Cabot Financial (UK) Limited do not have permission for debt collecting?

[Ihatebanksandbankshateme]

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited do not have permission for debt collecting, see the FCA register for further info. This is a criminal offence contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and also there is a complete Defence where a party acts illegally, see Ex Turpi

 

Also it would come under the Proceeds of Crime Act too

 

hope this gives food for thought.

 

Id also suggest you may wish to look at the Civil Procedure rules certainly in connection with the statement of truth, you should really have a statement of truth that says

 

The Defendant believes that the contents of this Defence is true.

 

That is the general way of presenting a statement of truth, and CPR 22 makes it clear that a defective statement of truth leads to the party being unable to rely on the contents of the document verified with the bad statement without permission of the Court first.

[Ihatebanksandbankshateme]

If they can't/won't produce the paperwork, they cannot enforce - but that doesn't stop them trying.

 

To get the best advice on wording your defence, and dealing with the claim, I suggest that you start a new thread, in the Financial Legal Issues forum.

Not strictly true im afraid, see Arrow Global vs Alison Frost.

 

In Frost they won because they were able to convince the Court that they "would have" had a compliant agreement. Now while one may say that is the wrong finding of fact for a Judge to make, none the less it would be very difficult for a self representing litigant to challenge

[Ihatebanksandbankshateme]

I've mergd things together for history

 

forget what gone on in the past.

 

and the silly stuff about cabot not having a licence.

get a new CCA request running to them

and a CPR to rectums.

 

your defence will prob be the std holding/no paperwork defence I expect.

 

can you also please fill this out too

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419198-You-have-received-a-Claim-What-you-need-to-do.-**UPDATED-December-2014**

 

thank you

 

 

dx

Im afraid a holding defence amounts to nothing more than an abuse of the Courts process. The White Book and Blackstones are clear on this point. I would also suggest that the criminal offence would be worth looking at, but dont take my word for it, check Cabot Financial UK Limiteds permissions, then check s21,39 and 40 CCA 1974 and then read Hicks vs Walker & Reynolds.

 

Once youve done that you should google Ex Turpi causa non oritur actio you will see that this provides a complete defence to a claim based upon a illegal act.

 

Debt collecting is defined in s145 CCA should you wish to look it up, it is an ancillary credit activity and requires FCA Permission, no permission then its an offence to debt collect even if you use an agent ( see Hicks)

[Ihatebanksandbankshateme]

For completeness, this is what the White book actually states about holding defences, wise to consider in my view

15.5.3

Holding defence

 

 

 

A defendant cannot legitimately obtain more time for preparing their defence by filing the

so-called “holding defence” such as “I deny this debt: full defence to follow”. Such a defence

does not comply with Pt 16 (contents of defence). A defence which consists of a bare denial

may be struck out under r.3.4 (see Practice Direction supplementing r.3.4 , para.1.6, see above

para.3PD.1). Indeed on the filing of such a defence a court officer may refer it to a judge and

the court may strike it out on its own initiative (see rr.3.2 and 3.3 ).

[dx100uk]

own thread created

 

 

dx

[Ihatebanksandbankshateme]

can we please not hi-jack a court thread will silly beliefs

 

 

if you wish to discuss these things go start a new thread of your own.

then i'll move these posts to it

 

 

dx

With respect, its hardly hi jacking to point out some important issues which the original poster may well need to consider before launching a defence. The above information is something which ought to be considered carefully. An unlicenced trader commits an offence, if contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 he undertakes debt collecting. That Sir is beyond argument.

 

As such, again not a belief but a clear fact, a criminal offence upon which a claim is founded cannot lead to a successful litigation, again that is fact and not supposition.

 

Id urge the OP to at least consider these points and read Hicks v Walker & Reynolds at least

[dx100uk]

with repect it IS hi-jacking

 

 

there are hundreds of successful threads here with the holding/no paperwork defence

 

 

don't mind you playing

but please don't hi-jack a live court thread

 

 

regards

dx

[Ihatebanksandbankshateme]

with repect it IS hi-jacking

 

 

there are hundreds of successful threads here with the holding/no paperwork defence

 

 

don't mind you playing

but please don't hi-jack a live court thread

 

 

regards

dx

 

Ok, and in that case good luck , ignore relevance, raise irrelevance, lose and pay Restons costs when they win, a good idea no?

 

Ill keep my counsel from here on, it seems the White book, written by some of the leading legal minds currently is wrong and your posts on this forum are right, bravo bravo.

[renegadeimp]

I love freeman nonsense. Always give me a good chuckle after a hard days work.

[Bazooka Boo]

Wow, I don't want what you've had..........have we begun attracting members of the GOODF site??

[BarnOwl1]

The FCA register of temporary permissions show Cabot financials licence has lapsed.

