Seahorse v Cabot

[Seahorse]

This was the CSA I complained to FC. Not the FOS. My original dispute was pre-April. So I can't get the FOS involved. Oh, dear. And they might have had a chance too. Never mind. Maybe the ICO can sort it, but if not, I think we'll be seeing the inside of a court early in the New Year.

[make them aktiv runners]

A couple more from Cabots letter.

 

we have set out our final position on several occasions

A final position is just that ---> a, one, single, happens only once etc. Perhaps you should buy some-one a dictionary for christmas.

The Cabot Financial Group purchased Mr Seahorse's account from Barclaycard (the original lender) on or about 29th November 2006, which was therefore an assignment of Mr Seahorse's account to the Cabot Financial Group.

I thought it was Kings Hill (No1) who made the purchase and later changed names.

[andrew1]

A couple more from Cabots letter.

 

A final position is just that ---> a, one, single, happens only once etc. Perhaps you should buy some-one a dictionary for christmas.

I thought it was Kings Hill (No1) who made the purchase and later changed names.

 

..and Cabot Financial Group Limited too these days. They throw the name 'Cabot' about in many variations in the same correspondence, but they ARE ALL different Limited Liability companies registered at Companies House. Trouble is they don't know themselves sometimes who is writing or answering what and they continue to confuse people across the nation by using the 'Cabot Financial Group' and 'Cabot' to describe the company or companies within their conspicuous little hoarding of companies. Legally, they are all separate and they pass your information around and about them all to suit themselves.

 

Sarah

[debt_mountain]

My original dispute was pre-April. So I can't get the FOS involved.

So do you think you could maybe find something else they have done wrong, related to but different from the inital comoplaint and goto the FOS with that one?

 

I am sure they have done more than 1 wrong to you!!

[Seahorse]

I think that might be construed as vexatious, or vindictive.

 

Can't have that, can we.

[debt_mountain]

I think that might be construed as vexatious, or vindictive.

 

Can't have that, can we.

That depends if it is something new and unrelated I suppose, but yes we need to work just a ethically with them as they do with us:)

[Vulture_Bank]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/123771-validity-debt-assignment-re.html#post1284613

 

all views from the fan club and groupies welcome

[Seahorse]

Groupies? That would be nice.

[andrew1]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/123771-validity-debt-assignment-re.html#post1284613

 

all views from the fan club and groupies welcome

 

I seem to recall being included in that circle of individuals not so long ago and it wasn't the fan club either

[Seahorse]

That's a first. It looks like I've had a WHOLE THREAD CAGBotted!!!!

 

Well, it was rather personal. I was starting to post pics of the Cabot Crowd all sh!t faced and silly. I think I went a step too far showing Sadie with a vibrating pink jelly lollipop.

[FANTASY CHARGES]

 

which one do you prefer !

[Cash Card]

Hi everyone, this is my first posting and would like some help.. i've cca'd Fenton Cooper's Solicitor who have taken over the account from my Egg card and said that all future correspondence should be addressed. They have sent my cheque back saying that they have nothing further to add as it is subject to court proceedings, as the 12 days is now up and the 30 days ran out on the 13/12/07 then i will complain to their local trading standards.

However they have now changed solicitor on the 10/12/07 which i received on 15/12/07, so do i report the new solicitor or the old one???

[Edz11]

You really need to start your own thread. It would appear that Egg haven't got rid of the debt. You need to send a copy of the original letter you sent with your payment and a copy of the previous solicitors refusal to accept your request for the CCA to anyone else that starts to demand payment. They are equally bound by the CCA request and cannot enforce the agreement while they are in default. You shouldn't have sent a cheque as that has yoru signature on it - there have been reports of "irregularities" and not supplying a signature avoids that possibility.

[Seahorse]

See here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful-2.html#post1290180

[Vulture_Bank]

for the benefit of newer readers to this thread and transcientl visitors

 

it is suggested that the consolidated thread below is read

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1290280.html

[Vulture_Bank]

Switching provider of a store card programme:

providers’ approach and customers’ rights

1. This appendix presents the conclusions of the CC’s scrutiny of the legal requirements and the industrial practices relating to the transfer of a store card programme to a new provider. The CC drew these conclusions from the responses to questionnaires it sent to store card providers and the Consumer and Competition Policy Directorate of the DTI relating to the assignment of customers’ contractual rights and providers’ contractual obligations when a portfolio of store card receivables is transferred to a new provider. Store card providers were also asked about the different ways in which the switch of a store card programme from one provider to another can take place.

Assignment of customers’ contractual rights and providers’ (including in-house providers’) contractual obligations when a portfolio of store card receivables is transferred to a new provider

2. The questions were based on the premise that the identity of the person/corporate entity with whom the customer contracts changes as a result of the transfer (and not a situation where a customer has a contractual relationship with a corporate entity and it is only the ultimate ownership of that entity which changes).

