Cabot's Licence

[angry cat]

Time to start hammering the new 'Coalition' Government and in particular;

David Cameron;

Nick Clegg and;

Vince Cable.

 

No good whining about the matter on here!

(c.c. your local MP's, also)

[Pinky69]

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.

[vengeancedemon]

Jasper,

The address I have for FIRE on their latest "Make us an offer" letter is

PO Box 4506

Rugby

CV21 9DY

 

Company No 03956421

Registered Offices

Unit 5 Mitchell Court

Castle Mound Way

Central Park Rugby

Warwickshire

CV23 0UY

[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?

[Pinky69]

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.

[angry cat]

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!

[angry cat]

Lobby your MP's and MEP's; make them listen to your voice/word's!

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

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 June 6, 2010 by payingonlyencouragesthem

[Rhia]

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.

[angry cat]

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.

[cymruambyth]

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

[angry cat]

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.

[angry cat]

Securitization;

Amortization;

back to the, Oozlum Bird...!

[cymruambyth]

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

[cups]

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

[Pinky69]

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.

[Brigadier 1JCS]

I think it was June 2009 I believe there is a post on this forum about it.

[angry cat]

by Pinky:

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

 

Agree!

[MorganaNK]

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?!?

[Seminole]

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.

[andrew1]

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!

.

.

.

Edited June 8, 2010 by andrew1

[Rhia]

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.

[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.

[Pinky69]

I doubt they are sitting on the fence purely for financial reasons when they have had umpteen complaints about Cabot's endless breaches of law and guidelines, which they cannot ignore.

[Rhia]

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.