Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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 5010 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

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You are absolutely right that we shouldn't just talk. I have written a letter with a copy to the FSA and Prime Minister. If we all did the same - it doesn't take long - then they will maybe start to get the message that the system for ensuring fair trading in the murky debt collection industry is totally unfit for purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HeftyHippo

I think its important to recognise that cabot are not unlicenced - their licence status is current because the OFT are allowing their previous licence to continue past its expiry because they submitted an renewal application before their old one expired. The complaint is that the OFT are not running an efficient licensing system properly.

 

A decision on a licence sould be made within a reasonable time of the application being made. It is not desirable and it shouldn't be permissible for a licence to be extended a significant time because the renewal application hasn't been considered. To do so makes an expiry date on a licence pointless.

 

The present situation gives rise to all sorts of suggestions of corruption as I said earlier (and pinky), eg that the OFT are scared of a DCA taking legal action should the licence renewal be refused, so they delay a decision until the DCA have fixed their failings, then the OFT will grant a licence.

 

Environemnetal health deartments use that system when a food outlet has hygiene problems. The difference is that the EH explain precisely what the outlet needs to improve, and by what time. If they don't meet those requirements, they can be closed down and/or prosescuted. The EH certainly do not allow months for an outlet to come up to scratch! Similar systems exist in most of licencing systems.. Here, we have cabot who haven't been examined and are flea ridden, being allowed to trade indefinately.

 

Perhaps opposition MPs would be interested in such failings by a Government department? With all the fuss about MPs expenses last year, they may be glad of teh chance to make some capital when the highest paid civil servant runs a department that screwed up teh court case last year and which doesn't run a proper license system. They couldn't be a coincidence could they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the OFT's attitude that what goes on behind closed doors is none of the consumers business only adds to suspicion. What is it they are trying to hide - and why? It makes a mockery of the new government's mantra of transparency. It is time the OFT stopped treating consumers as if they didn't matter in any of this. It is consumers the OFT's decisions affect and we have a right to know why decisions are made as they are and the policy behind them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely right that we shouldn't just talk. I have written a letter with a copy to the FSA and Prime Minister. If we all did the same - it doesn't take long - then they will maybe start to get the message that the system for ensuring fair trading in the murky debt collection industry is totally unfit for purpose.

 

[Emphasis]: Write (sensible) letter(s) of complaint about the OFT, to:

David Cameron;

Nick Clegg and;

Vince Cabel...

 

Many, mouths maketh, a Choir!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely right that we shouldn't just talk. I have written a letter with a copy to the FSA and Prime Minister. If we all did the same - it doesn't take long - then they will maybe start to get the message that the system for ensuring fair trading in the murky debt collection industry is totally unfit for purpose.

 

Pinky if you have an effective line of communication with the OFT I think it might be worth threatening them with a Judicial Review over their practice of allowing DCAs to operate without a licence pending renewal. Tell them there are plenty of CAGers ready to fight this corner!

 

See http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgment_guidance/judicial_review/index.htm

Edited by payingonlyencouragesthem

"Why CCJ when you can CCA!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

FIRE is and always has been an offshoot of Cabot. It is based in the same place as thier in house solicitors.

My thoughts on this are, firstly, for anyone involved in litigation with them use the court protocols to obtain a copy of the sales document by which they assign the original debt from creditor to Cabot.

 

My second thought is to anyone who has had experience of Cabot and it's activities to complain to the following: OFT, FSA, your MP, Watchdog and the Govt Department responsible for consumer affairs. You only need to send the same letter to all of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FIRE is and always has been an offshoot of Cabot. It is based in the same place as thier in house solicitors.

My thoughts on this are, firstly, for anyone involved in litigation with them use the court protocols to obtain a copy of the sales document by which they assign the original debt from creditor to Cabot.

 

My second thought is to anyone who has had experience of Cabot and it's activities to complain to the following: OFT, FSA, your MP, Watchdog and the Govt Department responsible for consumer affairs. You only need to send the same letter to all of them.

 

by Rhia:

...anyone who has had experience of Cabot and it's activities to complain to the following: OFT, FSA, your MP, Watchdog and the Govt Department responsible for consumer affairs. You only need to send the same letter to all of them

 

And copy in:

David Cameron;

Nick Clegg and;

Vince Cable!

