Seahorse v Cabot

[Seahorse]

Tell you what FC.... YOU make that call. You know far more about it than us. Certainly, it's all way over MY head, so I don't think I'd sound too convincing.

[tifo]

Assuming the money recouped from the sale of debt is not claimed for (?) do the DCAs then claim when they don't get the dosh?

 

The money the bank make from the sale is just income and puts the debit balance sheet down. It's all clever accounting as they have multiple 'ledgers' for the same account depending on what state the account is in, i.e. normal, default, sold, etc. and all these are cross linked.

 

Even when an account is 'written off' with a balance of £0 for the consumer, i.e they write off £1000, the bank has another account with another account number linked to the first showing a balance as written off amount, i.e. £1000. This is linked to the bad debt loss ledger. So when you claim anything, they bring this second account up to show the 'loss' they made and want it back.

 

On another note they've claimed relief on this bad debt.

 

I've had the above happen to me 3 times now and the bank got to keep money due to me, with the debt agency still asking for the same. Seperate matters i was told. One DCA is Cabot and bank Citi for which i have been given some good info.

 

On claims i did with MBNA, they had 3 different account numbers for my credit card (it was sold) for 'internal' purposes i was told. I know RBS do this and so will all the other banks. So you will have 3 account numbers because 1 is your credit card etc, 2 is the account they sell to a DCA and 3 is the entry in the loss ledger. Somehow they will know this is all for you for that one credit card etc.

 

The DCA would only be able to claim the amount it paid, not the amount it asks for. It would also do accounting as the bank does.

[FANTASY CHARGES]

The money the bank make from the sale is just income and puts the debit balance sheet down. It's all clever accounting as they have multiple 'ledgers' for the same account depending on what state the account is in, i.e. normal, default, sold, etc. and all these are cross linked.

 

Even when an account is 'written off' with a balance of £0 for the consumer, i.e they write off £1000, the bank has another account with another account number linked to the first showing a balance as written off amount, i.e. £1000. This is linked to the bad debt loss ledger. So when you claim anything, they bring this second account up to show the 'loss' they made and want it back.

 

On another note they've claimed relief on this bad debt.

 

I've had the above happen to me 3 times now and the bank got to keep money due to me, with the debt agency still asking for the same. Seperate matters i was told. One DCA is Cabot and bank Citi for which i have been given some good info.

 

On claims i did with MBNA, they had 3 different account numbers for my credit card (it was sold) for 'internal' purposes i was told. I know RBS do this and so will all the other banks. So you will have 3 account numbers because 1 is your credit card etc, 2 is the account they sell to a DCA and 3 is the entry in the loss ledger. Somehow they will know this is all for you for that one credit card etc.

 

The DCA would only be able to claim the amount it paid, not the amount it asks for. It would also do accounting as the bank does.

 

 

Why does it not show on a DSAR ???

[lookinforinfo]

Not quite sure why you think the taxman would be interested. It would appear that the major banks are making £2-£3 billion per annum profit on their

charges which also means more money for the taxman. If they have to refund some money back to the banks for bad and doubtful debts, it is only money they got earlier anyway.

[tifo]

Why does it not show on a DSAR ???

 

No idea ....

 

This is the way i've seen it done by MBNA, in relation to my claim for PPI, charges and interest on the same credit card, each letter for each part had a different account number and when queried, they said it's for 'internal records'.

 

For one credit card account, i had 4 account numbers. 1 was for the account sold to DCA (balance £xxx.xxx) and 1 for my account closed (balance £0). Another account number was for my PPI request. And i had a seperate account number when it was active. That's 4 No's in total.

 

I haven't queried it as they refunded me by cheque(s) so DCA never got it. Still waiting for PPI refund which they have refused .... despite my application form being ticked 'NO' and they have no record of the follow up telephone call in which, they say, i agreed to PPI (they've wrote and said so).

[andrew1]

Not quite sure why you think the taxman would be interested. It would appear that the major banks are making £2-£3 billion per annum profit on their

charges which also means more money for the taxman. If they have to refund some money back to the banks for bad and doubtful debts, it is only money they got earlier anyway.

 

Your are quite right LFI (hi again) but it's the principle of it and the possibility of 'creative/false accounting' that is more important. With tax it's like a bookie they always win in the long run, but the banks should account correctly..me thinks anyway ;-)

[Seahorse]

Bye folks. I hope you find this thread informative, but apparently my signature, with its links to my Cabot Blog, offends. So, as my Blog is unwelcome, I must bid adieu to CAG.

