Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I apologise if I was being unclear. Where it currently stands is that they will have it repair, placing scaffolding in our garden for 5 days. They have moved fast, but we will still have to postpone our contractors, meaning, we won't necessarily have the work done in time for the wedding and therefore will incur additional expenses for either a marquee or a wedding venue. They are vehemently against having any kind of liability in any regard but continue repeating that they are legally entitled to use our garden for their repairs (I believe this is true unless the work can be carried out using a cherry picker). The neighbour seems either indifferent or oblivious to the fact they can't reach all of the side of the roof from the space where they can place the scaffolding. They have asked their roofer of choice about using a cherry picker but the roofer has said it wasn't possible. It's not clear whether the roofer doesn't want to use a cherry picker or whether there is an issue with it. They have told us it is a problem that we are installing a gazebo as it will prevent them to access their roof from our garden in the future?!?  
    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
  • 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 
        • 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's Licence


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5002 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

You can look up licences here.

 

Public Register

 

Just hit the "CCA search" link on the right.

 

In the search window, enter "Cabot *" in the "Organisation Name" window and hit "search", and you'll get all licences related to them.

 

Licence Number:

0472690

Licence Status:

Current

Current Applicant / Licensee:

Business Name Company Registration Number

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited 3757424

Categories:

Consumer credit

Credit brokerage

Debt administration

Debt collecting

Provision of debt-adjusting on a commercial basis

Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises:

Yes

Trading Name(s) (Historic):

KH (No.1)

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited

Cabot Financial (uk) Limited

Issued Date:

07-Aug-1999

Expiry Date:

07-Sep-2009

Legal Formation:

Body Corporate (incorporated inside UK)

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

Name Position

Glen Paul Crawford OFFICER

John David Randall

Mr Kenneth William Maynard OFFICER

Historic Individuals that run the organisation:

Name Position

Angela Jane Church OFFICER

Richard Terrell Langstaff OFFICER

Nature of Business:

Other

Current Address(es):

Address Type Address

Correspondence 1, Kings Hill Avenue, Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent, ME19 4UA

Principal Place Of Business 1, Kings Hill Avenue, Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent, ME19 4UA, United Kingdom

Registered Office 1, Kings Hill Avenue, Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent, ME19 4UA, United Kingdom

Historic Address(es):

Address Type Address

Correspondence 10, Kings Hill Avenue, Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent, ME19 4LT

Principal Place Of Business 10, Kings Hill Avenue, Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent, ME19 4LT

Principal Place Of Business Borodin House, 6, Beaconsfield Court, Garforth, LEEDS, LS25 1QH, United Kingdom

Registered Office 10, Kings Hill Avenue, Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent, ME19 4LT

Registered Office Borodin House, 6, Beaconsfield Court, Garforth, LEEDS, LS25 1QH, United Kingdom

 

 

If you look under the "history" button, at event details, it shows the renewal as "pending".

 

This is all publicly available information. I believe they are allowed to continue to trade under an old licence until a licence is revoked, with the permission of the OFT.

 

As an aside, HFO Services' licence also expired in Sep 2009 and is still 'pending'. How the hell do they get away with it? What is the OFT up to? Maybe the boss is too busy counting his salary...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest HeftyHippo

If as yu say Donkey, they are allowed to trade with the permission of the OFT, there should be a proper criteria defining the circumstances of such permission - when it is given, how long it lasts etc, otherwise, a crooked DCA could persuade an OFT official to allow them to trade for some considerable time until they get their house in order ie, the licence situation would be worthless and corrupt

 

It would be a good idea for some caggers affected to challenge the OFT on the reasons why these companies have been allowed to continue to trade, and how long it will be before a decision is made. This is probably a situation the OFT would dearly like to keep quiet.

