold to a DCA by a financial institution, they are normally provided with no documentation. Absolute Assignment only relates to the actual selling of the debt. Before any questions this, I do know this for a FACT and this does not mean the assignment must then be equitable. The CCA does not only apply to the original creditor. 186 Agreement with more than one creditor or owner Where an actual or prospective regulated agreement has two or more creditors or owners, anything required by or under this Act to be done to, or in relation to, or by, the creditor or owner shall be effective if done to, or in relation to, or by, any one of them. I am sure I don't have to also remind people that the CCA also states: “creditor” means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor; I am in the fortunate position of having both correspondence from Cabot and from the OC and the proof in my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) documentation to show that this does in fact happen. I agree they must have agreement from the OC to use their headed paper. However, this opens a can worms. There are members on here that have had legal proceedings started against them by Cabot. This is in their sole name and the OC is not named as a co-claimant. So if the goodbye letter was written by Cabot on the other banks headed paper as per the LPA 1925 the assignment could only be equitable, this means that they can't actually start proceedings in their own name. Cabot can't pick and chose which parts of the law applies to them. A default stays on a credit file for six years, DCA can't reset the clock. It may be that they use the £1 to restart the 6 year period under the statue of limitations. However, as the payment of £1.00 is not an admission of the debt, they can't. When you send £1.00, they don't actually pass this onto the OC, as the OC will give the DCA a copy of the documentation free of charge. The above comments are based on my own personal opinion.

Hello all, I thought I would add my two pence worth to quote from Richard himself: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/56819-deed-assignment-help-needed-3.html#post777598 "However, simply if the OC either sells the debt to the AC without giving Notice of Assignment to the debtor, in which case the sale will be an “Equitable Assignment” which in order for the debtor to be sued the Claim would need to be issued in the names of both OC and AC, or when Notice of Assignment is received by the debtor, the assignment automatically becomes a “Legal Assignment”, thus allowing the AC to then sue in their own name. Either way, a transfer of the title to the debt passes to an identifiable AC on the date the transfer document, “DOA” if you like, is signed by the OC." So upon receipt of a Notice of Assignment, the assigment automatically becomes a "legal assignment" I don't ever recall anyone actually being sent a Deed of Assignment. However, I do have three Notice's of Assignment from 3 OC's and copies of the subsequent Cabot "Hello" letters next to me, I can't comment in relation to other DCA's, however in relation to Cabot as confirmed by Richard Spud the debts are not assigned by equitable assignment but by absolute assignment.

I know what you mean Aktiv. But is nothing personal against. He is just doing a job to pay the bills like the rest of us. I have no ill feelings about him. Wouldn't be surprised if he was an ok guy..

mistake

mistake

Don't quote me but I think they are the same thing... I will wait to see what WW and Dean Spencer have to say for themselves

It is like I said Andrew1, I have a letter "from" Bank of Scotland and Barclaycard. Two completely different companies, yet both of these letters are the same word for word, even the font is the same. I find this very strange as my friend works for Barclays and he has confirmed that they have their own special font call Barclays Serif Regular, which is part of their corporate identity.. *Legal Disclaimer - I am not suggesting for a moment Cabot would dare write letters on other companies headed paper. *Reality Check - Sorry, yes I am.... They even confirmed this in my SAR they said they would produce bank statements and print them on BOS paper. Naughty.. very naughty.

Don't apologise.. I thought I was getting it all wrong..

Is it possible for him to be a LF ? I have read through the CPR very quickly and the only mention I can find relating to a LF is children and mental health patients.. nothing about companies

Someone has been a busy boy

Aktiv is right, this is the second defence filed in relation to my claim. However, has confirmed by their defence, Hodsons are they legal representatives. I am just sent an email to both WW and to Hodsons asking them to clarify...

Thanks Aktiv, As (EUROPE) is not a solictors and in the defence they state that Hodsons are their legal representative... now I am confused

Doesn't CPR 21 cover litigation friend. From what I have read tonight, this only relates to children and mental health patients. As (UK) is not a child and as far as a know not a mental health patient, can they still appoint a litigation friend , to act on their behalf

Even if WW does not work for the said company ? sorry, I am on a mission again and am like a dog with a bone

Thanks Rhia, But, the defence is signed WW (EUROPE) when they have nothing to do with the case. Would it be like you to file and serve a defence for me ?

Have I stumbled onto something or am I barking up the wrong tree ? As I have not been sent a certificte of suitability as set out in the Civil Procedures rule, I know that WW is not acting in the capacity of a litigation friend. (which I thought related to children and mental health patients) WW is not a party to the case and the named Defendant is (UK) and he works for (Europe) Hodsons and not WW are the legal representatives of (UK) What do people think ?? Am I wasting my time following this up ?

From what I have read so far, nothing

Never been asked to call him. Personally, I wouldn't, keep everything in writing. If he is half as good as he should be, he will gain more from any telephone conversation then yiou. I think it is more like a fact finding exercise and an excuse to dent your confidence But hey, that is just my untrusting opinion of Cabot

Seahorse has them over a barrell whatever they now supply. As the Barclaycard agreement is not signed by Barclaycard it is unenforceable without a Court Order and as quoted on my thread I have found two court cases that show that a court order would not be granted, All they can now do is give themselves more rope to hang themselves

Basically it occured to me today that my claim is against Kings Hill (No.1) Lts (now called Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd). As confirmed by a company search, they don't actually employ anyone. So that begs the question, who appointed Hodsons as their legal representative. The only people that could have done this are the directors or the company secretary. Then as I was thinking it dawned on me. The Defence was not submitted by Hodsons and the statement of truth was not signed by one of the Directors. The Defence was submitted and the statement of truth was signed by Mr WW Head of Compliance Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd. Now, (Europe) is not a named Defendent and WW does not work for (UK) so this court case, actually has nothing to do with him Or have I got all this wrong ?