Debt_mountain vs Cabot

[debt_mountain]

Just called Cabot and it was so good having the upper hand.

 

I sent my CCA to them at the end of Aug06 so the 30 default timer is now ticking. Mid Oct they will be unable to collect without first getting a court order.

 

They have since called me to say they own an old bank of scotland debt and want payment. I explained to the very nice lady that I had sent a CCA in and that I do not acknowledge the debt until they provide the evidence. So was a little quite but said she would log that it was in dispute (no record of receiving the CCA - I told here that I and the Post Office do have a record so that is ok.)

 

I then also read out the "don't phone me again script" and only communicate by mail. Se also said she would log this.

 

It is so nice to have the upper hand now.

 

Can't wait til mid October so I can ignore the so called outstanding debt then start claiming back for the old debt that I previously (not knowing any better) paid off for about 70% of it value.

 

roll on Mid Oct.

[livelylad]

its nice to be in control! good luck:D

[debt_mountain]

the first 14 days are now up so only 30 more to wait.

 

Got a snotty response to my s10/s12 letter. I had also said they were no longer to phone me (I quoted the Wireless and Telegraph act), warned them I would record any future calls.

 

In the reply they said they would give me 10 days to reply by mail with my payment plan and all of my financial details or else the phoning would restart. Over the last 3 days they have tried to call me (caller display said it was them), never answered as was not a suitable time. Did they not read my mail saying I was not aknowledging this debt and they had to prove it!! Looks like they can't.

 

Looks like the don't call me has a big effect. The first time I do answer and record the call, I will then be escalating it as a breech of the W&T act and try to have them fined.

[debt_mountain]

No response to my CCA or my S10 or 12 other than a we are investigating and will only communicate by post.

 

So today I posted of an N1 claiming damages for £3000 due to them processing my old data for expired contracts and this has caused me financial pain as my mortgage is dearer.

 

I have split the increase in my mortgage compared to a similar "normal" persons interest rate and am charging them a pro rata piece of this.

 

Included in the claim I have said they have to stop sharing my info, send me the agreement, deed of assignment and default notice within 7 days, pay costs for which I have charged an hourly rate (for 4 hours) at the level I earn my salary at present.

 

Plus costs for postage printing etc.

 

Lets see how this goes.

 

I have also comments but not claimed for the fact that as they have not proven they had any right to these 4 past debts passed to them (included the initial amounts) then they should not have been paid for them. This is just an opener so that either a smart judge may tell them to pay it all back + this damages claim unless they can prove ownership) or it leaves me the option to open a new claim as soon as this one is closed claiming for all moneys paid.

 

Cost for court fee was £120 (Money from my Nationwide refund of charges)

[andrew1]

Hi debt mountain. Just wondered about our mates at Cabot. I have a couple of ccj's and some defaults. But I am also fighting a couple of those now as the claims for unlawful charges unfold. My default from CAbot comes from a cc debt which is made up wholly of u/charges. Cabot have like yours not responded to the CCA requests and it's months now overdue. So, if you are spreading your pro rata cost of higher mortgage interest charges to Cabot are you saying here you have other defaults or ccjs? If so how do you work out what the liklihood of getting a normal mortgage would have been? I haven't had that trouble with a mortgage but I certainly have on loans.

[debt_mountain]

Andrew1

 

I have just taken a similar product from a high street lender and worked out the difference in what I would have paid them over the term compared to what I have paid the sharks I had to use and then divided that total by the number of bad marks on my credit file. Anything on our files with a >=3 or 8 which is a default. No CCJs anymore, got it removed.

 

Don't know how this has gone down yet, I will call the court on Friday when their time is up, but I am guessing that it will need to be Monday as the court probably give to the end of a day.

 

If this works then everyone with a "bad mark" on my credit file will get the same papers served. I am serving the papers not to get cash back but to get them to supply me the data, if they can't supply me the data then a further set of papers will be sent asking for anything I paid them to be returned to me.

 

So the outcome has 5 outcomes that I can see

 

1 - they supply the info. Fine that what I wanted in the first place.