Question 1: Is each customer required to sign a new credit agreement with the new provider or is this unnecessary in certain circumstances (eg, if the original credit agreement includes clauses on the right of the incumbent provider to transfer the rights to a third party)?

Summary of responses

• The CCA does not prohibit assignments of regulated consumer credit agreements. However, uncertainty exists on whether a customer is required to sign a new credit agreement with the new provider.

 

• The uncertainty stems from the law of contracts and revolves around the effectiveness of consent to assignment, in fact, at common law, rights under a contract can be assigned, but duties under the contract can only be assigned with consent. Generally, consent can be given via a clause in the original contract or at a later date in which case a signature is usually required.

 

• Two schools of thought exist on whether, in the case of Regulated CCA agreements, consent for the transfer of obligations to a third party can be given via a clause in the original contract or must be given in writing (ie, by signing a new agreement), failing which the agreements may become unenforceable against the borrower.

 

• All providers have included in the terms and conditions of their credit agreements with customers’ clauses on their ability to transfer rights and obligations. Therefore, according to the view that consent can be given via a clause in the original contract, by signing the credit agreement, a customer gives his or her consent to the transfer of his/her duties to the new provider and there should be no need to sign a new agreement.

 

 

However, if a provider agrees with the opinion that consent for the transfer of obligations to a third party for Regulated CCA agreements can only be given in writing, to avoid the risk that the agreements with the customers become unenforceable, the contract between providers may be structured so that the new provider acts as an agent for the incumbent.

 

• Furthermore, ’clauses in agreements permitting the assignment of rights and obligations (like those in providers’ terms and conditions) may also be subject to challenge as falling within the ‘grey list’ of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (Schedule 2, paragraph 2(1)(p)) which states that a term which has the object or effect of ‘giving the seller or supplier the possibility of transferring his rights and obligations under the contract, where this may serve to reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the latter’s agreement’ is deemed unfair and will therefore not be binding on the consumer’.

 

• This risk, however, can be mitigated by wording such clauses in a way that clearly indicates that the transfer would not have a detrimental effect on the customer’s rights.

Question 2: Is there any legal requirement for the customer to receive any notification of the transfer of their contract to a third party? If so, please specify.

Summary of responses

• Industry practice is to send customers notification of the transfer of a portfolio.

Question 3: Are there any constraints/limitations imposed by the Data Protection Act or the Consumer Credit Act on the ability of the incumbent provider to transfer the portfolio to a new provider? If so, please give details.

Question 4: Does either of the statutes in © affect the way in which the transfer is carried out? If so, please explain.

Summary of responses

• Neither the Data Protection Act nor the Credit Consumer Act impact on the ability to transfer portfolios of receivables between providers. However, providers must ensure that their data protection notifications permit the transfer and receipt of the cardholder’s personal data.1

Different ways in which the switch of a store card programme from one provider to another can take place

Question 5: How does the process differ when the existing portfolio at the termination of the contract is not transferred to the new provider, who instead launches a new store card programme?

Summary of responses

Transfer of a portfolio:

1All providers’ credit agreements with customers analysed by the CC include such clauses.

 

 

 

2

This would not be the case if the retailer decides to continue accepting the cards issued by the incumbent provider as well as offering the cards of the new programme. This scenario, however, is unlikely to occur as current market practice is for providers to have exclusivity for the supply of a store card programme.

The new programme needs to offer customers terms identical to, or more favourable than, the ones of the previous programme, otherwise customers must be issued with a new credit agreement and their written consent must be sought.

 

• New provider does not commence recruitment of customers from scratch but instead sends customers a ‘notice of assignment’ informing them that the company servicing the account has changed.

New programme without transfer of existing portfolio of receivables:

• The new provider can design the product from scratch without concern as to whether changes could be described as having an adverse impact on customers and can issue entirely new product types.

 

• New provider commences recruitment of customers from scratch either at point of sale or through mailing customers based on the previous use of a customer list, if available. This means that customers will be given/sent a new credit agreement to sign.

 

• Incumbent provider usually2 ceases actively promoting the old programme soon after the launch of the new store card programme but retains the rights to collect outstanding debt and continues to service accounts in the same manner until balances outstanding are paid.

 

• Incumbent provider gives adequate notice to customers that the facility to make further purchases using the card would be terminated from a given date.

The new provider issues new cards to customers whether it acquires the existing portfolio or not.

Question 6: On a change of provider, which is the more common occurrence, the acquisition of the existing portfolio or the launch of a new programme by the new provider? How would you account for this?

Summary of responses

• According to providers the more common occurrence is the acquisition of the existing portfolio. The advantages of this approach include:

 

— a more seamless transfer from the retailer’s and the customers’ perspective;

 

— enabling the incumbent to realize the value of the asset in advance; and

 

— providing the new provider with an income-generating asset.

