Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Reapstar
      SAR distress claim against Parking Eye

      By Reapstar · Posted

      What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • lookinforinfo
      EPC ANPR PCN - St Nicholas Street, Weymouth DT4 8AD

      By lookinforinfo · Posted

      I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • dx100uk
      One Parking Solutions Windscreen PCN - private flat bays, share of freehold . - Durrington, West Sussex.

      By dx100uk · Posted

      please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • lookinforinfo
      G24 anpr PCN - Double Dipping - Wigan Robin Retail Park

      By lookinforinfo · Posted

      he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • FTMDave
      One Parking Solutions Windscreen PCN - private flat bays, share of freehold . - Durrington, West Sussex.

      By FTMDave · Posted

      Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Cabot's methods of buying debts?

pmhcfc

By pmhcfc
in Debt Collection Agencies

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5625 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

pmhcfc

pmhcfc

Posted
Posted

What with Cabot beginning to top many google search charts, I was wondering if another name change may be around the corner...

 

So suggestions please on a new name they may choose....(Keep it clean!)

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

pmhcfc

pmhcfc

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Kings Hill (No 666) Limited?

 

Who's says I've too much time on my hands...Did you realise that 'Cabot Financial (Uk/Europe) Ltd' is actually an anagam of

 

OFT TRIBUNAL KEN? CIAO (CLAP DUE)

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites
pmhcfc

pmhcfc

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Who's says I've too much time on my hands...Did you realise that 'Cabot Financial (Uk/Europe) Ltd' is actually an anagam of

 

OFT TRIBUNAL KEN? CIAO (CLAP DUE)

 

 

Whilst an anagram of CABOT FINANCIAL UK LTD. is

 

FLOUT DATABANK CLINIC

 

or if you'd prefer another anagram; Cabot Financial Europe Ltd is

 

NOTICEABLE PLATONIC FRAUD

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites
pmhcfc

pmhcfc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm the same poition as you Seahorse...bored waiting for reply so a couple more anagrams...

 

Ken Maynard = A Manky Nerd

 

(Ken's number 2) > Glen Crawford = Corn Leg Dwarf

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites
pmhcfc

pmhcfc

Posted
  • Author
Posted
ORRRRRRRRR... an anagram of mine would be, AM I IN ****?

 

last word will no doubt add to the confusion, as I'm sure the profanity checker will star it out.

 

(That'll give WW something to puzzle over with his morning coffee. :D)

 

Youre making it easy SH...You think Willem Wellinghoff is feeling left out? - best I can do for him (anagram wise) is :

 

WELL, ME WHIFF GIN LOL

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites
pmhcfc

pmhcfc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

As per Tberns thread and recent comments from Glen that Cabot are not creditors, it made me look...I realised that there's a message for somone on here to expose a certain DCA...Honestly! Because and anagram of: G.C. 'Cabot not a creditor'

 

is: CC Act: 'Go to Radio Tbern'

 

You see, they talking in code! ;)

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
pmhcfc

pmhcfc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Right,

 

I now have written proof that Cabot have been (and probably still do) buying Barclay (if not all) debts under the Law of Property (1925) Act. For this reason, they feel they can squirm out of having anything to do wih the responsibilities. Whilst I appreciate this isn't original news to some of us, the fact remains that this all seems VERY dodgy.

 

Now this poses many questions;

 

a) Does this not mean that the Original Agreement becomes void ?

 

b) Does Cabots have any rights to add any interest to these debts?

 

c) Does it give Cabot the right to take over the files at any CRA's, considering this debt no longer exists under the Original Agreement.

 

d) Does this not mean that this is a totally 'new debt' and therefore Cabot can only recover the money they paid for the debt? After all, nothing has been signed with Cabot.

 

e) If they ever took you to court, wouldn't their 'prosecution' have to be carried out under the LoP 1925?

 

After spending the afternoon on the phone, the above is now being looked into by the OFT, the ICO, Trading Standards and the FOS. The person I spoke to at TS, whilst not qualified, feels that if a company do this - that is buy a debt under the LoP which was originally signed for under the CCA- then they have NO RIGHT to add any interest and when collecting the 'debt' they would have to collect the said debt under all the laws of the LoP 1925....

 

It's quite simple isn't it? Cabot can't say that they are adding interest etc, under the terms of the Original Agreement, if the terms of the OA no longer exist!

 

That just leaves me with one final assumption; all Cabot debts are purchased under the LoP. If this is the case, we just need to get a ruling which clarifies the point that they can't add interest to these debts - let alone log them with the CRA's- and it should help a hell of a lot of people.

  • Haha 4

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites
tomterm8

tomterm8

Posted
Posted
Right,

 

I now have written proof that Cabot have been (and probably still do) buying Barclay (if not all) debts under the Law of Property (1925) Act. For this reason, they feel they can squirm out of having anything to do wih the responsibilities. Whilst I appreciate this isn't original news to some of us, the fact remains that this all seems VERY dodgy.

 

Now this poses many questions;

 

a) Does this not mean that the Original Agreement becomes void ?

