Cabot's Licence

[cymruambyth]

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

Hi my NOA show account sold to Cabot UK but all communications etc to be directes to Cabot Europe!

[Martel]

Hi my NOA show account sold to Cabot UK but all communications etc to be directes to Cabot Europe!

 

 

Ditto for me.....all v murky! Mx

[Martel]

Have a look at donkey's post 26, there is a link to the public register there.

 

I did try but after ages of 'loading', I realised I was getting nowhere. Or maybe it's on overload??? Too many inquiries??? Mx

[cerberusalert]

Try this link Public Register

[Pinky69]

Cabot Financial (Europe) is the collection arm of CF (UK) - CF (Uk) is the parent company.

[Martel]

I understand they are two separate companies, they have two different registrations at Companies House and at OFT.

 

If Cabot (Europe) is collecting on behalf of Cabot (UK), wouldn't there need to be a NOA between them??

 

MX

[Hadituptohere]

Yes there would but no-one has had a sight of any notice of assignment between the two

 

hadituptohere

[Hadituptohere]

see post 266 by meldrew here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/127059-hadituptohere-cabot-14.html

[Pinky69]

No one should be collecting for Cabot Uk - they don't have a licence!

[Martel]

Yes there would but no-one has had a sight of any notice of assignment between the two

 

hadituptohere

 

 

Well, I think I'll weave it into my WS and see what happens!! MX

[angry cat]

No one should be collecting for Cabot Uk - they don't have a licence!

 

Pinky, the CCA Licence appertaining to Cabot Financial UK Limited, is marked as: current;

open;

pending:

 

CCA Search :: CCA Search Results :: Licence Details

 

 

Application / Licence Details

Licence Number:0472690Licence 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

 

The term; open/pending does not mean that they do not have a Consumer Credit Licence.

 

What it does mean is that, the OFT are looking at the 'requirements'; could be any number of issues (?). Before, renewing their CCA Licence.

[Pinky69]

The licence itself has expired. The OFT are using S29 to keep the licence current whilst they sit on the fence and decide what to do about all Cabot's breaches of consumer law and OFT guidelines. Why are they running scared of taking action against rogue DCAs like Cabot? It is time that was questioned - by all of us. For too long we have simply accepted the OFT not doing what it was set up to do. In the past it took 2 months to renew a licence and the legislation was not intended to hold an expired licence open indefinitely prior to renewal.

 

I wrote to the OFT today and this is what I said:

 

"The OFT might should know that consumers are fed up with the OFT hiding behind Section 29 in their lengthy procedure for granting consumer credit licence renewals and for tolerating endless breaches of law and guidelines by debt collection agencies. This was inevitable and the integrity of the OFT is very much in question. One consumer is going to raise it in a forthcoming court case.

 

Cabot's licence has not been renewed for whatever reason - and there are others who aren't fit to hold a licence - and the feeling is that the OFT is sitting on the fence and unwilling to take action against BIG DCAs which totally ignore consumer law and breach guidelines as a matter of course, knowing the OFT will do nothing about it. DCAs should not be allowed to continue trading indefinitely after their licences have expired simply because the OFT are impotent to take action against them, nor should there be any room for any question of backroom deals or worse between the OFT and the DCAs and that is a question consumers are asking. Why do the OFT let them get away with it when they were set up to stop it? What is in it for the OFT? Why do the OFT always consult them before issuing guidelines and are thus not impartial? The OFT have left themselves wide open for that kind of debate by their inaction.

 

This situation keeps rogue companies in business, and doesn't enforce legal and guideline standards, which is what licences are for.

 

If Cabot and other DCAs are unfit to hold a licence then their businesses should be closed - they are causing untold misery to millions of people whilst the OFT sits on the fence and allows it to happen.

 

Why is this incompetency to take action against bad DCAs happening when the CEO of the OFT is the highest paid Civil Servant in the country?

 

I am not interested in what is going on behind the scenes so you can skip the stock reply that any dealings between the DCA and debt collection agencies is confidential. I also know what the OFT have done - taken action against small debt collection agencies no one has ever heard off and the rest get a slap on the wrist. The fact is that the OFT are not doing their job and that is the bottom line.

 

The groundswell amongst consumers against the OFT is growing. I suggest the OFT listen to it."

 

I sent a copy to the CEO of the FSA and the Prime Minister. One knock on the door won't do it but I think it is time we all said "Enough."

[Newborn]

This part of the OFT site also makes interesting reading.

 

They put debt collection into the 'high risk' category requiring greater oversight.

 

Also, as one previous poster on this thread points out, Financial Investigations and Recoveries (Europe) Ltd (FIRE Ltd) Company No 02958421, does not appear to have a licence if you check the register.

 

As I understand it, a Ltd company is a separate legal entity and should have all licences etc in its own right. It cannot use another company's licence.

 

I recently complained to the Info Comm as FIRE's address on their register was Cabot's, not their own so was incorrect. Despite this being a serious offence the reply I got was along the lines that 'they didn't mean to do it and they've now changed the address so all's hunky dory' isn't it.

 

But now we find that Cabot are passing 'client' details on to an unlicensed company.

 

OFT debt collection guidance only applies to licensed companies! So are Cabot conducting unlicensed activity that is outside the guidance through a proxy (FIRE)? Conducting unlicensed activity is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonemnt. So why does the OFT not check up on these basic things when assessing licences???!!!

