Cabot Financial – Dealing with Cabot Financial

[MAGDA]

I'll be very interested to hear the comments on this as Cabot still haven't provided any DN's for the two account they have lumped together and now have a court claim for.

 

As you metioned Beau, if they terminate the account and sell it on, they would have to issue a DN first, so sounds like Cabot are up to their old tricks again - I expect they will try something similar with me.

 

Magda

[Hadituptohere]

I agree with MAGDA above, they have issued agaist me and im sure there going to come up with the same argument...

 

Hadituptohere

[diddydicky]

i am not aware that a creditor can take court proceedings regarding a regulated agreement for just the arrears

 

and if he does, IMO he then precludes himself from any further enforcement of the debt

 

one debt= one claim

[BeauBrummie]

i am not aware that a creditor can take court proceedings regarding a regulated agreement for just the arrears

 

and if he does, IMO he then precludes himself from any further enforcement of the debt

 

one debt= one claim

 

I agree DD - although Cabot only "claim" they want to collect the"arrears" their POC says something totaly different ie the whole balance.

 

Beau

[vint1954]

I agree DD - although Cabot only "claim" they want to collect the"arrears" their POC says something totaly different ie the whole balance.

 

Beau

They are probably trying to claim that the whole ballance is the arrears.

 

Unfortunately, to benefit from s87-88, they do indeed need to issue a DN in the prescribed form.

[BeauBrummie]

They are probably trying to claim that the whole ballance is the arrears.

 

Unfortunately, to benefit from s87-88, they do indeed need to issue a DN in the prescribed form.

 

Ok Vint,

 

But who - Cabot or the OC? if Cabot - do they have to prove that a valid DN exists and was served by the OC, or because they assume all rights and benefits under an absolute assignment, must they ? post assignment?.

 

Beau

[diddydicky]

Ok Vint,

 

But who - Cabot or the OC? if Cabot - do they have to prove that a valid DN exists and was served by the OC, or because they assume all rights and benefits under an absolute assignment, must they ? post assignment?.

 

Beau

 

If cabot legally own the debt- and in order to issue a s87 (1) default notice they must be properly licenced to be able to offer you continuing credit and operate the agreement as the OC would have done

 

the reason for this is the prescribed wording and the intent and purpose of the default notice

 

 

i would imagine the bought the debt - it having already been defaulted by the OC

[BeauBrummie]

If cabot legally own the debt- and in order to issue a s87 (1) default notice they must be properly licenced to be able to offer you continuing credit and operate the agreement as the OC would have done

 

the reason for this is the prescribed wording and the intent and purpose of the default notice

 

 

i would imagine the bought the debt - it having already been defaulted by the OC

 

Yes DD your analgy is correct because I have a letter from the OC that says that the acc is terminated following non remedy of breaches in a DN.

 

So Cabot cannot claim to wish to collect the arrears only because they would not have been able to offer me continuation of the revolving credit - yes.

 

If this is so then in my hearing I specifically asked if I paid the arearrs would i still have a operational account the DJ said "well maybe not now as the acc is now subject to these proceedings"

 

So I have been done here -- I do not have an account with the OC or Cabot but I do owe the money for a contract that was terminated at some point by the OC without a DN or at least one that Cabot Cannot prove.

 

Is this material for my appeal?

 

Beau

Edited February 1, 2010 by BeauBrummie

[vint1954]

Ok Vint,

 

But who - Cabot or the OC? if Cabot - do they have to prove that a valid DN exists and was served by the OC, or because they assume all rights and benefits under an absolute assignment, must they ? post assignment?.

 

Beau

The OC at the time of default. As DD has explained.

 

The assignee of the debt only updates the default issued by OC.

[vint1954]

Yes DD your analgy is correct because I have a letter from the OC that says that the acc is terminated following non remedy of breaches in a DN.

 

So Cabot cannot claim to wish to collect the arrears only because they would not have been able to offer me continuation of the revolving credit - yes.

 

If this is so then in my hearing I specifically asked if I paid the arearrs would i still have a operational account the DJ said "well maybe not now as the acc is now subject to these proceedings"

 

So I have been done here -- I do not have an account with the OC or Cabot but I do owe the money for a contract that was terminated at some point by the OC without a DN.

 

Is this material for my appeal?

 

Beau

Most certainly, if the DN is faulty.

[diddydicky]

do you have a copy of the DN , did you SAR the OC?

[BeauBrummie]

Most certainly, if the DN is faulty.

 

Ok,

 

Therefore Cabot are either unable or do not wish to provide a copy of the original DN. They have produced reems of statements, an application form and what appears to be the original T&C's for this account from 2001 but no correspondence from the period of what would be the DN in 2005 - a bit wierd.

 

Beau

[BeauBrummie]

do you have a copy of the DN , did you SAR the OC?

 

I do not think the DN is legal, my next move would be to SAR perhaps in hindsight I should have done this a long time ago.