 

It's been fun, but all good things come to an end. Supposedly, my blog is "commercial". Although as I have yet to make enough money to get a payment out of Google, it doesn't even begin cover my costs. But, as I can't be bothered arguing with the mods, I'm off.

 

NOBODY censors the Cabot Blog. Many have tried, ALL have failed.

 

Good luck in your respective battles.

[tomterm8]

Can i suggest PMing gizmo111? I am pretty sure it is probably a mistake. Your blog is not commercial, as it contains no product and no adverts.

 

Edit: hmm... correction, it does contain adverts, but they are google adverts and you are not affiliated with them. I would still consider PMing Sandra, and discussing it with her. That's the problem with Adsence, i had to take them off my own site ( ticketappeal.co.uk) cos it was chock full of IVA cr*d. I'm making more money with amazon anyway.

[tbern123]

That's the problem with Adsence, i had to take them off my own site ( ticketappeal.co.uk) cos it was chock full of IVA cr*d. I'm making more money with amazon anyway.

 

Your a darkhorse tomterm, I have been on here for a while now and this is the first I have heard of your site. Good for you. A lot of good information on there, next time I get a ticket, I know where to go

[mr.ton]

Over 1000 replies & not 1 of them mine...that had to change

[andrew1]

We lose Seahorse, we lose a valuable link to all that is confronting Cabot 'customers'. Since the Cabot sub forum closed and a lot of direct experience lost despite tomterms considerable efforts to consolidate them into one thread, Seahorses blog provided a big insight to those being harassed and misled by Cabot. It's a loss to Cag users and only benefits Cabot - they'll be happy as Larry.

[itsamomentintime]

We lose Seahorse, we lose a valuable link to all that is confronting Cabot 'customers'. Since the Cabot sub forum closed and a lot of direct experience lost despite tomterms considerable efforts to consolidate them into one thread, Seahorses blog provided a big insight to those being harassed and misled by Cabot. It's a loss to Cag users and only benefits Cabot - they'll be happy as Larry.

 

 

there should be sub forums for each DCA. i loved the Cabot one.

 

come on mods, make it happen already!!!!

[sequenci]

there should be sub forums for each DCA. i loved the Cabot one.

 

come on mods, make it happen already!!!!

 

There are hundreds of DCAs! It would end up being really, really confusing!

[andrew1]

There are hundreds of DCAs! It would end up being really, really confusing!

 

Sequenci, I really respect what you do on here, but that comment if you don't mind me saying so is daft. You and a number of others obviously have no idea what momentum that one sub forum had and the damage it did to Cabot - they were hell bent on stopping us and Seahorses blog, as an extension to his work on here (which was started only because it protected CAG from legal issues) got to the very core of what went on inside Cabot, so much so that the staff of Cabot were calling him a hero. I am not going to say all over again what you lost by taking that sub-forum off, but the loss was huge.

 

If the same momentum happened with the majority of DCA's and people like me and others researched behind the scenes as much as we all did spending hours and hours over months if not years compiling information to share with others coming on CAG who are suffering at the hands of each DCA's tactics then the DCA market would collapse into a frenzie.

 

As I worked in the thick of it I know and I see what has followed. Advice has been there and nobody goes without help from you guys and others, but the momentum, the huge momentum has gone and that is why having sub forums for each one would have much better results. It needs people like the Cabot Fan Club, who are a unique bunch with diverse backgrounds to pull together, but it works.

 

That's it, I'm not commenting on the sub forums any further.

[tbern123]

There are hundreds of DCAs! It would end up being really, really confusing!

 

I think that this debate has previously been done to death.

 

However, there aren't actually as many DCA's as people might think. A lot of them are actually the within the same group of companies and they pass the debt between each other. The Sub forum could be for the Parent Company with a listing underneath of the related companies. In a similar way in which the Banks are listed i.e Barclays / Woolwich.

 

Equidebt is a very good example of a company using multiple names. However the only way to find out more about these companies is to seperate them and for people that are involved with these companies to investigate them, as was clearly evidenced by the Cabot Sub forums.

 

Before anyone posts a comment stating that all DCA act the same, I would respectfully request that you don't as the same argument can and will beapplied to Banks and charges.

[gizmo111]

Just to be clear on our policy on links to commercial sites.