 

In order, to make any sort of impact, at least 50 plus letters need to be fired off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts on this are, firstly, for anyone involved in litigation with them use the court protocols to obtain a copy of the sales document by which they assign the original debt from creditor to Cabot.

I have a copy of the account sale agreement.

It's between Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd (the buyer) and Barclays Bank plc (the seller)

Buyer's servicer means Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd

Link to post
Share on other sites

by Rhia:

...for anyone involved in litigation with them use the court protocols to obtain a copy of the sales document by which they assign the original debt from creditor to Cabot.

 

Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited: Eire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

by Rhia:

...for anyone involved in litigation with them use the court protocols to obtain a copy of the sales document by which they assign the original debt from creditor to Cabot.

 

Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited: Eire.

 

In my agreement from 2007 it shows Cabot Europe having a different company number but the same address as Cabot UK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a case with Cabot and I am just about to write a newer defence,,wil write at the end that they no longer hold a licence on my defence,,see where that gets with the court?

 

Worth a laugh,,at their expense

 

Cups

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will simply reply that their licence is current, which, according to S29 of the CCA 1974, it is. What this debate is about is should the OFT be allowed to use S29 to postpone renewal indefinitely when there is sufficient evidence not to renew a licence at all and use that postponement to give a repeat offender like Cabot time to give undertakings about compliance everyone knows they won't keep. It makes a mockery of the licence system, which is there to regulate licence holders, not to give them indefinite leave to continue holding a licence when they have proven themselves not fit to have one. The OFT don't tell you anything - so much for David Cameron's new transparency - but that is what is going on in the background. They are trying to find a way to renew Cabot's licence in the light of all the complaints they have had about them, which they cannot ignore. I personally wouldn't raise it in a court case. It might go against you as irrelevant to your case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Securitization;

Amortization;

back to the, Oozlum Bird...!

 

Ahh, my late father's favorite bird!

 

The whole OFT/DCA etc thing just screams of the Old Boys Network... I shall be adding my voice to the choir of letters being sent - if there is supposed to be clarity then they need to start setting their various houses in order and stop doing deals "under the table" - as has been said, if they have nothing to hide, why all the cloak and dagger?!?

"I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter" - Sir Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

by Pinky:

I personally wouldn't raise it in a court case. It might go against you as irrelevant to your case.

 

Agree!

 

Yep, raise the issue in correspondence with them and complain like mad to the OFT, MPs etc but don't use it as part of your defence. I have a suspicion that if a court grabbed hold of the issue it could spiral the case out of the small claims track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There still seems to be a number of people who suffer with problems from Cabot despite their assertions they are the ethical collectors and doing all things according to the laws of the land. Well that's not exactly true quite yet and there is still a long way to go before their reputation is set in stone as being as they describe.

 

To help them on their way perhaps people could refresh their knowledge of what they are, who they are and how they deal with things but going on a refresher course with some of these threads of old where a considerable amount of work went in to assisting Cabot personnel identify how things ought to be done.

 

 

 

 

Take a browse, post 2 directs people to a number of examples too...

 

..

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/73598-dealing-cabot-101-cabot.html enjoy! :D

.

.

.

Edited by andrew1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone told me delays of this sort can be for a number of reasons such as financial issues of the relative company. They did post a massive lost last year so it may be to establish they are on firmer footing in this financial year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HeftyHippo

I don't think the reasons why the situation exists are important Rhia. What is important is the integrity of the licensing system. When a licence has an expiry date, a new licence should be issued when the old one expires if the holder is fit. Any 'period grace' should be kept to the minimum and only be allowed in strict circumstances. To do otherwise is unfair to the other licence holders. That's the case with all licence schemes. As it is, 7 months is more than enough time to consider an application and make a decision, and the lack of a decision allows the situation to be interpreted that the OFT is scared to remove the licence or has been persuaded not to remove it and thus brings not only the licensing situation into disrepute but the OFT. The OFT badly let consumers down last year, and here it is again failing us but not regulating the industry properly and allowing a bad company to continue in business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree with both your posts and the OFT should really make a decision but from what I have heard I suspect they are struggling again so that will pile the pressure on..

 

I also read another thread here last night about a court case that Cabot lost involving defamation but when I looked just now it has gone! Anyway it seems yet another nail but yes the OFT should act - either they are fit to operate or they aren't and seven months is a heck of a long time and unacceptable for the consumer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...