In the words of Glen Crawford MD Cabot...

[psmith64]

"What it means is that, until the creditor provides the information, the creditor cannot enforce the debt by issuing legal proceedings or by repossessing or realising any security "

Yes, spoken by the very man in charge of Cabot, read this article:-

http://www.cabotfinancial.com/download/token/48bfe38392ade

Worth printing out and keeping as part of any defence !!!

And they have the nerve to call us rogues still

[OnMyWayOut]

I just love the last paragraph! Yes, it's just a shame that debtors are learning their rights when they really ought to be fleeced by any numpty DCA that threatens them.

[seniorservice]

Poor old Cabot - everybody seems to be against them, debtors, CAG'ers, the CAB. It's very kind of Gary (and Ken Maynard) to give us an insight into their troubled world. If you can't stand the heat....

[pmhcfc]

Gotta love the old threads

[miss muppet]

Bet they hate us even more now!

[rameses_qc]

I lIke the use of the words "legitimate businesses"Dick Turpin, then, was a legitimate businessman

[ODC]

Spuious and doubtful rights rights such as S 5 of the Limitation Act 1980

[NailPost]

Glen says: "Debtors are being encouraged by such websites, and ill-informed advisors, to use their rights to information under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as weapons against banks, other lenders and debt administration companies with a view to avoiding payment, having adverse entries removed from credit reference agency files and obtaining compensation in respect of those entries."

 

He'd obviously prefer the laws did not exist and seeing as they are on the statute book no one to know about them. Shame on him for saying hat three years ago and even more shame on the authorities for still letting him and his cronies get away with it.

[DonkeyB]

Methinks Uncle Glen is very confused. He states also:

 

"There are also popular misconceptions about the rights and obligations of debt purchase companies under the Consumer Credit Act. We do not believe that debt purchasers fall within the definition of “creditor” in section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act, because they take assignments of the rights, but not the duties, of creditors under consumer credit agreements: they collect the debts, but they do not themselves lend money. We believe that the Government’s decision to create a new category of business for which a licence is to be required, namely debt administration, when the Act is amended in April 2008, reflects the fact that debt administration companies are not creditors for the purposes of the Act. (When explaining the new category of licence during parliamentary debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the category was intended to cover those who “purchase portfolios of existing loans and administer them”.) However, the fact that in our view debt purchase companies are not creditors does not mean that they are not entitled to enforce the debts that have been assigned to them, or which, in laymen’s terms, they have bought. As a legal assignee, under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, a company which has bought a creditor’s rights under a credit agreement is entitled to sue the debtor for any repayment that remains due under the agreement."

 

My bolding.

 

Now, in this case:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/234277-me-cabot-4.html

 

008.jpg forms part of a WS from Morgans in a case pursued by Cabot. In denying that Cabot has to show evidence of a default notice being served, the WS states, inter alia, that...

 

"Section 87 and 88 only apply where the creditor wishes to take one of the steps specified in Section 87 (1) (a) to (e). A default notice is not required where the creditor simply demands repayment for arrears. Consequently, no default notice was required in respect of the defendant's account, as it merely demands repayment of the arrears on the account."

 

 

So - in this instance, Cabot WANTS to be a creditor so it doesn't have to show a default notice - it only wants the arrears. But, when it comes to complying with supplying agreements and fulfilling other requests relating to prosecutions it takes on, it does not want to be the creditor.

 

Convenient, or simply double standards?

 

Cabot have used this 'arrears' statement a lot in current cases, through Morgans. I think Uncle Glen's statement rather blows holes in his own cases.

[DonkeyB]

In the case linked to above, Cabot claim that only arrears are being sought, yet there is no indication that the OP ever received a demand for the full amount as arrears from the OC.

 

So, if Cabot are claiming that the debt comprises arrears and no DN was issued by the OC, then they bought a live, running account - and in my book, that makes Cabot a creditor.

[BeauBrummie]

In the case linked to above, Cabot claim that only arrears are being sought, yet there is no indication that the OP ever received a demand for the full amount as arrears from the OC.

 

So, if Cabot are claiming that the debt comprises arrears and no DN was issued by the OC, then they bought a live, running account - and in my book, that makes Cabot a creditor.

 

So that being the case then Cabot are the owner of the "Rights" and the "Duties" or just the "Rights"??

 

They clearly state to me in correspondence that they claim the "Rights" but not the "Duties" under s189

 

Yet the Jan 2010 Guidance from the OFT says that it beleives that ANY DCA who is assigned a debt is to be deemed as the "Creditor" for the purposes of the CCA.

 

Confused??

 

Beau

[harrassed senior]

Accordingly, the Data Protection Act permits disclosure of such information to and by those agencies without the debtor’s consent (see section 4, Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the Act, in particular paragraph 6 of Schedule 2).