2 - they don't defend and I can send the ballifs in to get my money as per the court papers, then go back at them for the money I have already paid, and removal of bad marks in my file.

3 - They defend but as I have the support of this site I will be well prepared and glad to discuss why they didn;'t talk earlier and depending what they use as a defence then go back at them for the money I have already paid, and removal of bad marks in my file.

4 - they defend but the judge kicks me out. Fine that is the law but it only cost me a few quid (that I got back from a bank through an earlier case)

5 - they fold before having to defend and stump up, then go back at them for the money I have already paid, and removal of bad marks in my file.

 

Worst case I lose my court costs

 

best case I get my day in court and have these scumbags explain themselves to a judge and give me some of my cash back.

 

If it does go to court I am going to have to take a couple of days off to get my evidence together. It is all on this site but I need to gather it together.

[andrew1]

Sounds good to me - thanks!

[debt_mountain]

Called the court today and Cabot have acknowledged the claim and have until mid Nov to file a defence.

 

Can't wait to see what they say.

[andrew1]

Keep an eye on this one too....http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-bailiffs-advice/38340-dca-2.html

[debt_mountain]

thanks Andrew1

 

I will be adding the (how can the DCA default me when I have not given them the permission to do so) to my list of defences.

 

Cabot have til 10/11 to file a defence.......... not long to wait to see wht they come up with.

 

thanks

[tbern123]

How do you feel about their defence ?

 

Any surprises ?

[debt_mountain]

Cabots defence

 

Lease add your comments about each clause. I have 7 days to put my AQ together.

 

1- it is denied that the defendants is indebted to the claimants in the sum claimants or at all

Cabot would say that, but they are claiming that Cabot don't own the debt!!

I called Cabot and got through to customer services who said "Cabot and Kingshill are one in the samething". (Name, date and time kept and was informed the call could be recorded)

 

2- the claimants are put to strict proof of the allegation that there was any agreement that disclosure of personal data in relation to "the contract" would extend only to such times as the end of the contract.

What!! So when a contract ends they are saying it doesn’t….mmmmmm. Can someone point me to the correct clause of the unfair terms in consumer contract regulations (1999)?

 

3- No admissions are made of the allegation that a default is classed as a contract ending and the claimants are put to strict proof of such assertion.

Can someone point me to the correct clause of the correct act? CCA

 

4- the claimants are put to strict proof of the true and proper construction of the terms and conditions of each of the contracts upon which they rely.

Does this actually ask something?

Cabot have failed to supply this information so cannot prove.

 

5- the claimants are put to the strict proof that the matters of which they complain in their proceedings constitute a cause of action against the defendants. Without prejudice to the fact that the defendants. including any subsidiary of it, deny all liability in this matter, it is the defendants case that there is no liability upon the named defendants.

Does the “without prejudice” mean anything significant?

Does this actually ask something?

 

6- it is denied that the defendants has arbitrarily chosen to extend the length of the contract as alleged or that there has been any breech by the defendants of the unfair terms in consumer contract regulations (1999).

Is this not just saying the same as point 2 but worded differently?

 

7- it is denied that the defendant is in breech of contract or the data protection act 1998.

Not if what I found out is correct, you are in breech for having access to my info if you are not the owners of the debt without my permission.

If Cabot have my information is it them or Kingshill or both that are in breech? Can 1 limited company share my info with another limited company?

Have cabot got permission to share my info?

See my new finding below.

 

8- if(which is not admitted) the letter sent by the claimants to the defendants dated 20/9/06 constitutes a valid notice for the purpose of S.10 and 12 of the data protection act 1998 it is averred that the notice was sent to the wrong company.

So why in the reply letter they sent to me did they not explain this?

Oh really, Not if what I found out is correct, you are in breech and you should not have my data. See new finding below.

 

9- it is denied that the claimants have suffered damage, or if they have, that the defendant is liable for such damage.

Let see what a judge says about that!

 

10- the claimants loss of £xxxx is denied and the claimants are put to strict proof thereof. If the claimants have lost the said sum as alleged it is denied that the defendants is liable for such loss.