 

Beau

[MAGDA]

was this on the fast track originally Beau? I know you are appealing so just wondered how far the original claim got? whether it was on the fast track and reached trial or was it a summary judgement? If it was fast track and reached trial then Cabot should have disclosed the DN when they made their standard disclosure, or made a statement that they didn't have the document, e.g., it was in the OC's archive, in which case they should have made every attempt to retrieve it.

 

Magda

[vint1954]

Ok,

 

Therefore Cabot are either unable or do not wish to provide a copy of the original DN. They have produced reems of statements, an application form and what appears to be the original T&C's for this account from 2001 but no correspondence from the period of what would be the DN in 2005 - a bit wierd.

 

Beau

As DD has said, do you have a copy of the DN.

[BeauBrummie]

was this on the fast track originally Beau? I know you are appealing so just wondered how far the original claim got? whether it was on the fast track and reached trial or was it a summary judgement? If it was fast track and reached trial then Cabot should have disclosed the DN when they made their standard disclosure, or made a statement that they didn't have the document, e.g., it was in the OC's archive, in which case they should have made every attempt to retrieve it.

 

Magda

 

Hi Magda,

 

Fast track and Cabot applied for Summary Judgment - the DJ granted SJ to Cabot

 

 

Vint - Yes i do have DN, I only found a copy after original hearing.

 

 

Beau

[alangee]

Beau

 

You have the T&C's dated 1st June 01, and you applied for the CC in May 01, is that correct? That would seem to point to the fact that the T&C's came with your card not the application.

 

If that is correct, then it is the same as my wife (even to the same application dates), and I have noticed that her introductory rate is 2.9%. However in the T&C's it says that the introductory rate is 0%, can you confirm what your introductory rate was?

 

Alan

[BeauBrummie]

Beau

 

You have the T&C's dated 1st June 01, and you applied for the CC in May 01, is that correct? That would seem to point to the fact that the T&C's came with your card not the application.

 

If that is correct, then it is the same as my wife (even to the same application dates), and I have noticed that her introductory rate is 2.9%. However in the T&C's it says that the introductory rate is 0%, can you confirm what your introductory rate was?

 

Alan

 

Sorry Alan,

 

That is not the case, I opened the Acc after Jun 01 and it would appear that from my statements that I was being charged correctly from the opening of the account - I used your copy of the app form as an example as it is exactly the same as mine except mine is a couple of months later.

 

You do have a point though could it be that the T&Cs would have been with the card and not the app? can you remeber if it was a mailer through the post or something like that?

 

Beau

[alangee]

Beau

 

I think it was a mailer, but cannot be absolutely sure. There were so many dropping through the letterbox at that time.

 

Alan

[elizabeth1]

The argument that Cabot put forward regarding a DN in my case could seem to warrant some scrutiny - they state that they do not need to produce one (nor the OC) : (We assume that the debt still exists to be enforced by the OC or anyone the OC sells the debt to in this case Cabot)

 

 

1) Would the OC have to have issued a legal Default Notice?

 

2) Assuming account is sold on - does the Assignee (Cabot) have to prove that there is in existance a legal default notice issued by the OC ?

 

3) Cabot WS in this case states that they only wish to collect the arrears but I KNOW the agreement was terminated.

 

From their WS at my hearing :

 

"A notice (Default) is not required where the creditor simply demands payment for arrears, with or without contractual interest. As the claimant does not wish to rely upon any of the circumstances listed in section 87 of the CCA 1974, neither the claimant nor the assignor was required to send a Default Notice under that section or at all. The sums claimed by the claimant as assignee relate to arrears only"

 

So this is their entire reasoning for not sending a DN - but surely the point here is that without a DN in the first place the accouint was terminated without following s87 and therefore they should be thrown out on that basis?

 

Does anybody concur ?

 

Beau

 

Beau,

 

Not sure whether what I am going to say will help anyone BUT....

 

If you SAR Cabot and get ALL info relating to an account you'll see a few interesting things.

 

Amongst the SAR pages are some pages that lie landscape across the page (they read sideways) it's a diary of events that happen from when Cabots buy the accounts.

 

Read through these carefully and you'll spot patterns appearing.

You'll find logs of calls to you and letters that Cabot have sent to you.

 

Cabot have been known to issue the default notices on templates - you'll spot amongst these diary pages where Cabot write the goodbye letter from company involved and the hello letter from Cabot (quite often you'll find it amongst the Cabot threads that both these letters turn up in same envelope where efficient staff are being cost effective with postage costs ) it's all written in the diary pages.

