Seahorse v Cabot

[Seahorse]

WTF has MBNA got to do with my thread?

[andrew1]

WTF has MBNA got to do with my thread?

 

 

Well, that is a leading question Seahorse, but... you could say MBNA and Cabot know each other, you could also say Cabot and you know each other too and if MBNA have any sense and know you are in the Cabot Fan Club they will read your thread and learn something about being somewhat careful of what they do so they don't get the FAN CLUB treatment as their chums in the Towers have.

 

WTF Fantasy meant is another thing altogether though I'd imagine:D

 

Sarah

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Well, that is a leading question Seahorse, but... you could say MBNA and Cabot know each other, you could also say Cabot and you know each other too and if MBNA have any sense and know you are in the Cabot Fan Club they will read your thread and learn something about being somewhat careful of what they do so they don't get the FAN CLUB treatment as their chums in the Towers have.

 

WTF Fantasy meant is another thing altogether though I'd imagine:D

 

Sarah

 

wasn't this the thread you were asking a while ago why cabot opened in ireland ???

( cabot shadowed MBNA)[what is the name of that bird that picks a hippopotomuses teeth (scavenges)]

Cabot Financial pioneered the UK debt purchase market in its present form in 1998

so you can see they shadowed MBNA

 

we only monitor a mere 350 threads so likely to make the odd mistake by referring to mbna without mentioning cabot

[FANTASY CHARGES]

views please on this thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cabot/127541-another-pieceinthe-cabot-strategy.html#post1336273

[make them aktiv runners]

we only monitor a mere 350 threads so likely to make the odd mistake by referring to mbna without mentioning cabot

 

WE? Have you told the mods who "we" are?

 

Sorry SH, off topic I know but could not let that one go!

[Vulture_Bank]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cabot/128121-provisions-legal-assignment-debts.html

 

very very interesting

[Cabotkicker]

I'm thinking of signing my next letter to them with Cabot Fan Club, rather than a squiggle; seems like much more fun!

 

But nowadays, I can't be bothered, I just let them send the same old template letters, on nice expensive headed paper, usually about twice a week! I think I'd feel bit lost without the regular drop on the doormat; they have become like an old friend in a way:D

[elizabeth1]

I'm thinking of signing my next letter to them with Cabot Fan Club, rather than a squiggle; seems like much more fun!

 

But nowadays, I can't be bothered, I just let them send the same old template letters, on nice expensive headed paper, usually about twice a week! I think I'd feel bit lost without the regular drop on the doormat; they have become like an old friend in a way:D

 

 

Nice to know they care isn't it? ha ha ha Nice to have friends in such places isn't it?

 

I must say our postman's bag is so much lighter thesedays

[Rhia]

Has anyone got a deed of assignment from Cabot - this is the actual sales agreement between the OC and Cabot and will be 30 odd pages long and not a letter of assignment which is one page.

CFC has discovered that some people have been sent an Irish version and we are trying to find out what this means. If you have one can you PM me or leave a message her with SeaHorse.

Big thanks.

[elizabeth1]

Has anyone got a deed of assignment from Cabot - this is the actual sales agreement between the OC and Cabot and will be 30 odd pages long and not a letter of assignment which is one page.

CFC has discovered that some people have been sent an Irish version and we are trying to find out what this means. If you have one can you PM me or leave a message her with SeaHorse.

Big thanks.

 

Just bumpig this thread to the top hoping readers can help Rhia with this.

[Seahorse]

Just popping in to remind folks of what has been learned in the past to avoid pointless repetition. So. . .

 

BUMP!!!

[andrew1]

Bumpety Bumpety Bump !

[elizabeth1]

Maybe this thread should be made a stickey - to help newcomers see some of the stuff researched to date etc..

[make them aktiv runners]

Getting sentimental, my very first post was on this thread. I understood more from this thread than I did the entire posts in the then debt forum.

 

We have had our differences old dog, welcome back though.

[andrew1]

Getting sentimental, my very first post was on this thread. I understood more from this thread than I did the entire posts in the then debt forum.

 

We have had our differences old dog, welcome back though.

 

Don't you go getting soft Aktiv - you have a reputation to keep

[Seahorse]

Well, I WAS going to refrain from making any more posts. But this is just too juicy NOT to share. Apologies if it's been covered elsewhere though.

