Cabot refusing to Provide 'Deed of Assignment' co-op debts

[halfapint]

Hello

 

This is my 1st post to the forum and need some advice.

 

Cabot Financial have taken over 2 of my credit card accounts from Co-Op.

 

Both accounts were defaulted but I have been in a payment agreement with the Co-Op for over 2 years.

 

I have requested full details of credit agreements

and a copy of the 'Deed of Assignment'

but Cabot is refusing to provide this saying and I quote...

" These documents are confidential between the original lender and us and as such, is not available for disclosure"

 

Could someone please advise on my next steps for me to obtain the deeds of assignment.

 

Many thanks

[DonkeyB]

Why do you want the deed of assignment? They are not obliged to provide it to you, unless directed by a court.

[renegadeimp]

You will only get a notice of assignment. Even in court, only a judge would get to see the deed.

[halfapint]

I was originallyl told the the debt had been transferred to Fredrickson and suddenly it now belongs to Cabot?

 

I negotiated a settlement with Fredrickson but during the negotiations it suddenly went to Cabot for what I now understand was a lot less than I was offering Fredricksons and now Cabot are chasing for the whole 'original debt' amount.

 

Also believe I would be entitled to see any documents that has my details on it even if some of the information is redacted ( blanked out on the assignment forms)??

 

Any other ideas?

[Rayn2036]

You have every right for CCA reguest which they should provide you. With help of CAG members this [ATTACH=CONFIG]46030[/ATTACH] is what I wrote Crapboot two weeks ago and they replied me saying they don't have the agreement however they have requested it from OC which can take 40 days. I have recently wrote to them stressing that CCA must be supplied with in 12 + 2 days. I would advise you to fire this letter instead.

[DonkeyB]

I was originallyl told the the debt had been transferred to Fredrickson and suddenly it now belongs to Cabot?

 

I negotiated a settlement with Fredrickson but during the negotiations it suddenly went to Cabot for what I now understand was a lot less than I was offering Fredricksons and now Cabot are chasing for the whole 'original debt' amount.

 

Also believe I would be entitled to see any documents that has my details on it even if some of the information is redacted ( blanked out on the assignment forms)??

 

Any other ideas?

 

You would do better with a letter to the original creditor asking what is going on. Failing that, an SAR to everyone in the chain – but that would cost £30.

 

What’s the history of the account? Were there any disputes, etc?

 

Unless you have a good reason to suppose something illegal has taken place, your first point of call should be a request for clarification of how the account got where it is, and why.

 

However, Freds tend to chase debts for third parties rather than buy them, so they were probably collecting for the Co-op, who then decided to sell to Cabot. Do you have any details of an assignment to Freds?

[halfapint]

Thanks for the replies - from reading the DPA it would seem that I am entitled to see the Deed of Assignment as the information contained in it, although commercially sensitive, is directly about me so they cannot withhold it?

 

Thoughts please on this?

[DonkeyB]

It’s unlikely the DoA will refer to you specifically. It will refer to a batch of charged-off accounts, assigned on an ongoing basis, probably.

 

But why do you want or need it? What is the issue?

[allison6564]

I have had a long running battle with Cabot asking for the coca as this was a very old cities card that had gone to opus then Cabot. Cutting a long story short they were never able to provide it and even tho the debt is still there they have written to confirm they are no longer chasing...check out my thread think it will be useful x

[DonkeyB]

Doh...

 

Edited

Edited August 23, 2013 by DonkeyB

[DonkeyB]

[Edited to avoid confusion...]

Edited August 23, 2013 by DonkeyB

[filrobbo]

The DOA is a commercial instrument that attchully created the money so they don't want poeple to know about that they don't realy leand you anything.

[DonkeyB]

The DOA is a commercial instrument that attchully created the money so they don't want poeple to know about that they don't realy leand you anything.

 

No it isn’t! It’s required by The Law of Property Act 1925 to transfer a ‘chose’. It’s used to trade an amount that ALREADY exists. It’s not like creating a loan out of thin air.

[filrobbo]

Sorry donkey B I was referring to the deed but I did put DOA sorry

[DonkeyB]

No, that’s what I meant. The deed is an instrument that allows the parties to transfer or assign debts between them. These debts ALREADY exist, ie. the loans or borrowing had ALREADY been created. This ‘money’ is treated as an asset (or ‘chose’) and traded, usually at a significant discount, but with a full face (recoverable) value.

 

The deed creates nothing except the intention to trade these assets. If the deed is well written, it can refer to individual trades (or future unspecified trades) subject to the terms of the deed. (Some debt dealers completely mess up their deeds and agreements, though, but most judges can’t be bothered to look at the issues.)

 

I think you’re referring to the fact that when a bank initially agrees a loan, that amount is effectively created out of thin air. That is definitely true!

 

[edited]

[Guest]

..... It’s never going to be relevant!

 

....

 

 

it might be in the end? depending on the circumstances. for eg in a recent thread re litigation http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?348133-Moved-and-received-CCJ-Help-please***Claim-Struck-Out***/page19 etc, as reneg mentioned, J ordered its disclosure, it never materialised despite more time given so claim was auto struck out. but, the whole circs would need to be taken into account including value of claim, costs, etc, and may not be something to rely on solely.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Ford

[filrobbo]

Yes that is what I was trying to say much better then me, it's about time it all came out and exposed banks and building societies that when they tell you they have lent you money buy your home or a Lone to buy a car they haven't let you owt.

[renegadeimp]

it's common knowledge though filrobbo. The problem lies with governments. They are in bed with the bankers and are taking big handouts from them to let the bankers do pretty much what they like. The only time the overnment even considers doing anything is when there is huge publicity.

 

Take the current financial crisis. The bankers caused it 100% but who has to pick up the pieces?

[DonkeyB]

Hi Ford. I agree...

 

...yes, if there’s litigation, but as you say, unless you have one of the 1% of judges who actually bothers to look at all the paperwork (usually on fast track), it will tend to be disregarded. I think Cabot have rather tidied up their paperwork and agreements recently.

 

Long way to go till that happens – in the meantime, it simply looks to me as as Freds were collecting for Co-op, but then Co-op decided to sell it to Cabot.

 

What halfapint needs to do is to stick to the existing payment arrangement while checking Cabot’s entitlement to collect. We need the full history...

[Guest]

hi. yes, maybe not much point in asking for it now then? although in that case mentioned in that thread it was said that re a sale a debtor is entitled to sight of the deed to ensure good discharge?

Edited August 23, 2013 by Ford

[filrobbo]

Way have they sold this debt on is there something wrong with the debt is it loaded with unlawful charges.

[DonkeyB]

You’d just end up with a massively redacted pile of paper!

[DonkeyB]

Way have they sold this debt on is there something wrong with the debt is it loaded with unlawful charges.

 

Depending on the level of payment, they probably thought they’d just get shot of it and nab the tax relief. Co-op aren’t in the best place at the moment...

 

Hopefully we’ll find out more soon from halfapint.

[filrobbo]

Sounds to me like they trying to make a unlawful debt lawful by gaining a CCJ on it.

[Guest]

You’d just end up with a massively redacted pile of paper!

 

probably, yes