 

Later before they issue proceedings you'll spot where they will check Land Registry to hazard a guess as to who is worth taking to court to try get charging orders on homes. By doing this Cabot staff can briefly see when last loan/mortgage was taken out against a persons home - they can see when home was purchased and how much for and with the tools widely available on internet (up my street, rightmove etc..) they can see what similar homes sell for in a given area it's gives a rough estimate of your homes value to them = they can guess whether or not you are likely to have equity in your home to repay them if they take you to court and scare pants of you with a court claim. In short by using these tools and a little calculation they'll cherry pick who to pick on. These checks are written up in the SAR diary pages - you'll see it written up "check Land Registry Positive, Issue claim"

 

Odds are that many people that they pick on are not in CAG and similar forums so won't now their rights. So when a court claim drops through letter box many will pay up cause they take a quick loan out to pay the debts off, others will offer a monthly repayment to court showing income expenditure, others will be scared to defend so Cabot win by default - it's a game they play??

 

I advise anyone to SAR this company and read the Diary pages as there is lots of info amongst these pages you'll see the template letters written by this company on behalf of the lenders etc..

[alangee]

Beau

 

I have a letter from Monument about an account I have with them. In response to my Section 78 and CPR 31.16 requests, they sent me a copy of the "Reply Card", together with current Agreement unsigned but with my details typed on the heading, which they said fulfills their obligations. After a few further letters from me, they stated in their "Final Response", that they had previously sent me a copy of my signed application which demonstrates my agreement to the Monument Conditions. Even Monument believe that the document Cabot are touting as an agreement, is in fact an application.

 

Alan

Edited February 1, 2010 by alangee
added more information

[BeauBrummie]

Several people have been asking about the DN in my case, so here goes

 

It was issued with a final letter in late summer 05 and headed

 

FINAl NOTICE : PENDING ACCOUNT CLOSURE

 

 

Payments have not been made at the required level........

 

We ask you to read the termination of your credit card agreement. The satus of your acc will be reported to the CRA's

 

We refer you to the attached Notice of default and to the section of your credit card terms and conditions titled "Breach of this agreement"

 

The DN is attached and states I have breached the T&C's of the agreement and says

 

Credit Limit £xxxxxxxx

Your balance is £xxxxxxxxx

Arrears on the account of £xxxxxx

 

This can be remedied by paying the amount 1 week hence from th date of this notice (it gives a specific date)

 

Then goes on to say that if I do not pay up they will terminate the agreement etc .......

 

4 Months later I have a letter than states

 

Final Demand

 

You have failed to comply with the terms of the default notice and accordingly your credit card account has been closed and we are making a demand for payment for the amont you owe on your credit card account. Your card is now invalid and should be destroyed immediately together with any additional cards on your account.

 

They will continue to report the status to CRA's etc...

 

 

So to my mind that was "closed" meaning I no longer had use of the facility with a DN that was to short to remedy only 1 week.

 

Beau

[MAGDA]

Hi All, received a Draft Case Summary and Draft Directions from Cabot this morning - not sure why the Case Summary is a Draft? Anyway, they mention in the Case summary that "The claimant's claim is for the balance of arrears outstanding in relation to the Defendant's use of two credit card accounts." I have had quite a few claims to defend and it has never been worded like this before, i.e., just claiming the balance of arrears. So, I think it looks like they are going to use the argument that a DN isn't necessary as they are 'just' claiming arrears - this seems to be Cabot's new ploy.

 

Magda

Edited February 2, 2010 by MAGDA

[MAGDA]

i am not aware that a creditor can take court proceedings regarding a regulated agreement for just the arrears

 

and if he does, IMO he then precludes himself from any further enforcement of the debt

 

one debt= one claim

 

Be nice to have this clarified - I have not heard of this before either - so would like to know what our argument should be to counter this. After all, if you are in arrears and the creditor takes you to court without a DN, then you obviously have not been given a chance to rectify the situation before any further action is taken, and that obviously should not be the case. The trouble is, you will probably get some dopey judge who is quite happy to go along with this.

 

Magda

Edited February 2, 2010 by MAGDA

[MandM]

Hi All, received a Draft Case Summary and Draft Directions from Cabot this morning - not sure why the Case Summary is a Draft? Anyway, they mention in the Case summary that "The claimant's claim is for the balance of arrears outstanding in relation to the Defendant's use of two credit card accounts." I have had quite a few claims to defend and it has never been worded like this before, i.e., just claiming the balance of arrears. So, I think it looks like they are going to use the argument that a DN isn't necessary as they are 'just' claiming arrears - this seems to be Cabot's new ploy.

 

Magda

 

Be nice to have this clarified - I have not heard of this before either - so would like to know what our argument should be to counter this. After all, if you are in arrears and the creditor takes you to court without a DN, then you obviously have not been given a chance to rectify the situation before any further action is taken, and that obviously should not be the case. The trouble is, you will probably get some dopey judge who is quite happy to go along with this.

 

Magda

 

Could well be a new ploy! Have seen it tried in a similar way against loans - but to an extent it holds more credibility as the original term of the loan may expire>>>>>

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/189110-fiddlesticks-i-didnt-know.html

 

M