 

• Providers have submitted that restrictive clauses in contracts can make the transfer of portfolios difficult. The CC’s analysis of contracts shows that older contracts tend to be silent on what happens to the existing portfolio when the contract expires. Lack of contract clauses on retailers’ or third parties’ right to purchase the portfolio, together with confidentiality clauses on customers’ credit data, might create issues for the transfer of a portfolio to a new provider.

 

 

2This would not be the case if the retailer decides to continue accepting the cards issued by the incumbent provider as well as offering the cards of the new programme. This scenario, however, is unlikely to occur as current market practice is for providers to have exclusivity for the supply of a store card programme.

 

 

3

Excluding receivables sold to debt collection agencies because considered uncollectible.

 

More recent contracts, however, include clauses on the rights of retailers or third parties to purchase the portfolio of receivables.

Question 7: Are receivables transferred only when a new provider is brought in? Or do transfers of receivables occur in other circumstances (eg securitisations)? If so, please describe these circumstances and provide an indication of the frequency of such transfers.

Summary of responses

• According to all providers receivables3 are only transferred when a new provider is brought in (be it an external provider or the retailer). Only one provider seems to have direct experience of securitization, having securitized its debt in the past.

Overall conclusions

3. Switching between providers of store card programmes can take place in two ways:

 

• by transferring the portfolio of receivables from the incumbent to the new providers; and

 

• by launching a new programme without transferring the portfolio of receivables.

 

4. The first approach tends to be the most common and presents the following advantages:

 

• it allows a more seamless transfer form the retailer’s and the customer’s’ perspective;

 

• it enables the incumbent to realise the value of the asset in advance; and

 

• it provides the new provider with an income generating asset.

 

5. Recent contracts between retailers and providers include clauses on transfer of portfolios that aim at facilitating the sale and purchase of the portfolio of receivables when a contract expires. Older contracts are often silent on this matter and that might have created problems in transferring portfolios.

 

6. Neither the CCA nor the Data Protection Act impact on the ability to transfer portfolios of receivables between providers.

 

7. Where a portfolio of receivables is transferred to a new provider, and the original credit agreement with the customers includes clauses allowing the incumbent provider to transfer/assign their rights and obligations under the contract, customers need to sign a new credit agreement only if the new store card programme reduces their guarantees and rights or they are offered a completely new product.

 

8. Where a new programme is launched and the portfolio of receivables is not transferred to the new provider, customers are notified that the old programme would be terminated at a certain date (after which it would not be possible to make purchases on the old card) and that only the accounts with outstanding balances would continue to be serviced by the incumbent provider until the balances are paid

 

off. The new provider would start marketing the new store card to customers from scratch.

 

 

9. In all cases customers must be notified of the change in provider.

 

 

source

 

 

Store Card Credit Services

 

 

 

[Edz11]

Small point - but transfer to a new creditor "just include that possibility in an agreement then they won't need a new agreement".

 

That smacks of an unfair term to me. If they can "transfer me", despite the new lender being "offensive" (part of a group that deal with weapons manufacture etc) but I can't do the same to them - by passing my duties to a friend who is going working in the Antartic for the next six years - seems one sided.

[Seahorse]

Oh dear. I think I've upset someone at Cabot...

 

David

"SEA HORSE, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN LAID? HONESTLY!?!? YOUR MUM MUST BE SO PROUD TO BRING UP A REJECT LIKE YOU. IF YOU WANT TO POST THINGS AT LEAST HAVE THE DECENY TO GET IT RIGHT, Piers Morgan "

 

Male

21 years old

 

United Kingdom

 

(All his own work, with nobody to help with his spelling. Bless.)

 

Shall I ask yer mammy if she'll pick your toys up for you David? You seem to have thrown them all out of the pram.

 

Nice hair, by the way. Have you considered putting in a claim for damages?

[Vulture_Bank]

Dear Charlieho

We refer to your recent letter dated 27 June 2006 regarding your Abbey credit card that is serviced by MBNA……..

 

if one reads a speciman "threatening " letter that mbna sent out whilst servicing an abbey credit card

 

 

it says "You are hereby notified that Abbey Credit Card is preparing to take you to Court over the non-payment of your credit card balance........"

 

so if we believe the above then no absolute assignment can have taken place (which of course we need to be notified about) at best if any assignment regarding the relationship between abbey and mbna has taken place .....then there has been an equitable assignment

 

------ meaning abbey is liable for any refund of charges etc. not MBNA

 

Consequently may it be suggested that mbna have scored an own goal with the above.

 

would be intersting to lodge a FORMAL complaint with abbey to quote Queen victoria " they would not be amused"

 

especially as abbey and mbna now have a decree nisi

 

the MBNA hole gets deeper

 

IT WOuld be interesting to write to ABBEY (SANTANDER) and find their views on the situation

[elizabeth1]

Oh dear. I think I've upset someone at Cabot...