 

A more cynical person might be persuaded by the conspiracy theory that the test case last year was deliberately screwed up by the OFT because they are on the books of the credit companies, and allowing crooked and unfit DCAs to trade without a licence is just another element of that corruption and unfitness for purpose

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I stated previously, they may have the permission of the OFT but the OFT themselves state that is their interpretation of the law and wouldn't necessarily be the view of a court. In any case, what is all this about no decision on a licence after 9 months? What is the delay about? Are the OFT unable to make up their minds? If it takes that long to decide, should a new licence be issued at all??? They are either fit to have a licence or they aren't. That seems to me to be a decision that they should be able to make fairly quickly and if there are problems with non compliance that is holding that decision up then they shouldn't have a licence at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All this begs the question of whether a company in such a legally ambiguous position should be processing personal data. Anyone currently dealing with Cabot fancy making a complaint to the Information Commissioner?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if it was necessary for the OFT to publish some sort of official info regarding this type of occurrence. IMO there should definitely be restrictions placed on Crapbot with them only being permitted to carry on with a minimal (if any!) number of operations (such as cleaning the toilets), definitely not possibly 'life-changing' activities such as court cases etc.

 

Personally I have two ongoing battles with Crapbot, one mine, one in my parteners name. Mine is an ex-Goldfish account, hers is a CrapOne.

 

Regarding my Goldfish account, I'm of the opinion that Crapbot have definitely lost the plot! They've issued a court claim against me, yet they haven't fulfilled my s78 CCA1974 request, and have stated in two separate letters that they have been unable to obtain an agreement!

 

Just to put the icing on the cake, when they sent the second of the aforementioned letters they enclosed a single monthly statement saying this proved the account existed! Nonsense anyway, but would you believe ..... the statement was for a completely unrelated HFC account!

 

What we have to put up with from these morons beggars belief :rolleyes::lol:

 

Cheers

Rob

Edited by robcag
Made an incorrect reference!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Others may well have a different opinion on this but I would start by asking Cabot what right they have to process your personal data when their Consumer Credit Licence has expired. If they replied they would argue that the OFT says that they can carry on trading during the renewal process.

 

I would then write to the ICO pointing out the legally ambiguous (by the OFT's own admission) position of such licence holders. Given that the purpose of a debt collector is to collect debt and they can't do this without a licence, then it follows that if they're not legally licenced they should stop processing your data.

 

The fact is that the OFT will do nothing about this in response to consumer complaints. It's unlikely that they would do anything in response to an ICO enquiry but I've always liked the idea of tying up the state by getting it to investigate itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HeftyHippo
That seems to me to be a decision that they should be able to make fairly quickly and if there are problems with non compliance that is holding that decision up then they shouldn't have a licence at all.

 

Thats my point Pinky- are the OFT simply hanging on until Cabot sort themselves out and get them selves 'fit' to hold a licence? Is it the old boys network at play? Is it a case of there being too many problems for the licence to be renewed so the OFT are letting cabot sort the problems out so they can renew the licnence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HeftyHippo
I'm dealing with Cabot at moment, started a new thread this morning.

 

What do I need to do to make a complaint?

 

Anyone got any ideas to get this ball rolling? Maybe draft a letter on here to send to the OFT asking them on what legal opinion their decision is based, and for how long they intend to allow a company to continue without a licence?

 

I forsee that their decision is based on their own inability to investigate the complaints in time to allow cabot's licence to be renewed at the time of expiry. If they didn't allow cabot to continue to trade, cabot may have a case for damages for lost business against the OFT.