I have a feeling the restructuring of the Cabot group Cabot ( Marlin) and the appearance

 

of ME111 ( Marlin Europe) with Christopher Ross - Roberts and Ken Stannard at the helm

means that the group may be operating under a group licence with various trading styles

similar to the way Lowell operates.

[catquest]

Cabot have changed their entries on Equifax from Cabot UK to Cabot Europe in the last few days

[BarnOwl1]

I've been told that Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd is a member Of The Cabot Financial Management Group and is authorised by the FCA under the groups " licence". Also mentioned was that Cabot UK may be an Authorised Representative of the Cabot Credit Management Group.

[fletch70]

I am just wondering what peoples thoughts are about cabot financial (uk). personal opinions of debt purchasers aside, they have not been registered since Feb 28th 2015 when their IP lapsed and was not renewed.

 

I spoke to the FCA who told me that they could not carry out any regulated activity i.e debt collection however I have seen a case where Restons have stated that Cabot uk can authorise other companies to act for them including issuing claims.

The claims are being issued in the name cabot uk

 

It seems to me that because as the owner of the debt,they have rights duties and responsibilities it is a bit cheap to then try and pretend you don't need one.\

 

 

Any thoughts, apologies if it has already been discussed

[dx100uk]

they are reg'd under cabot Europe now.

 

 

dx

[dx100uk]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?453662-Cabot-Financial-(UK)-Limited-do-not-have-permission-for-debt-collecting-(3-Viewing)-nbsp

[fletch70]

Thanks but I thought that group licences were now defunct

Also the FCA told me that as of 28th Feb they were no longer registered.

 

I can understand how they could get one of the other companies in the group to collect but what about issuing claims with the claimant being Cabot Financial(UK) ltd

 

It really is the part about claims that is interesting

 

I have no interest in FMOTL , just in legislation that lets them do it

[fletch70]

I think we must remember that a holding and a no paperwork defence are two entirely different things

 

If you send a CCA request off and do not get a compliant response it is a perfectly good defence to quote S78(6) or S77(4) because these bar enforcement while the original request is outstanding.

 

Another point to note in the Frost case she was not a LiP but was represented

 

With regard to Cabot Finacial (uk) I have yet to see anything , letters from Restons included that persuade me that they can issue a claim. The process I think that needs following is to assign the debt to a branch that holds the licence then issue a claim.

 

I was under the impression group licences were no more

[SabreSheep]

2 Threads on same subject merged.

[fletch70]

So

If these accounts are now eing registered under a different division i.e Cabot (Europe) should there have been a new NOA issued because the first assignment was Cabot (uk) and they have not changed their name. Cabot (uk) still exist , if they are using Cabot (europe) to collect it is wrong that Europe are the ones recording the default

[BarnOwl1]

I do no believe any new NOA is needed with transfer of assets within the same grop

of company.

I see som Cabot debt is said to be owned by Cabott Creidit Management Group is

is possible for the group to own debt andauthorize another in group to sue for

pament in court.

[fletch70]

I suppose it all depends on to whom the original debt was sold.

If the debt was sold to cabot (uk) surely it is that division that owns the debt .

 

As for using someone else to make the claim, it has to be the legal owners , who have to hold a CCL

 

It is an interesting argument, certainly not rubbish or FMOTL as some have suggested and one apparently some lawyers believe holds water

[Laura Thyme]

with repect it IS hi-jacking

 

there are hundreds of successful threads here with the holding/no paperwork defence

There is a difference between a holding defence and a defence of no paperwork.

 

I'm looking at my own copy of the White Book and holding defence refers to a bare denial or a statement that basically says: "I'll file my defence later".

 

16.5.2 says

In respect of each allegation in the particulars of claim there should be an admission, a denial or a requirement for proof.

A requirement for proof is what a defence of no paperwork would contain, it would put the claimant to strict proof that the defendant had entered into an agreement with the original creditor for the credit product the claim refers to, that the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act had been complied with (such as the issue of a Default Notice under s.87), that there was a valid assignment if applicable (when the claim is not issued by the original creditor), that the debt is still within the period allowed by the Limitation Act 1980, etc.

 

Not quite the same as a bare denial or holding defence.

 

In this case, you could also put the claimant to strict proof that they are authorised to carry out activities regulated under the FSMA 2000.

[BarnOwl1]

So

If these accounts are now eing registered under a different division i.e Cabot (Europe) should there have been a new NOA issued because the first assignment was Cabot (uk) and they have not changed their name. Cabot (uk) still exist , if they are using Cabot (europe) to collect it is wrong that Europe are the ones recording the default

 

Looks like this was all a storm in a teacup.

Cabot Financila UK ltd can operate under authorisation from amother company in Cabot group no wrong has been done.

[fletch70]

Looks like this was all a storm in a teacup.

Cabot Financila UK ltd can operate under authorisation from amother company in Cabot group no wrong has been done.

 

Barnowl , where did you get that idea , can you reference it please