 

Right. The CCA 2006. Retrospective or not? Well. Yes. And no.

 

NO need to worry that the repeal of section 127 of the CCA 1974 will impact anyone having signed an agreement prior to CCA 2006 coming into force. That is NOT retrospective. SO what IS retrospective? Why, little old Section 19. And THAT little nugget, dealing as it does with the new Unfairness Test, should have the DCA's, debt purchasers, and all their hangers on, quaking in their boots. Here's why. . .

 

“Section 19 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 provides that a consumer credit agreement can be held to be “unfair” on the basis of

 

1. its terms,
   
2. the way a creditor has exercised or enforced his rights, or
   
3. anything else done or not done by or on behalf of the creditor at any stage during the relationship.”

Note, that this means that even if you signed an agreement PRIOR to the 2006 act, you CAN challenge an agreement on the basis of it's fairness. UNLESS that agreement has already been settled. This also means that, should an unfair agreement be assigned, then you can challenge the NEW creditor.

 

Now. Your homework for today should be, "Is my agreement, or the way any of the owners of my account has behaved, unfair in any way?"

 

Discuss.

[pt2537]

Ah but the fairness test gives the judge a measure of discretion

 

section 127 (3) doesnt, so its a no brainer, if i were presented with an agreement with missing or misstated prescribed terms i would take the 127 route all day long

[Seahorse]

Absolutely, PT. But if your agreement pre 2006 IS enforcable? Well, you have another little weapon in your aromoury. You might not win completely, but as you say, the judge has discretion. And if you can prove unfairness, even in the way you have been treated, is the creditor likely to win completely either?

 

Take my case for instance. An example of unfairness might be, a lender is irresponsible in their lending criteria. Say, for instance, a credit card company has a mass pre-approved mailing campaign to all and sundry. That might be taken as an example of an unfair practice, as they really should have taken into consideration the debtor's ability to pay. Dipping into the electoral roll and banging off pre-approved application forms hardly constitutes due diligence either.

 

So, why is it such a gamble for a creditor who is faced with being challenged? Well, I was rather encouraged to read...

 

The court can order the creditor to repay money to the debtor, or to alter the terms of the agreement in a specified way. For creditors this is bad news and creditors should be careful to use debt collectors who are subject to supervision by a professional body.

 

and...

 

Debt purchasers should be aware of the implications of previous “unfair practices” by the sellers or debt collection agencies acting on their behalf. Further if the agreements purchased say one thing and the court orders that it be amended to something else, it makes debt purchase even more of a risk exercise than it already is. Debt purchasers should take these potential dangers into account when drafting the purchase agreement.

 

So if your agreement is enforcable, but perhaps isn't quite totally kosher, I'd say this section gives a little bit more hope. Especially if, like Cabot, they fancy chancing their arm in court anyway, even if all they have to support their case is a dodgy application form. The thought that they might have to end up with not only costs, but also REPAYING back money, should make them think twice, unless they are absolutely 100% convinced they can win.

 

Thank to Debt Mountain by the way for the little extract above.

[Seahorse]

Oh, and Barclaycard? Cabot? Equitable assignment? See you BOTH in court?

 

You KNOW it makes sense.

[lufc]

keep me informed

[Seahorse]

At this rate LUFC, the default will have dropped off my credit file by the time the OFT get their finger out.

[lufc]

At this rate LUFC, the default will have dropped off my credit file by the time the OFT get their finger out.

 

 

 

 

 

thats true sent me forms to fill out

[Seahorse]

The ICO isn't much better, but at least they bother to email me.

[lufc]

The Information Commissioners Office isn't much better, but at least they bother to email me.

 

 

 

 

well i come to this creditcard companys,debt collections agancys ,now very well what they are doing basicly dont give a t-ss for ico,oft as if them 2 arnt botherd theyget away with it lol

[SWIS]

I can't believe I have spent 3 hours wading through this thread. From a neutral standpoint I have to say this:

 

Reading the correspondence between seahorse and cabot you may once have had a case. Any right thinking judge will have seen you first admit owing the money and then trying to wriggle out of it using questionable tactics. For this reason I would place £50 on Cabot winning the case.

 

Sorry if this offends seahorse et al but sometimes one should stand back and review things with a neutral head on.

 

Good luck though... ;-)