No

 

b) Does Cabots have any rights to add any interest to these debts?

yes

 

c) Does it give Cabot the right to take over the files at any CRA's, considering this debt no longer exists under the Original Agreement.

yes

 

d) Does this not mean that this is a totally 'new debt' and therefore Cabot can only recover the money they paid for the debt? After all, nothing has been signed with Cabot.

no

 

e) If they ever took you to court, wouldn't their 'prosecution' have to be carried out under the LoP 1925?

no

 

After spending the afternoon on the phone, the above is now being looked into by the OFT, the Information Commissioners Office, Trading Standards and the FOS. The person I spoke to at TS, whilst not qualified, feels that if a company do this - that is buy a debt under the LoP which was originally signed for under the CCA- then they have NO RIGHT to add any interest and when collecting the 'debt' they would have to collect the said debt under all the laws of the LoP 1925....

wrong

 

It's quite simple isn't it? Cabot can't say that they are adding interest etc, under the terms of the Original Agreement, if the terms of the OA no longer exist!

 

That just leaves me with one final assumption; all Cabot debts are purchased under the LoP. If this is the case, we just need to get a ruling which clarifies the point that they can't add interest to these debts - let alone log them with the CRA's- and it should help a hell of a lot of people.

 

OK, here it goes:

 

it's quite permissable to assign absolutly a credit agreement using the LOP 1925, even if it is a regulated credit agreement, assuming they have consent for such an assignment.

 

an assignment under the LOP 1925 can only be an absolute, or legal, assignment.

 

Under such circumstances, the new credit agreement would be on the same terms, and with the same rights and duties as the original credit agreement.

 

e.g. cabot could charge interest.

 

This level of assignment is the necessary requirement for Cabot to sue in their own right. it is my opinion that the court does not have jurisdiction for an equitable owner to sue.

 

 

If cabot claims they have the rights and not the duties of a credit agreement, they are only the equitable owner, and a legal/absolute assignment has not taken place.

  • Haha 1

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pmhcfc

pmhcfc

Posted
  • Author
Posted
OK, here it goes:

 

it's quite permissable to assign absolutly a credit agreement using the LOP 1925, even if it is a regulated credit agreement, assuming they have consent for such an assignment.

 

an assignment under the LOP 1925 can only be an absolute, or legal, assignment.

 

Under such circumstances, the new credit agreement would be on the same terms, and with the same rights and duties as the original credit agreement.

 

e.g. cabot could charge interest.

 

This level of assignment is the necessary requirement for Cabot to sue in their own right. it is my opinion that the court does not have jurisdiction for an equitable owner to sue.

 

Has there been a ruling on this ?

 

I'm not sure I understand your very last sentence > the court does not have jurisdiction for an equitable owner to sue. If I'm being thick then I am sorry, but could you explain it please, I'm very interested in this now.

 

And, If it is under the same terms etc, then Cabot's argument that they don't have to supply agreements etc is wrong ?

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites
tomterm8

tomterm8

Posted
Posted
Has there been a ruling on this ?

 

I'm not sure I understand your very last sentence > the court does not have jurisdiction for an equitable owner to sue. If I'm being thick then I am sorry, but could you explain it please, I'm very interested in this now.

 

And, If it is under the same terms etc, then Cabot's argument that they don't have to supply agreements etc is wrong ?

 

Put it this way; I've now advised two people with this as a defence, and in both cases the claim was struck out. You don't need a precident; it's there in black & white in the primary legislation.

 

the jurisdiction of the court in relation to consumer credit agreements is set out in s141(1) CCA 1974 - this section specifies that the owner or creditor may sue;

 

the definition of owner and creditor is in s189(1), and does not include an equitable owner;

 

the explicit requirement for all parties to a contract to be included as parties in any litigation in s141(5) .

 

The fact that someone may become a creditor or owner through assignment of all rights and duties is set out in s189(1) and since no mention of the method of assignment is described, the existing legal method (loP 1925) remains valid.

 

If someone buys the rights but not the duties they are under no legal obligation to provide the credit agreement on request, but they have a duty as an agent to forward payment and request for the credit agreement s.175. They would have no legal right to demand payment after the 12 working days, if the creditor remains in default.

 

The LOP 1925 is irrelevant for Scottish CAGers, as LOP 1925 does not extend past england and wales.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
louiboy

louiboy

Posted
Posted

Hi TomTerm8

 

Can I ask a question about

 

the jurisdiction of the court in relation to consumer credit agreements is set out in s141(1) CCA 1974 - this section specifies that the owner or creditor may sue;
The owner or creditor may sue;

 

Is an agent of the owner or creditor entitled to initiate legal action on behalf of the owner or creditor.

He didn't come looking for trouble, but trouble came looking for him.

When the smoke clears, it just means he's reloading.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tomterm8

tomterm8

Posted
Posted
Hi TomTerm8

 

Can I ask a question about

 

The owner or creditor may sue;

 

Is an agent of the owner or creditor entitled to initiate legal action on behalf of the owner or creditor.

 

Certainly, if the agent is acting with a power of attorney or acting as a soliciter on behalf of the original creditor.

 

Further, a party in the proceedings can be represented by another party, with the permission of the court, but is bound by all orders of the court in relation to the case.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seahorse

Seahorse

Posted
Posted

However, if the assignment is EQUITABLE, then the new owner may only sue alongside the original creditor, IMHO.

 

As I have said earlier, we should take this up with the original creditor, and ask them if they would like to join the new owner in court. I think this would at the very least get them p1ssed off with their bestest buddies in the debt purchasing industry. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
pmhcfc

pmhcfc

Posted
  • Author
Posted
However, if the assignment is EQUITABLE, then the new owner may only sue alongside the original creditor, IMHO.

 

As I have said earlier, we should take this up with the original creditor, and ask them if they would like to join the new owner in court. I think this would at the very least get them p1ssed off with their bestest buddies in the debt purchasing industry. :D

 

Weird, now you're reading my mind..Plans are afoot for me to do this as we speak...will let you know via our other form of cabot communication

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...