 

 

 

(All his own work, with nobody to help with his spelling. Bless.)

 

Shall I ask yer mammy if she'll pick your toys up for you David? You seem to have thrown them all out of the pram.

 

Nice hair, by the way. Have you considered putting in a claim for damages?

 

 

Now isn't he a bit of a party pooper? Not a lot of fun is he? Bet he isn't the life and soul of the office party!!

 

Angry little chappy isn't he? Bet he does his job really well with all that pent up Anger waiting to burst out at the "customers" reckon he might meet targets - I bet he could rip a whole tissue with his bare hands!! :lol:

 

But seriously now - if he wants to sue that hairdresser for damages - I know of a good legal team who will help him out - for a fee you understand - just can't get the professionals these days can you?

[andrew1]

Who's that Lizzy? - Hodsons? I think this lad needs the roots done first.

 

I think it's a bit rich for anyone in Cabot to ask us to get things right (erm? - is that the rights and not the duties perhaps? )

 

As you say, perhaps he should wait until after Christmas and use that pent up anger where your job spec says you should - on your customers - you know, that USP of yours ( for you laddie that means Unique Selling Point - and I'm not referring to your goldilocks either!)

 

Piers Morgan? what's that? - I'm sure he knows only too well !

[Seahorse]

He should take a look at Shelley's MySpace page for a hint on how to conduct himself online in the face of so much publicity.

 

Perhaps he should have taken his inter-company emails to heart earlier. Or did he think he'd get away with leaving himself wide open to being blogged?

[Vulture_Bank]

21. Transfer of legal right.

 

An assignment operating under the Law of Property Act 1925 transfers the legal right to the chose or thing in action to the

assignee as from the date of the notice1 with power to give a good discharge for the same2. The thing in action no longer

belongs to the assignor, and he cannot sue for it3.

There is no machinery provided by the Act for the reverter of the legal right to the assignor on the performance of a

condition; the only method is by retransfer, followed by notice in writing to the debtor as in the case of the first transfer4.

1

Cia Colombiana de Seguros v Pacific Steam Navigation Co [1965] 1 QB 101, [1964] 1 All ER 216 (proceedings brought by assignees who had

not yet given notice of assignment; proceedings brought by wrong party). But note that dicta of Roskill J were not followed by Scott J in Weddell v

JA Pearce & Major [1988] Ch 26, [1987] 3 All ER 624. See para 69 post. See also para 20 text and notes 7-8 ante.

2

Law of Property Act 1925 s 136(1); Torkington v Magee [1902] 2 KB 427 at 432, DC (revsd on another point [1903] 1 KB 644, CA); Durham

Bros v Robertson [1898] 1 QB 765 at 773, CA.

3

Read v Brown (188:grin::grin: 22 QBD 128 at 132, CA; Bovis Lend Lease Ltd (formerly Bovis Construction Ltd) v Saillard Feller & Partners (2001) 77

Con LR 134, [2001] All ER (D) 422 (Jul).

4

Durham Bros v Robertson [1898] :grin::grin:1 QB 765 at 773, CA.

 

 

.

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Vulture_Bank]

worth a read

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/61022-tifo-hsbc-personal-account-2.html

 

&

 

"As well as being legal or equitable, assignments of either kind may be on sale or by way of security. An assignment on sale is a permanent disposal of the contract. A legal assignment of this sort will normally be subject to stamp duty. However, where the assignment is by way of security, it has the effect of a mortgage. No stamp duty is payable but the assignment must be registered at the Companies Registry under s395 Companies Act.

 

 

 

http://www.raisefinance.org/arbitration_and_assignment.shtml

"

[elizabeth1]

Who's that Lizzy? - Hodsons? I think this lad needs the roots done first.

 

I think it's a bit rich for anyone in Cabot to ask us to get things right (erm? - is that the rights and not the duties perhaps? )

 

As you say, perhaps he should wait until after Christmas and use that pent up anger where your job spec says you should - on your customers - you know, that USP of yours ( for you laddie that means Unique Selling Point - and I'm not referring to your goldilocks either!)

 

Piers Morgan? what's that? - I'm sure he knows only too well !

 

 

Sarah - come on now!!

 

You just know it's too much to expect this laddie to know the difference between his USP and CUSP!!

 

And Piers Morgan ? he should certainly know not to talk to his betters like that - not nice at all is it? I guess there is no educating some people - I am sure his employers won't be impressed that he is getting involved using should tactics in public!! Kind of goes beyond the call of any duties?

 

Nice work David and well done!! Go to the front of the office and stand on your desk with your "IDIOT" hat on - show the rest of your team how unreliable you are!! :lol: Sure looks like 2008 is going to bring changes for David P45 springs to mind