See 9

 

11- it is admitted that the claimants made a request on 28/8/06 for copies of the signed

agreement. deed of assignment and default notice. However, it is averred that the request was made to the wrong company. In any event the said letter fails to adequately identify the accounts. The claimants are put to strict proof that the defendants is obliged to supply the claimants with "a signed true and certified copy of the original default notice", or any deed of assignment.

Oh really, Not if what I found out is correct, you failed to reply. See below.

If it was sent to the wrong company why would they not have replied informing me of this?

I believe that when a phone call is made and an address is given the accounts are easily traced, this is what I supplied.

customer services said "Cabot and Kingshill are one in the samething".

 

12- it is denied that "cabot" has ownership of the debts. It is the defendants case that

Kingshill (No 1) limited are the owners of any debts to which the claimants refers. The claimants admits that of the 4 accounts he refers to only one still constitutes a debt which alleged to be in dispute.

Who gave Cabot the permission to hold my data if they don’t own the debt or have my written permission?

How do they know it is Kinghill who own the debt? should they have access to this info?

 

13 For the avoidance of doubt if a customer defaults in making repayment of sums due a creditor is entitled to register that failure as a "default" with the appropriate credit reference agencies.

Useless paragraph.

 

Something new I have found out.

 

What I have found in my credit files is another anomaly. Cabot are using the fact that they do not own the debt as the main defence against my claim, but when looking in my credit file it clearly lists Kingshill (No1) limited as the institution but the postal address of the data submitter is Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd. Po box 241, West Malinling, ME19 4NA, surely this is not right and would a judge see Cabot/Kingshill are being misleading.

 

So I think it is another possible shot in Cabot’s foot. They have chased and been paid for a debt that they have no ownership of or permission to have access to our data. They havent supplied the CCA or S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) info as required as I posted the requests to the name and address of the company listing my data in the credit files.

 

So what to do next. My first thought is to

1 – pay the £100 and file my AQ and send all of the info from Tbern and Andrew plus a response to their defence to the judge

2 – send the CCA and S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to Kingshill for good measure and have this info back before I actually go to court. I can ask for a 1 month delay to try to reach an out of court settlement which gives me all the data to clear up the smoke and mirrors they are using.

 

Or do I do no 2 above and then start an identical claim against Kingshill?

[tbern123]

Just a quick response... I'll have a think over this tonight

 

2- the claimants are put to strict proof of the allegation that there was any agreement that disclosure of personal data in relation to "the contract" would extend only to such times as the end of the contract.

(What contract ? Do you have a copy of it ?)

 

3- No admissions are made of the allegation that a default is classed as a contract ending and the claimants are put to strict proof of such assertion.

(Sorry this is true, a default notice is not the same as a termination notice)

 

4- the claimants are put to strict proof of the true and proper construction of the terms and conditions of each of the contracts upon which they rely.

(What terms and conditions ? Have the provided a copy of your signed agreement to them ?)

 

5- the claimants are put to the strict proof that the matters of which they complain in their proceedings constitute a cause of action against the defendants. Without prejudice to the fact that the defendants. including any subsidiary of it, deny all liability in this matter, it is the defendants case that there is no liability upon the named defendants.

(Named Defendant should be Kings Hill )

 

6- it is denied that the defendants has arbitrarily chosen to extend the length of the contract as alleged or that there has been any breech by the defendants of the unfair terms in consumer contract regulations (1999).

(I need to read up on the consumer contract regulations)

 

7- it is denied that the defendant is in breech of contract or the data protection act 1998.

(Really, do they have a copy of the Fair Processing Notice they have to supply before processing you data ? Or do they have a copy of your authority to process your data ?)

 

8- if(which is not admitted) the letter sent by the claimants to the defendants dated 20/9/06 constitutes a valid notice for the purpose of S.10 and 12 of the data protection act 1998 it is averred that the notice was sent to the wrong company.

(You were instructed that all contact must be made via (Cabot) I have copies of my letters, if it helps)

 

11- it is admitted that the claimants made a request on 28/8/06 for copies of the signed

agreement. deed of assignment and default notice. However, it is averred that the request was made to the wrong company. In any event the said letter fails to adequately identify the accounts. The claimants are put to strict proof that the defendants is obliged to supply the claimants with "a signed true and certified copy of the original default notice", or any deed of assignment.

