Not in the case of Cabot, unfortunately. They seem to be under the impression that it's good to go to court with a worthless piece of toilet paper, and an unprepared local brief on occasion. I do think they are learning though.

Thankfully, not one of our judges. In fact, being Umerican, who give's a monkey's?

Copy and paste again. I noticed a couple of errors that I've now corrected. :o

I see the reason WHY it's good to do business in Ireland. But my question was, why are the DOA between MBNA and Cabot done under IRISH law, when the agreements themselves are not. Rather, English and Welsh law. But I think this has been answered in Elizabeth1's thread somewhere. The concensus was, I think, the assignments can be under Martian law, for all the difference it makes in real terms, as it's the agreement between OC and debtor that matters for all practical purposes. "If Any".

HAHA. Clever? Just got too much time on my hands is all. :lol: Merry Christmas everyone. Even you lot slaving away at Cabot Towers. I hope Santa brings you a better job for the New Year. One that doesn't destroy your souls.

NICE ONE!!!! I'd say that this must be a victory for you against Cabot, then. I'd say that they are admitting they are bollixed, so are lumbering HSBC with it. I'd imagine HSBC will be in touch again at some point. EIther that, or they'll try to sell the debt on again. I might be tempted to pre-empt that and get in touch with HSBC first and ask them to explain themselves. Why did they sell an uneforcable and unsubstantiated debt to Cabot, for example. Get the thing into dispute with HSBC right from the start, so you can go straight for the jugular if they try any funny stuff.

No template letters for either. But I would simply draft a letter as above. You really don't need to say much more than that, as THEY will trot out their template-o-matic to tell you they abide by all the rules, laws regs, have set out their position previously, and will highlight the bits to show what a naughty person you are, and they are Mighty and Right, and will particularly bring to your attention the "if any" part of the CCA about responding to a CCA request. If you want to be a little more to the point, you could do something along these lines: Something like that anyway. You can miss out the hugs and kisses bit obviously. As for the FOS, you can download a complaint form from their website. Ask if you need help filling it in.

Where do you reckon Citi Group fit in now, FC?

What I've found about Facebook is, folks can find people in their own region (Wales for example) but if you belong to say, Aberdeenshire, you can't see the same people. If you get what I mean. Not from a general search anyway.

As they quite clearly state that they consider they have done all you have asked of them, in their opinion, I see no reason to bother writing back to them other than to say, "Thank You for your comments, which fail to show you are entitled to collect on this alleged debt. You should note that I now feel that this is a matter for the FOS" And complain to the FOS. Bitter experience has shown that there is no reasoning with these "people", so once they've had their say as per above, I think it only right to move the game on to the next level and complain to all and sundry once you've reached this point.

The actual DEEDS of assignment relate to an agreement between the assignor and assignee. In other words, the original creditor/lender and the debt purchaser. They tend to be generic documents, relating to the fact that debts have been assigned, and don't reflect individual accounts. That's why there is no identifying information on there. Usually they run to a fair few more pages than that, though. And as VB mentions, seems to be a heck of a mess. I wonder how it would stand in court? Quite why they have produced this is beyond me. It's something they normally wouldn't divulge unless absolutely forced to.

I'm a bit confused about Facebook. It's all regions and networks, and difficult to infiltrate if you don't belong.

It certainly is. In light of Skipton's unreasonable handling of your account, I really wouldn't worry too much about the morality or otherwise of disputing this. ANd it's certainly not your concern that Cabot may be left out of pocket either. Think of it like this... Skipton have made a business decision. You should do likewise and concentrate on the legalities here. If Cabot can't prove they have a legal right to your cash, why should you care? Cabot certainly won't lose any sleep over it, whatever happens. Well, the shrill young lady abusing your phoneline might get a bit upset at losing some commission, but if she has to do with one less Bacardi Breezer of a Saturday night for a few weeks, it's probably no bad thing. Oh, yes. Writing only. Don't phone them. Ever. Make sure you emphasise that in your CCA request.

More likely they are all winding down for the hols and have more important things on their minds. Like getting lashed and snogging the faces off each other. Allegedly.

