Cabot's methods of buying debts?

[tomterm8]

Hi Rory,

 

im beginning to see that my self with what ive read on Cabot

 

now then, i would be very interested to see them try that LoP arguement in Scotland, that would be fun and well worth a trip up from southampton just to see it:)

 

regards

 

paul

 

It would be a hard sell in a scottish court, since the Law Of Property Act only extends to England (possibly northern ireland)

[pt2537]

and Wales Tom, you forgot Wales;)

[tomterm8]

and Wales Tom, you forgot Wales;)

 

England and wales are the same country paul.

 

At least, as far as laws in 1925 are concerned.

 

didn't you know that, LOL?

[pt2537]

ah, i know that but does everyone else, thats why i always refer to England & Wales:)

[oneofakind]

Subscribing. I'm not fighting Cabot, but the same arguments are coming up in my games with Thames Credit and Aktiv Capital, to name but one!

 

[NitrousOxide]

Although your agreement may have ended, I'm quite sure that your rights under the CCA never do. It's even printed in most agreements to that effect even after transfer of ownership.

[Curlyben]

Although your agreement may have ended, I'm quite sure that your rights under the CCA never do. It's even printed in most agreements to that effect even after transfer of ownership.

Exactly right there Nitrous.

After all any enforcement action requires the original executed agreement.

An UNENFORCEABLE agreement CANNOT be made enforceable again simply by sale under LoP !!!

 

The normal CCA rules still apply, after all that's the contract.

[Newborn]

(Also posted on another thread) I am an absolute newcomer to all this but I may have missed something here as, having looked at how companies have to register as data controllers I noted that they have to declare the data use for

'Data processing to collect debt for a third party,

OR

to purchase debt'.

It doesn't seem to let them process data to buy debt AND to collect it as one company with the same data controller. I researched this as it seems that every DCA I deal with has an 'alter ego'.

So, have the Data Protection Act and Information Commissioner inadvertantly caused a conflict here where all we have to do is to 'withdraw consent' for (for example) Cabot (Europe) to data process with Cabot (UK) whilst the debt is in dispute or maybe even before that! Would it not put another barrier in our favour between the 'legal owner' of the debt and the CRA?

This restrictive use of data would force the DCA to be unclear as to who the 'original creditor' was so also being against OFT guidelines.

This may also explain the old chestnuts 'getting in touch with the original creditor' and 'rights v responsibilities' as this may just be undeclared ineterests between group companies.

So by withdrawing consent for the two data controllers to process data between them we queer that pitch so the 'account administrator' won't be able to talk to the 'creditor'.

Sorry for my naivety, but am I reading too much into this?

[make them aktiv runners]

From PT's post (very good pt btw). "An assignment of so much of a future debt as shall be enough to satisfy an uncertain future indebtedness is an assignment by way of charge only"

 

In some cases further interest/charges (eg tracing) can be added. In these cases the above clarifies assignment is Equitable. Always wise though to create a 2 pronged attack on both types of assignment.

 

Seahorse, did you ever get a copy of that book you were looking for?

[MoonHawk]

I'll try an answer as best as I can Newborn, although I am a tad rusty on the DPA.

 

In my opinion your tact will not work for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the account is only recognised as in dispute until they say they have given you the final answer. The ICO will just turn around and say if you are not happy wit the reason then take it further with FSA or the courts.

 

Secondly, ICO will see the processing as a ""legitimate reason" whether or not we agree, and in line with that will permit an agent to act on behalf of a company owning the deb, especially if they are an associated/sister company.

 

You best tact in using the DPA, is to show that any adverse markers such as defaults and late payments are inaccurate and have them removed and leave the rest of the data alone.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[Newborn]

Thanks Moonhawk,

 

But what d'you think the position would be with no CCA?

[MoonHawk]

The position will still be the same. The lack of CCA does not mean a lack of debt, it means they can not enforce the debt. As long as a debt exists, the owner of that debt has a legitimate interest in processing relevant data.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[Newborn]

Thanks for that, a bit of clarity coming through (I think). The amount and complexity of info on this site makes chess look simple!