 

Seahorse was asked to remove the link, as it is the opinion of the site team that the links go to a commercial site. I have said, if he could find somewhere non-commercial to host the blog, then we would be happy to allow the link. Whilst we are aware of the importance of sharing the dialogue and documents with CAG members, we cannot allow links that break the rules. To say it is not a commercial link is incorrect, as by Seahorse's own admission he has received a revenue stream from the site. And one of the more concerning things about the google ads is that a lot of them are for consolidation loans etc, which is something neither this site nor people on this thread would personally advocate. I am aware that this is the way that googleads work, and is not a personal choice of seahorse, but none the less we simply cannot allow these links.

 

If you wish to discuss this further then please contact gizmo111@consumeractiongr oup.co.uk , as per the CAG complaints procedure, with your greivance, and you will recieve a response within 5 days.

[Newborn]

Isn't it strange that a strong sense of morals on both sides in this issue (Seahorse not wanting to be censored and CAG with it's very sensible policy) has actually achieved what underhand activity by DCAs hasn't. The separation of Seahorse from CAG.

 

What a pity, what a shame.

 

Newborn

[Rhia]

Seahorse's blog is NOT commercial. This is nuts.

[volvodriver]

Are the nutters running the asylum, or am I past it?

 

I've looked at his blog and I cant see anything commercial about it - what am I not seeing?

[Michael Browne]

what am I not seeing?

Those tiny google ads that nobody clicks on

[volvodriver]

I( dont see them. I use Firefox with adblock plus enabled, its not a problem for me, and as its so easy to block this out I cant see why it should be a problem for anyone else.

 

Looking at the user names, and recent members on other sites CAG should ensure that its not chucking the baby out with the bath water.

[FANTASY CHARGES]

WELL ME clicked on that attention in red at the top of this page ... it is in my personal opinion "some moronic free chat site"

 

so me thought let's visit the parent site which is cidb.co.uk

 

cidb.co.uk - Consumer Information Database

 

which has advertising on :

 

think me shall leave it at that ....

[andrew1]

WELL ME clicked on that attention in red at the top of this page ... it is in my personal opinion "some moronic free chat site"

 

so me thought let's visit the parent site which is cidb.co.uk

 

cidb.co.uk - Consumer Information Database

 

which has advertising on :

 

think me shall leave it at that ....

 

eermm? - precisely! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/137804-attention-heading-cag.html

 

[FANTASY CHARGES]

WELL ME clicked on that attention in red at the top of this page ... it is in my personal opinion "some moronic free chat site"

 

so me thought let's visit the parent site which is cidb.co.uk

 

cidb.co.uk - Consumer Information Database

 

which has advertising on :

 

think me shall leave it at that ....

 

 

second thoughts

 

the chat line is on cidb.co.uk - Consumer Information Database Chat Room which is cidb.co.uk/chat/

 

so if seahorse moves his blog to host it on hisdomain.co.uk/chat/

 

and the link from here goes to hisdomain.co.uk/chat/

 

then by definition just like cidb.co.uk he can keep his "so called advertising"

 

and on his domain.co.uk all he has to do is put "click here" to see my cabot blog which diverts to hisdomain.co.uk/chat/

 

thereby both cidb.co.uk and seahorse are treated the same

 

and we can all live happily ever after

[sosumi]

WELL ME clicked on that attention in red at the top of this page ... it is in my personal opinion "some moronic free chat site"

 

so me thought let's visit the parent site which is cidb.co.uk

 

cidb.co.uk - Consumer Information Database

 

which has advertising on :

 

think me shall leave it at that ....

Just clicked it and saw the advert on the right, it's the checkmyfile web site.

checkmyfile

For those who don't know, this site offers 3 types of access to personal credit records.

Single Agency Report:

"See what lenders see with our comprehensive online report.

Price: £8.95"

Triple Agency Report:

"Search all three UK credit reference agencies with our Triple Agency Report.

Price: £19.95"

And Unlimited Access:

"Unlimited access to Triple Agency Reports.

Price: £14.95 per quarter"

Plus the 'triple agency' is pretty misleading, as you don't get the full Experian report, just the publicly available stuff.

This is an advert.

And the ATTENTION sign at the top of the forum page is pretty big, and red. In fact it's massive. MASSIVE I tell you, and distracting!!

So, I'm puzzled by what happened too.:-?