 

I find that reference interesting!! So why do original Agreements contain the paragraph that you have to sign to give permission under the Data Information Act?

[ScarletPimpernel]

I suspect this refers to Cabot's habit of processing data without consent on the basis that 'you must have signed an agreement at some time'.

 

In my case, Cabot tried it on with an alleged debt that had been statute barred for some 23 years. I contacted the bank concerned because I have never had dealings with them, and they confirmed that they had no record of me as a customer, ever. It was a mistrace. I served a s.10 Notice on Cabot, who told me that they would continue to process my data because they were satisfied that I must have signed an agreement in the past which would have contained the consent. They couldn't produce any evidence of this, because they had no paperwork, but didn't care. But wait! The DPA only came in in 1998, and the account I never had was opened in 1984, more than 10 years before the DPA! I complained to ICO, who sent me a template response and did nothing.

[Deb T]

That particular link (original post) has so many flaws it's unreal.

 

How about Cabot adding interest to an account when there was nothing in the original creditors t&c that allowed for this (in my case nearly 5.5k in interest as I type)

 

What about them not sending out an annual statement as is the regulations

 

What about them constantly giving misleading information on accounts that they say they now own but in essence do no.

 

To name but a few of their stupid actions....

 

and then, what of their badly trained staff that appear to have zero idea of how to conduct themselves when attempting to collect a clients account, debt counsellors spend years training and keeping up to date with the various laws/acts/guidelines/policies where debt is concerned and yet at Cabot it seems that they'll given anyone a job and with little or no training whatsoever. In my opinion Cabot attempt to trade off the naievety of those less savvy where their debts are concerned, hopefully one day soon they'll go out of business and their dulcet tones via the written word will no longer cross our screens.

[pmhcfc]

That particular link (original post) has so many flaws it's unreal.

 

.

 

I had posted that link (and others) prior to psmith doing so in Sept 2008 and at the time of my posting we 'chewed the cud' on most aspects of it. In fact, the original article dates back to a time when Glen Crawford used to publish a number or items on a similar theme.

 

Anyway, for the last two years or so it's almost impossible to find anything written by Mr Crawford. I suspect with him spouting such utter trash (as per the link in this posting) he was told in no uncertain terms to 'Shut the Hell up.' by Ken et al...Shame really, we used to enjoy reading his inane drivel. Still, seems a certain Mr Vant has picked up that particular mantel.

 

SELLING DEBT TO CUT COSTS

 

Come back Glen, all is forgiven.

[ScarletPimpernel]

So that being the case then Cabot are the owner of the "Rights" and the "Duties" or just the "Rights"??

 

They clearly state to me in correspondence that they claim the "Rights" but not the "Duties" under s189

 

Yet the Jan 2010 Guidance from the OFT says that it beleives that ANY DCA who is assigned a debt is to be deemed as the "Creditor" for the purposes of the CCA.

 

Confused??

 

Beau

 

 

Let's look at this in the context of what DCAs say:

 

We do not believe that debt purchasers fall within the definition of “creditor” in section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act, because they take assignments of the rights, but not the duties, of creditors under consumer credit agreements: they collect the debts, but they do not themselves lend money.

 

'We do not believe' = we aren't certain, but it suits our purposes.

 

The question is this: can someone who buys an agreement be assigned only the rights but not the duties? It seems to me that the answer is a resounding no.

 

Firstly, s.189 of the CCA talks about assignments of 'rights and duties'; that seems to me to be unequivocal. It doesn't offer a choice of one or the other - it's both. Then there's the point that DCAs make about not lending money, just administering the debt, so that 's why they have no duties. Lending money isn't a duty. Complying with all legal and regulatory obligations that arise from the agreement are duties, and I do not see how selling an agreement permits the abrogation of such obligations. If it were true, what would happen to the duties? Would the original creditor retain them, or can they just wash their hands of the whole business?

 

Think of it this way - would Parliament seriously pass legislation that allowed a creditor to lend money, with all the duties entailed with it, and then sell the agreement and no more duties remain? Of course not, and the financial industry knows it. If they could avoid their duties so easily, they would simply sell agreements as soon as they were made, probably to a company of their own, set up for the purpose, so they could sit back and collect whilst not bothering with all the tedious stuff like complying with the law. It's worth remembering that the purpose of the CCA is to protect consumers, not make life easy for debt buyers.

 

One last point. It will be noticed that whilst DCAs are keen to say that they do not have any duties, if you challenge their reporting to CRAs, they will usually reply that they are obliged to do it. If that were true, it would surely be a duty - although we all know that it isn't true.

[DonkeyB]

Let's look at this in the context of what DCAs say:

The question is this: can someone who buys an agreement be assigned only the rights but not the duties? It seems to me that the answer is a resounding no.

 

Firstly, s.189 of the CCA talks about assignments of 'rights and duties'; that seems to me to be unequivocal.

 

I think this is the key point.