(You were instructed that all contact must be made via (Cabot) I have copies of my letters, if it helps)

12- it is denied that "cabot" has ownership of the debts. It is the defendants case that

Kingshill (No 1) limited are the owners of any debts to which the claimants refers. The claimants admits that of the 4 accounts he refers to only one still constitutes a debt which alleged to be in dispute.

(You were instructed that all contact must be made via (Cabot) I have copies of my letters, if it helps)

 

[debt_mountain]

Thanks for the quick review and update. I have added a couple of other points too.

 

What do you think about the confusion they are causing by including both company names in the Experian credit files?

 

Just a quick response... I'll have a think over this tonight

 

 

2- the claimants are put to strict proof of the allegation that there was any agreement that disclosure of personal data in relation to "the contract" would extend only to such times as the end of the contract.

(What contract ? Do you have a copy of it ?)

nope. they say they don't own the debt.

3- No admissions are made of the allegation that a default is classed as a contract ending and the claimants are put to strict proof of such assertion.

(Sorry this is true, a default notice is not the same as a termination notice)

is this not a statement that is included in many of the stop sharing my data letter we send out?

 

4- the claimants are put to strict proof of the true and proper construction of the terms and conditions of each of the contracts upon which they rely.

(What terms and conditions ? Have the provided a copy of your signed agreement to them ?)

nope

5- the claimants are put to the strict proof that the matters of which they complain in their proceedings constitute a cause of action against the defendants. Without prejudice to the fact that the defendants. including any subsidiary of it, deny all liability in this matter, it is the defendants case that there is no liability upon the named defendants.

(Named Defendant should be Kings Hill )

not sure what you mean?

 

6- it is denied that the defendants has arbitrarily chosen to extend the length of the contract as alleged or that there has been any breech by the defendants of the unfair terms in consumer contract regulations (1999).

(I need to read up on the consumer contract regulations)

 

7- it is denied that the defendant is in breech of contract or the data protection act 1998.

(Really, do they have a copy of the Fair Processing Notice they have to supply before processing you data ? Or do they have a copy of your authority to process your data ?)

 

8- if(which is not admitted) the letter sent by the claimants to the defendants dated 20/9/06 constitutes a valid notice for the purpose of S.10 and 12 of the data protection act 1998 it is averred that the notice was sent to the wrong company.

(You were instructed that all contact must be made via (Cabot) I have copies of my letters, if it helps)

can you scan or take a phot of said letter and PM it to me?

11- it is admitted that the claimants made a request on 28/8/06 for copies of the signed

agreement. deed of assignment and default notice. However, it is averred that the request was made to the wrong company. In any event the said letter fails to adequately identify the accounts. The claimants are put to strict proof that the defendants is obliged to supply the claimants with "a signed true and certified copy of the original default notice", or any deed of assignment.

(You were instructed that all contact must be made via (Cabot) I have copies of my letters, if it helps)

 

12- it is denied that "cabot" has ownership of the debts. It is the defendants case that

Kingshill (No 1) limited are the owners of any debts to which the claimants refers. The claimants admits that of the 4 accounts he refers to only one still constitutes a debt which alleged to be in dispute.

(You were instructed that all contact must be made via (Cabot) I have copies of my letters, if it helps)

 

[tbern123]

I think no.2 is the way to go. Then you will be able to prove in court exactly what information have been shared between Cabot and Kings Hill

 

I was expecting something better and more constructive from Cabot... poor show really

[debt_mountain]

I think no.2 is the way to go. Then you will be able to prove in court exactly what information have been shared between Cabot and Kings Hill

 

I was expecting something better and more constructive from Cabot... poor show really

 

poor show or are they just showing they are on the run and it is only time before they are surrounded.

[tbern123]

Sorry it was a rush response

 

2 & 4 I presume as the debt was assigned to Kingshill No.1 Ltd, like mine the agreement with the original creditor was not terminated. Thus the obligations of this agreement are not Kings Hill to deal with. The contract I presume they refer to would be the original agreement. Which I understand they don't have. How can they comment on it, if they don't know what it says ?

