Cabot's methods of buying debts?

[pmhcfc]

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!)

[Seahorse]

Kings Hill (No 666) Limited?

[pmhcfc]

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)

[pmhcfc]

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

[Jeff2000]

Hi,

 

Maybe we should get some headed paper with these on!!:lol:

 

 

Jeff.

[Seahorse]

wE COULD JUST ADD THEM TO OUR EMAILS.

 

(And if we're REALLY clever we could leave our caps lock off)

[pmhcfc]

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

[pmhcfc]

Kings Hill No. One would be - Hi. Kens Long Loin

 

I need to get out more, or get a reply from Cabot to work on.

[Seahorse]

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. )

[pmhcfc]

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. )

 

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

[pmhcfc]

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!

[Seahorse]

Your doctor probably has some pills you can take.

 

In the meantime, go and have a lie down in a quiet, dark room.

[pmhcfc]

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.

[tomterm8]

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.

[NitrousOxide]

^^ And that's where their "Rights but not duties" falls flat on it's face.

If they own it outright CCA requests and being able to sue them stands?

If not they require the OC to be party? And it should be the OC who registers with the CRA's?

[pmhcfc]

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 ?

[tomterm8]

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.

[louiboy]

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.

[tomterm8]

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.

[Seahorse]

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.

[pmhcfc]

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.

 

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

[Seahorse]

Smashing. I'm all agog. Can't wait.

[pmhcfc]

I wonder if this taste sour ?

 

Cabot Cheese

[Jeff2000]

I wonder if this taste sour ?

 

Cabot Cheese

 

 

 

It stinks!!!

[ODC]

It stinks!!!

Just like the whole outfit.