I can't understand why they would consider theor company number and where the registered office is based, or the date of assignment to be sensitive data. Nice to have though. I'm sure that will come in VERY useful. I notice it mentions all rights, title etc.

If the Chancellor can't manage his finances, how can anyone criticise us less knowledgable peeps? How are we supposed to be able to use a crystal ball when the government obviously don't have that facility either?

I'm a little confused. If the account was not registered at your address as T-Mobile previously stated, how come red debt have come chasing YOU at YOUR address????? It may NOT be identity fraud after all. It may simply be that the CORRECT person has legged it from the registered address, and Red Debt in their incompetence have latched on to you because you have a similar name. After all, wouldn't it be logical to start with the address that T-Mobile have on file? Or am I missing something obvious here?

Before heading off to court, you really need to exhaust all other avenues. So complaints to Sainsbury and Cabot, complaints to TS/OFT/ICO etc, until finally you are at the stage where they have not proved they have any right to be processing your data. As it will be Cabot who are now continuing the reporting of the default, they should be the target for that. SO. After all of the above, think carefully why the recording of the default is both unfair and prejudicial to you, then send Cabot a notice to quit processing your data under section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1974. They will have 21 days to write to you to either explain why they do not think your notice has any merit, or acknowledge that they will comply with your notice. Iif they do not reply, or refuse to stop processing your data, you may then escalate your complaint about this specific point with the ICO. (Remember to keep a note of the reference number the ICO gave you when you first complained in general terms about their unfair processing of your data. You will need it when you write back about this point.) Hopefully the ICO will back up your argument, and will make Cabot comply. But perhaps the ICO will only be able to make them respond with a "sorry, no. We are right, so we'll keep on processing" letter. In which case, you may presume to have done your best to get the problem sorted, and the only alternative is court. I know it sounds like a long and tortuous route. But try not to think of it as tedious. Try to think of it as playing the game, and try to have fun doing it. It's the only way to keep your sanity. A year on, and I'm STILL playing the game. Nearly there though. I just need some kind of result from the ICO and I can then either sit back and relax, or move on to the next level. I'm relishing the thought.

ARRGHHHHH. My brain is in meltdown. And I thought Richard Spud's links were difficult to get your head around. VB, I'm particularly interested in the point you raise about assignments and the rqurement to register them at Companies Registry. Glen Crawford has bleated on before about twisting the law to suit the way things are assigned, and has admitted it was to avoid the need to pay stamp duty. Assuming an account to have been transferred in the way you describe, I assume that the Companies Registry is open to inspection by Joe Public to allow the subject of a transfer to see how it affects him?

HAHA. Nice one, VB. I see we're of a like mind. I have a similar post in my blog... The CCA 1974 and Francis Bennion at Cabot Financial Blog

He should take a look at Shelley's MySpace page for a hint on how to conduct himself online in the face of so much publicity. Perhaps he should have taken his inter-company emails to heart earlier. Or did he think he'd get away with leaving himself wide open to being blogged?

Oh dear. I think I've upset someone at Cabot... (All his own work, with nobody to help with his spelling. Bless.) Shall I ask yer mammy if she'll pick your toys up for you David? You seem to have thrown them all out of the pram. Nice hair, by the way. Have you considered putting in a claim for damages?

You can read the post here... Cabot. Confused? at Cabot Financial Blog But for those that can't be bothered, here's what I have written...

I do believe they are, SP. I do believe they are. So they are either:- a) Trying to hoodwink by giving false advice, or b) Have a legal team so stupid that they don't deserve to be drawing their wages. I really can't think of another explanation. But I admit the possibility that one exists. However infinitesimally remote that possibility might be. I'm going for answer a, though. You all make up your own minds.

Very witty as always Sarah. Seriously though, the letter that Cabot sent to the CSA in response to my complaint indicated that the GROUP were owners of my account. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cabot Financial (UK) Limited are NOT the owners of my alleged debt, and the Cabot Financial Group IS, how has that happened? Have they transferred it by assignment? And if so why have I not received a Notice of Assignment? However, they are describing themselves in writing as the Cabot Financial Group, which appears to me to differ considerably from Cabot Financial Group LIMITED. Or am I simple being too pedantic? It all sounds like they are trying a new dodge to confuse any potential court action.