 

3. I'll have to reread the letter, but I know that a defaul notice does not automatically result in the termination of the agreement

 

5. I presume you have named Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd as the defendent, when the owner of the Debt is Kings Hill No.1 Ltd.

 

8, 11 & 12. I will scan them during the week for you. Kings Hill have never provided a point of contact and have never entered into direct correspondance and you were instructed to contact Cabot

[tbern123]

Sorry added in error

[debt_mountain]

Called Cabot today to check on a couple of facts, to test the defence.

 

Whan I called I said I did not have the reference number and gave my address and postcode and guess what, they found my files. so why in the defence do they say I did not supply tsufficient account information. I asked the girls to have my call recorded. Wonder if that one will get lost somewhere.

 

She then said the account was with Customer Service so I was put through to them and was warned the call could be recorded for training blah blah blah (good thinks me) noted her name, date and time of call, may call for this as evidence.

 

She then said there were alot of notes on my account and can I let her know why I was calling. So I simply asked who owns the debt was it Cabot or....I left a blank and she confirmed Kingshill but then immediately stated that "Cabot and Kingshill are one in the same thing" I quote.

 

I think at this point the penny dropped and she asked if I had anything else I wanted to ask, I said no she had given me quite enough info. Thanks

 

So CCA to Kingshill today and AQ being completed ready for posting with my £100. I am also pulling a vast amount of info/evidence to add to the Other Information section for the Judge.

 

When (if ) I get the CCA info supplied that can also go direct to the judge.

 

I am also going to call the information commisioner today and run through the info/evidence I have gathered.

 

See you in court Mr Cabot (Kingshill or whoever you are.)

[debt_mountain]

I just visited the Cabot website and again they state some confusing info

 

Cabot Financial

 

nice page name whoare

 

Cabot Financial work closely with the Credit Reference Agencies to ensure that your credit record is updated to reflect the payments made to us and show the actual status of your account at the end of each month.

 

So again they are saying Cabot will tell CRAs what is happening, so why do Kingshill log the information? I have saved a copy of the page should they go and change it.

[debt_mountain]

another cracking page to cheer you up.

 

Cabot Financial

 

Cabot Financial receives many letters each month from customers who have experienced the Cabot Service.

To all staff at Cabot, the only debt recovery company who never talks with you in a rude manner, push you to pay what you cannot afford, who is nice when they know you are not telling the truth and who never try to make your day horrible.

We wanted to write to you personally to say how impressed we have been by your employees, who have treated us with utmost respect and courtesy. We have not always had this treatment from other companies, and it was such a delight to speak to people who seemed to understand our situation and seemed to genuinely want to assist.

It is our experience that people are always quick to complain, but are slower to praise, and we intended to put that right.

I wish to thank the member of your team who I spoke to. She has been most helpful and sympathetic by listening to how such a large debt was incurred.

She has also gone all through the different options of re-paying this loan, with an attitude that nothing is too much trouble for her to help.

 

Why don't you contact us and see how we can work together.

[andrew1]

1st time I've seen this DM - can you imagine anyone in debt writing to this bunch of schysters?

 

Must have been written by Ken Maynard on one of his long train trips to Rugby setting up The Message Service

[tbern123]

They, could always post one of my letters on their website

[debt_mountain]

retunred my AQ and they have returned theirs. So for someone saying that I have claimed against the wrong company why would they have returned the AQ, you would just write a letter telling them so. But then why did they pay a solicitor to enter a defence for a company that they say does not exist but I have also picked the wrong company but you should have sent it to this company. Numpties.

 

Lets see what mr judge says. If it is struck out then its a simple case of resubmitting with a different name.

 

I have explained to the Judge that the company I have selected it the company who fully owns the 2 companies my concerns are with, so not beina business lawer will just have to wait. Looking forward to a wee holiday in Newcastle though.

[andrew1]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-bailiffs-advice/47737-cabot-kings-hill-no-2.html