 

Cabot write a clause into their Account Sale Agreement that states they are only purchasing the rights and not the duties. Just because they put it in their agreements does not make it legal. This needs to be challenged.

 

They cannot unilaterally set aside the law and the requirements of s 189.

[F_DCAs]

Ah, Cabot idiocy - the gift that just keeps on giving.

 

John Cleese once said on American TV that even none of Monty Python's political satire clips were any more ridiculous or lampoonish than John McCain's presidential bid.

 

That's why we've never seen a TV comedy about the DCA industry.

[DonkeyB]

hat's why we've never seen a TV comedy about the DCA industry.

 

What an excellent idea... here's my precis:

 

"A comedy of errors (mostly admin) based on a company's inability to play fair when confronted with ethics and the law. Starring Rowan Atkinson as Mr Been-to-Court"

[pmhcfc]

Let's look at this in the context of what DCAs say:

 

 

 

'We do not believe' = we aren't certain, but it suits our purposes.

 

The question is this: can someone who buys an agreement be assigned only the rights but not the duties? It seems to me that the answer is a resounding no.

 

Firstly, s.189 of the CCA talks about assignments of 'rights and duties'; that seems to me to be unequivocal. It doesn't offer a choice of one or the other - it's both. Then there's the point that DCAs make about not lending money, just administering the debt, so that 's why they have no duties. Lending money isn't a duty. Complying with all legal and regulatory obligations that arise from the agreement are duties, and I do not see how selling an agreement permits the abrogation of such obligations. If it were true, what would happen to the duties? Would the original creditor retain them, or can they just wash their hands of the whole business?

 

Think of it this way - would Parliament seriously pass legislation that allowed a creditor to lend money, with all the duties entailed with it, and then sell the agreement and no more duties remain? Of course not, and the financial industry knows it. If they could avoid their duties so easily, they would simply sell agreements as soon as they were made, probably to a company of their own, set up for the purpose, so they could sit back and collect whilst not bothering with all the tedious stuff like complying with the law. It's worth remembering that the purpose of the CCA is to protect consumers, not make life easy for debt buyers.

 

One last point. It will be noticed that whilst DCAs are keen to say that they do not have any duties, if you challenge their reporting to CRAs, they will usually reply that they are obliged to do it. If that were true, it would surely be a duty - although we all know that it isn't true.

 

Many good points made here...One wonders how long Morley Limited or Morley Funding Limited will be dormant. These are both arms of Cabot Financial and registered as lending companies (if memory serves).

[ODC]

RE In the words of Glen Crawford. I prefer the words of that well known Native American Tonto

 

White Man Speak With Forked Tongue.

 

Very apt when one considers that most DCAs and their threat monkeys ar a bunch of cowboys

[Newborn]

Standing back and looking at it again I think the argument may be a lot simpler.

 

For every debtor there has to be a creditor. You cannot have one without the other. Where money is owed, it is owed by one party to another.

 

A creditor is a party who has a claim to the services of another (debtor or borrower).

 

Therefore it is not necessary to actually lend money out to be a creditor, it is being in the position of being owed that makes you a creditor. A creditor is not necessarily then a lender.

 

From Gillhams.com website - "An unsecured creditor is a person who is owed money by a company or person (a "debtor") but does not have recourse to a fund, asset or collateral for payment in the event of a default of payment by the debtor."

 

There is no mention there of the requirement to lend in the first place.

 

But leave that aside for now. If Cabot is not the creditor then who is taking the cases to court. If it is Cabot Europe on behalf of Cabot UK then Cabot UK allegedly is owed the money, so must be a creditor.

 

If Cabot UK says it is not the creditor just an administrator then they must be administering it on behalf of a creditor as there has to be one. It is therefore that creditor that must take the debtor to court.

 

What Cabot seem to be saying is that when they bought the debt the 'creditor' disappeared from existence to be replaced by a pure collector. But if the creditor disappears no-one is owed money so there can be no debtor. Also, if Cabot is collecting and then uses the money for its own ends it must be a creditor, or it is misappropriating funds from any true creditor.

 

If Cabot are saying they are not creditors and the debt exists and they are collecting it, then the creditor must still be the OC, who is the one that should bring the action.

 

I am labouring the point I know.

 

Cabot could say they paid a fee to get the rights to the debt repayment, but there still has to be a creditor for a debt to exist.

 

Without a creditor a debt does not exist. So, if you write to the original creditor after a debt has been sold and ask them for their legal position and they say they are no longer the creditor and the debt buyer says they are not a creditor then there can be no debt and no debtor.

 

Of course they won't ever say that, they will just say you have to talk to the debt buyer about it.

 

But you could always ask the DCA for details of the creditor and refuse to deal with them until they tell you. After all shouldn't every debtor know exactly who the creditor is and therefore who to CCA to prove it? Might prove handy in court too.