 

What's worse though is that any money paid to Cabot / FIRE could be at risk. If the company(s) were shut down the debts would almost certainly be sold on. And any money already paid could be ignored by the new debt owner as it was paid under unlicensed terms. They would just say you have to go after the old company to get that back. With no firm guidance from the OFT people who are paying should consider telling Cabot they are ceasing payments until the licence position is sorted or the OFT underwrites them (fat chance).

 

The OFT have a problem. If they shut down CF (UK) it would effectively shut down CF (Europe). All those jobs and lost tax revenue. That's probably more their concern.

 

And with the current economic climate I bet they feel that they need every debt collector they can get.

[angry cat]

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/credit_licences/oft969.pdf

[cymruambyth]

Can someone possibly clarify where we stand re Cabot and who they are?

If sale shows account being bought by Cabot UK but administered by Cabot Europe, from whom all communications are received and to whom payments are to be made, but POC is issued by Cabot UK, should there have been different NOAs and do they have a legal right to collect?

Everytime I think I have worked it all out, another post throws it all in to confusion again

[angry cat]

Consumer Credit Directive ? how does it affect you? / News / Tessera

[Pinky69]

There is definitely a strong case for questioning the OFT's stance. It took them 2 months to renew licences in the past then sitting on the fence for 9 months or more needs to be explained and the delay is unacceptable to the consumer. There is a legitimate case for the consumer having no confidence in the OFT's procedures and not responding to DCAs until the OFT makes a decision about renewing their licences.

[NailPost]

Perhaps this really is a case for CAG centrally to start up a campaign directly with the new government. The OFT is a government body in desperate need of a shake up.

[Guest HeftyHippo]

good letter pink (post 62) but yo left out the bit about the OFT being unfit and needing to be closed down!

 

everything else is as you, me and everyone ele has said. There seems to be wholescale being and breaking of rules, almost as bad as if there were no rules and licensing - a DCA can submit a licence and continue to trade withuot the application being considered - you only get 14 grace for car tax, after that if the disc hasn't arrived you're expected to have found out why not and to correct the problem, we have debts being sold to one company, and collected by their sister company without any notification or assignment and we have complete anarchy when it comes to harassment of debtors and the refusal to behave in a professional manner

 

Any company who tried to behave ethically in this industry would simply go bust - undercut by rogues who don't adhere to the law and are dishonest. That would leave the industry populated only by rogue companies, each competing to steal an advantage on competitors and driving down compliance standards as a result. That's exactly the situation that regulation is designed to prevent.

[angry cat]

There is definitely a strong case for questioning the OFT's stance. It took them 2 months to renew licences in the past then sitting on the fence for 9 months or more needs to be explained and the delay is unacceptable to the consumer. There is a legitimate case for the consumer having no confidence in the OFT's procedures and not responding to DCAs until the OFT makes a decision about renewing their licences.

 

Absolutely agree!

 

Many members are aware that, in the case of Link Financial Limited; their Consumer Credit Licence remained; Open/Pending for quite some considerable time prior to being renewed.

In the meantime, Link Financial carried on in the same old manner, breaching the OFT Guidelines on debt collection.

 

Eventually, the OFT did in fact impose requirements upon Link but not after having received a vast number of complaints from Consumers!

 

However, it remains clear that, Link Financial Limited continue to circumnavigate the same Guidelines, often breaching them...

 

John Fingleton salary is extraordinary and he is paid more that our current PM;

is his excessive salary warranted?

IMHO, NO.

 

The OFT are not doing their job properly.

[angry cat]

Paid more than the PM: 170 highest-earning civil servants revealed | Politics | The Guardian

[vengeancedemon]

So, would it be a fair summation that as Cabot UK are to all intents and puposes unlicenced, the passing of any account to Cabot Financial Europe is unlawful and for example further, involving say, FIRE is further illegal as FIRE have no licence in addition to the deiciency of the origin ie Cabot UK?

 

Or am I being over simplistic?

[Jasper1965]

So, would it be a fair summation that as Cabot UK are to all intents and puposes unlicenced, the passing of any account to Cabot Financial Europe is unlawful and for example further, involving say, FIRE is further illegal as FIRE have no licence in addition to the deiciency of the origin ie Cabot UK?

 

Or am I being over simplistic?

 

I've told F. I. R. E. to F. o.f.f. recently when I found out that they have incorrectly registered their address with the ICO, didn't know at the time they were unlicensed too.

 

Hasn't stopped them 'phoning every day though.

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

There is definitely a strong case for questioning the OFT's stance. It took them 2 months to renew licences in the past then sitting on the fence for 9 months or more needs to be explained and the delay is unacceptable to the consumer. There is a legitimate case for the consumer having no confidence in the OFT's procedures and not responding to DCAs until the OFT makes a decision about renewing their licences.

 

The bottom line is, I think, firstly that the OFT don't want to get into a massive legal sh*t fight with a well funded and lawyered opponent. They are probably tying themselves up in knots trying to find ways of justifying a decision to renew the licence. Secondly, if they did close Cabot down they would have to close all DCA's down as the others are doing exactly the same things. Denying Cabot a licence would thus be a "nuclear option" which would cost thousands of jobs and throw the entire consumer credit industry into complete disarray. That's why they are squirming here.

[Angel104]

I hope this is unlawful because they are threating me with everything at the moment. Their reply to my cca request was a load of statements and terms and conditions and according to them it is all they are obliged to send me.