Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • 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
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

CABOT and goldfish debt


bergebabe
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5314 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

Hi all -

 

I have found this site most useful but now have a question of my own! sorry its long winded!

 

I have had a CCCS DMP in place for three years and have reduced my outstanding debt considerably from about £28k to just over £11k now.

 

Although initially i had loads of problems (2 CCJS and an attempt at an order of sale - i was on panorama last week about my sofas)

i have been paying regularly and all seemed to be going really well.

All defaults on my credit rating are well over three years old and i though i was on the road to recovery.

 

then, about 3 months ago, one of my creditors sold the debt to cabot financial.

Now they are writing saying i am not paying min payment and i am getting new late payments showing on my credit file

- eventually i will get a fresh default even though i am paying them the same as i always paid directly to the original creditor.

 

i have contacted them and they have accepted the reduced payment from cccs but still rolling with all the default procedure.

 

Now my questions is

- i want to write to them asking for a CCA?

as i dont have t&Cs for this debt to check that i am in fact paying below the threshold.

 

 

I am worried if they see me as taking steps to getting the debt written off as unenforceable

they may refuse to continue accepting my payments and demand the full amount owed and take me to court.

is this possible?

 

sorry again its aso long!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If you are on a DMP pass it to them to deal with, just because crabot bought the debt does not give them the right to change the agreement that was already in place.

 

If they want to start playing the fool then send thema CCA Request straight away.

 

I am sure you know the drill, £1 postal order send recorded do not sign, theyb then have 12+2 days to comply after that they can whistle in the wind

 

As far a the panorama and the sofa saga went i would SAR the compnay that sold them to you and reclaim all the charges

Link to post
Share on other sites

the thing is they ARE accepting my monthyl payments. if they decide to not accept these and demand the full amount im up a creek without a paddle as they say.

 

also i pay another debt to cabot which is all fine - i dont want it to effect this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you hilaryfrances its been a struggle, which is whyim so upset about new problems - there is no way i want to go through what i went through before.

 

knowing my luck they will have the credit agreement then they will make my life a misery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Berge,

 

I'm sorry to say I was shouting all sort of things at you watching you on that programme, I also posted that I hope you find this site so we could help you reclaim all those charges. :D

 

The SAR can be found here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/516-1-data-protection-act.html

 

Just amend it to suit the purpose. Make sure whoever took that Sofa debt on gets one, you have about £3000 to get back from them :p

 

Good luck and welcome to CAG.

 

Jogs

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow - thank i will definitely be doing this. as you have probably worked out im not great at all this - all afternoon i have been reading through cabot forums and my head is spinning - i dont think im cut out for this - some of the guys on here ave put some serious work in!

 

panorama neglected to mention loads of info about the case too

- such as they implied i ignored contact from the creditor which isnt at all true, but they were completely unbending and would not accept a penny lower than the agreement amount each month

- hence the start of the court proceedings.

 

 

i also applied to have the case moved to my local court so i could actually attend and represent myself - which was denied by the court - something i was told was illegal.

 

sorry to have caused you to shout at your telly!!

The thing i suppose these people rely on is that it is a complex situation and that people like me wont be able to get their heads round it and make the most of their rights.

 

Hi all - i have posted about this in another section but i have now realised, after reading this site for the last 8 hours or so, that i prob posted it in the wrong place so thought i would move it to here.

 

i have a debt which has recently been sold to cabot (goldfish credit card dating back to 2002). i have been paying through the CCCS to goldfish for three and a half years and they have been happy to accept the payments with no problems - they are about £85 pm for a 4k outstanding debt.

 

now that cabot have taken over they have added missed payments to my credit file - which will eventually default - again. they also say i am not meeting minimum payments required although they are currently accepting these. my issue is that i dont have a copy of the original agreement so i have no idea what the min payment should actually be and whether they are right to be defaulting me.

 

As per recommendations on here i have sent out a CCA today and will await response - i will update when i gert one as i will most definitely need more advice then i should think!

 

as i mentioned - my concern is them getting uppity about the request for a CCA and, if they can produce it, then removing the arrangement altogether and demanding full payment. this has happened to me in the past with greenhalghs (creations consumer finance) who got a charging order then threatened an order of sale (see panorama).

 

i am being a time drain today so apologies but am now a little hooked to finding out more about this and feeling a bit excited. for all these years i have paid & paid without much of an argument - i see repaying my debts as my duty but they sure dont make it easy for you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

cabot27112008copy.jpg

 

ok - today i have received a letter from cabot in reply to my CCA request. it looks like the standard letter i have seen on others posts but i thought i would keep you up to date anyway.

 

it hasnt been 12 days yet so i presume i dont take any further action until then??

 

they also didnt want my £1 postal order!!

cabot 27112008 copy.jpg

Edited by bergebabe
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is standard bullsh!t from Cabot who pretend to be unaware of Sections 175 and 189 of the CCA 1974. If they do not produce a properly executed CCA within the 12 working days then you can legally cease paying them. That should sharpen their minds

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi all -

 

well today is the 12th day after sending my CCA request. apart from the letter above i have heard nothing further from Cabot so am unsure what to do next?

 

here is the text i sent them originally -

This letter is a formal request pursuant to s.77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I require you to provide me with a true copy of the credit agreement relating to the above account, together with any other documentation the Act requires you to provide.

 

I expect you to comply fully and properly with this request, within the statutory time limit. You are reminded that should you fail to comply with my request, the provisions of s.77(6) will apply

 

If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties.

 

Your attention is drawn to ss.5(2), 3(b),6 and 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR).

I enclose a postal order in the sum of £1.00, which is the statutory fee. Note that these funds are not to be used for any other purpose.

If you are unable to comply fully and properly with this request, you should confirm this in writing at the earliest opportunity, and certainly within the statutory time limit for compliance, and return the fee.

 

© 42 Man

 

You can see the response i received above

 

i see on other threads that some people advise stopping paymnts once they havent responded in 12 days but i am reluctant to just stop paying the as i pay through the CCCS and i dont want to mess that up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bergebabe

Its 12 days + 2 for posting. After this they are in default. Now, you could send them a letter reminding them of their duties to supply the CCA and give them 7 days to produce it otherwise you will be under no obligation what so ever to make further payments.

You could even send the CCA request to the original creditor and tell Cabot where to get off.

good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again Berge,

 

Yes, you can now legally stop paying them.

 

In a few months time they may send you something that they say is a CCA. Post it here and we will tell you if it really is.

 

Did you start the reclaim process against the Sofa company yet?

 

JOgs

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...