 

That isn't justification for allowing a company with complaints against it to continue to trade indefinitely, but it is justification for reviewing the activities of the OFT and changing how it works, and who runs it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Following the recent thread about cabots licence I e mailed the OFT and this is their reply:

In regards to your concerns about Cabot Financial (UK) Limited’s credit licence status, the Consumer Credit Register entry for Cabot Financial (UK) Limited (licence number 472690) shows its licence status to be ‘current’ – which is correct. We can confirm that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited’s licence did not expire in 7 September 2009. Cabot Financial (UK) Limited submitted a valid application to renew its consumer credit licence before the licence was due to expire (see the ‘History’ section on the Public Register entry for Cabot Financial (UK) Limited) and in accordance with section 29 of the Consumer Credit Act, the licence continues in force until the OFT decision on its application. Due to legal constraints, the OFT is unable to disclose any further information relating to licence applications above and beyond that which is available on the CCR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.. I have a possible court date coming up early July (thats if cabot reply to the two court orders), Ill gladly draw this issue to the DJ attention and get his/her perspective on the matter, im sure they would love this after the hand slapping morgans have been sent about tying up courts time by not adhering to CPR :D

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/127059-hadituptohere-cabot-17.html

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We know what the OFT says but they may not be legally correct and they say that that is their view and may not necessarily be the view of a court. The licence has expired and the fact they had their application in before the expiry date is irrelevant. They don't yet have their new licence and the law says they cannot operate without one, no matter what the OFT says. The last bit of their letter concerns the fact that Cabot have had a lot of complaints against them( no surprises there - it was us who sent them) and that is why it is taking a long time to process. Ruthbridge are still waiting for theirs after almost a year. If the OFT would get off the fence and take action then this farcical situation wouldn't arise. Section 29 can be challenged on the grounds that the provision was never intended to allow DCAs to go on for months without a licence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HeftyHippo

I think a few letters to MPs are in order. As Pinky said above, and I said above, the fact is, their licence has not been renewed for wahtever reason, and although there may be justifciiation for some 'slack' or goodwill in the absence of quarenteed service perfrokance tsandtands from teh OFT, they shoul dnot be allowed to continue trading indefinately just because the OFT are too slow, lazy, inefficent or incomeptent to consider their licence applciation, nor should there be any room for the question of backhanders facilitaing the dealying of licence applications until cabot sort themselves out.

 

This sitauion simply assists bad companies to stay in business, and doesn't enforce acceptable standards which is what a licensing requirement is supposed to do.

 

If cabot are unfit to hold a licence they should be closed down, if the OFT are unfit to operate the lienceing system to an aceptable standard, then THEY should be closed down.

 

Perhaps a few letters to the OFT questioning their performance, and a few to MPS questioning the fitness of the OFT bearing in mind their CEO is the highest paid civil servant in the UK, might bring a change in attitude? The service standards of the OFT certainly need examining

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am reading this with total fascination. I have TWO Cabot hearings in the next ten days and intend to bring this info up in my Witness Statement.

 

I see that it's Cabot Financial (UK) ltd that is without a valid licence.....does anyone know the status of Cabot Financial (Europe) ltd? I am assuming that it will need to be licenced here in the UK (am trying the OFT website to search but it's v v v sleepy today).

 

Thanks!!

 

MX

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont know if this is anything to do with owt but cabot UK who has no employes bulk purchase the debts and cabot europe administer the debts

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just what I was going to post all pre litigation comes from Cabot Europe, but litigation is through Cabot UK

 

Hi Cym,

 

It's all sort of smoke and mirrors......the POCs for my Cabot Claim are from Cabot (UK). The Assignment letter from Cabot state the Cabot Financial Group have bought your account with Egg....but all payments should be to Cabot (Europe) (and that's their postal address, too). The Egg letters of assignment state the account was sold to Cabot (UK). All the Court docs state that too, but Morgan sols, in their WS, sign off as Cabot (Europe). Deliberately designed to confuse. Or what!!

 

Grrrr....MX

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited are licensed until 2013 sorry to say as they have just started on me.

 

Hiya,

 

Maybe worth another look.....did you get a letter re the assignment from the original creditor and, if so, does it state which Cabot the account was sold to? My Cabot letters don't actually state Cabot (UK) anywhere (except, stretching it, as an email address) but all the court docs are Cabot (UK).

 

Worth clarifying....

 

MX

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...