How I beat Cabot and Hodsons

[davidro99]

Hi Tomterm,

 

I am considering action against the company that provided the CRA with the incorrect info as it was them who caused all the problems.

 

Dave,

[NailPost]

Go for it - the CRA's are far too complacent and compliant. At the end of the day they are businesses too and the only language chief executives understand is the bottom line of balance sheets.

[Captain Spaulding]

Awesome mate!

[elizabeth1]

Dave well done !!! Glad you got the result you wanted = Cabots actually owning up to their sheer in competence.

 

I hope you are going to go after the CRA involved for their part in this too. These CRA's really need to be more diligent about their research and pasing details over to companies etc.. (there must have been massive diferences in your own Data and the Data belonging to the real owner of this debt etc..) These CRA's really need to alter the way they work cause their incompetence is really damaging a lot of people.

 

Nice to see that you won this!!

[Dipply75]

Well done David, very impressed.

 

I am just at the start of almost the same carry on with them, and much like yourself, the day after they received my complaint asking all sorts of questions and demanding proof my other credit file was searched (without permission). An unrecorded enquiry - which is obviously a fishing trip to see if I have any accounts remotely like the one they claim I have to rely on.

 

In my case they have actually listed an account and a default on my credit file - CRA thinks Cabot are telling the truth, without seeing proof and leave my hanging. CRA also stated that they would not discuss with me what validation checks they did/agreed with Cabot on mine - as they have contractual obligations to their client, which are company confidential!

 

Dig a hole......?

[babybear39]

...And give them rope

[davidro99]

Hi Dipply,

 

The best way of dealing with Cabot and/or other DCA's is to put them to proof of their claims which, of course, they are unable to do on 99.9% of the matters that they handle.

 

Cabot admitted to me that they purchase only the basic details from their suppliers and this, i believe, is their downfall.

 

They rely solely on 'customers' rolling over and holding their hands up. If everyone challenged them to prove their claims, then they would be in hot bother, quickly.

 

I would suggest to anyone who gets a letter to send a simple return letter requesting that they prove one or all of the things I put in my part 18 request for further information to them at the beginning. And then to suggest that if they are sure of their assertions, to litigate.

 

Dont bother with all these SAR's and CCA letters as these hinder in up to two ways. Firstly, the delays caused give the DCA chance to collate evidence and secondly, the payment you make is wasted as the infromation HAS to be supplied for free post litigation.

 

Personally, I will never pay a penny to anyone of these types of companies without litigation first.

 

You will find that a lot of the DCA's are unwilling to litigate on any matter unless it is of a value over £5000.00 and there is good reason for this.

 

Any claim of less than this amount results in the lawyer getting £80.00 costs. Maximum. Any sum over this will result in standard costs being payable: therefore the DCA's are not going to spend money on an issue fee unless it is worth it for them.

 

In addition, even if you were the correct debtor, they have to prove this to the court before any order will be made against you. It would always be adviseable to get the matter to a hearing pronto if a DCA litigates because this gives them less time to prepare and request any supporting docs that they would need in order to be successful.

 

Further, and in addition to this, their actions would look sloppy to the court if you can prove that they are trying to rely upon documentation that they did not supply prior to litigating. Refer them to the 'spirit of the protocols' here. The court prefer it if you litigate as a last resort and so the DCA's ways do not comply with this at all.

 

Use it against them!!

 

if this does not make sense, please say so and I will try to explain differently.

 

Dave,

 

PS - thanks for the support guys.

[Rhia]

Well done David. Your last post is a really good round up of how to attack these DCAs. I know in my own case that Cabot had no paperwork upon asisgnment except a line giving name, address and alleged balance. That is all they have to work on.

I also think you have a point re SARs etc as if they litigate you can order full disclosure. Except the SAR sometimes reveals things you didn't know.

But terrific stuff.

[tomterm8]

I would disagree with the S.A.R.... it's amazing what you can find out sometimes. And it is a second right of action, if they don't send it on time.

[reallymadwoman]

Worth a tenner on those grounds alone. If I hadn't sent a SAR to HSBC, I would never have found out about the odd signatures ...

[davidro99]

As you guys have said, it is of course beneficial to ask the DCA's to supply the information prior to them issuing a claim, because then you can show the court that they have failed to explore all settlement oppertunities thus little weight should be applied to their case.