 

At least I've seen off Scotcall and put Cabot and 1st Credit in default!! That's thanx to this site!

[pmhcfc]

This is the first I've heard about Cabot buying debts under the LoP. How did it become apparent that this is what they've been doing?

 

Does anyone know WHEN they started this practice?

 

 

I have written proof

[FANTASY CHARGES]

I have written proof

 

 

THE TEXT below is taken from a semi-official ? Legal source prior to the coronation of Queen ElizabethII.

Are these statements still true ?

legal assignment

“ in a legal assignment the assignment must be absolute. (This means that it must not be subject to any conditions )

 

A legal assignment must not be by way of charge. This does not mean that a debt cannot be assigned in security for money due by the assignor, but that it must be a complete legal assignment and that it must not merely have effect if the debt is not paid. when due. When an assignment complies with the above rules - I.e. it is a legal assignment --- the assignee may sue the debtor for the money in his own name if the debtor does not pay.

 

The assignees rights .

In all cases of assignment the assignee takes “subject to equities” this means he cannot be in a better position towards the debtor than was the person from whom he got the debt.

 

The effect of notice in a legal assignment is somewhat different from its effect in the case of an equitable assignment (an equitable assignment is NOT ABSOLUTE).

 

In both cases once the debtor has received notice of the assignment he must pay his debt to the assignee and not to his original creditor.

In the case of a legal assignment however notice is necessary in order to complete the assignment as between the assignor and the assignee -- but in the case of equitable assignment the assignment is complete as between assignor and assignee as soon as the agreement has been entered into regardless of whether notice has, or has not, been given to the debtor.”

 

 

[FANTASY CHARGES]

IF A JUDGE can’t tell the difference between a sale & assignment what chance have cabot got ?

 

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=akBXT3weeCbE

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=anvVBOH_SnEs

 

SALE OR AN ASSIGNMENT ????

 

Scheindlin said that the bankruptcy judge had not decided whether the claim was sold or assigned. She therefore sent the case back for the bankruptcy court to decide which form of transfer the parties used.

[Seahorse]

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

[celebrity debtor]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cabot/128121-provisions-legal-assignment-debts.html

[Seahorse]

Just popping in to remind folks of what has been learned in the past to avoid pointless repetition. So. . .

 

BUMP!!!

[elizabeth1]

Maybe this thread should be made a stickey - to help newcomers see some of the stuff researched to date etc..

[gizmo111]

Maybe this thread should be made a stickey - to help newcomers see some of the stuff researched to date etc..

 

It would not be productive to have every thread where we have learnt something in our fight against the financial institutions to be made a sticky. Newcomers have access to the search facility and are linked to any threads that are appropriate and helpful to their individual problem.

[pmhcfc]

Credit, debits and related services: Debts and related services: Contents

 

Sale of a debt

 

The sale of a debt is a financial transaction, whereby the purchaser acquires ownership of debts from a creditor, at a nominal sum to the face value of the debts. The purchaser assumes all the rights and obligations of the original creditor and all legal and beneficial or equitable interest passes to the buyer to whom full title and risk is transferred.

[Sabrina470]

I shall save that link and next time I get a fobbing off threatogram shall email that link and say, do you have higher authority than this? I still think the selling of debts is a nasty business - if you can't be bothered chasing it yourself, then you should bin it. Letting vultures feed on misery is not a nice thing to do. And let's face it, yes you spent it. But how many shops do you go in, start handing them cash and they ask you if you would like to put it all on a storecard and keep your cash?? Whilst responsibility lies with the debtor, much of it lies with the temptation approach of the future creditor.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Sabrina470
cannot spell

[pmhcfc]

I shall save that link and next time I get a fobbing off threatogram shall email that link and say, do you have higher authority than this?.

 

Hmmm,,Perhaps let Cabot be the first to be pushed in the direction of this link...