Information on Cabot

[Curlyben]

Well it seems that Thunderbird agrees with you all, as I just received an e-mail notification and it was tagged as a [problem]

[andrew1]

Makes you roll doesn't it....?

 

West Malling-based Cabot Financial (Europe) triumphed in The Badenoch & Clark Business of the Year Award, also taking The City & Guilds Employer of the Year Award. Describing the judges’ reasons for choosing Cabot Financial, Charlotte Butterfield, senior manager, Badenoch & Clark said: “It has demonstrated excellent growth and success during the past year and has strong growth predictions for the year ahead. On top of this, a huge emphasis is placed on quality of service, treating customers as customers and not as debtors.”

 

Email: [email protected]

Visit: CMP Information - Home

 

 

 

 

 

Well that'll pi$$ Chase Credit off the agency that supplies credit staff to Cabot - Badenoch and Clark are a big recruitment agency :D

[Ell-enn]

Crikey - this is a different Cabot to the one we know - Right? or someone is being paid to write it!!!

 

As an HR practitioner I can't imagine it's a good place to work in HR at present - their employees must be having nervous breakdowns every hour given the grief CAG is giving them daily!! lol wonder what the percentage staff turnover is?

[pmhcfc]

 

As an HR practitioner I can't imagine it's a good place to work in HR at present - their employees must be having nervous breakdowns every hour given the grief CAG is giving them daily!! lol wonder what the percentage staff turnover is?

 

THey have a new 1/4 million £ letter sorting machine..oh , and the staff turnover is down to 21% - something Cabot is very proud of.

[Ell-enn]

21% !! they should be ashamed of themselves (some hope!)

 

Incidently, exactly how do you shame a DCA?

[andrew1]

Crikey - this is a different Cabot to the one we know - Right? or someone is being paid to write it!!!

 

As an HR practitioner I can't imagine it's a good place to work in HR at present - their employees must be having nervous breakdowns every hour given the grief CAG is giving them daily!! lol wonder what the percentage staff turnover is?

 

Remember, Cabot have employed a big PR firm - must cost them a fortune to counter us

 

21% turnover? good for those agencies supplying staff like Badenoch & Clark and Chase but disgraceful in any other sense.

[debt_mountain]

.....and has strong growth predictions for the year ahead. ......”

Do you think they have heard of the CFC and the impact we will have on them?

[djdave]

In my last job, if I'd had staff turnover of 21% I'd have been out on my ear! In fact, I managed to go a whole year with the only one person permanantly leaving the company, the rest being internal promotions.

 

21%? Stand in the corner and hang your head in shame, Ken.

[pmhcfc]

In my last job, if I'd had staff turnover of 21% I'd have been out on my ear! In fact, I managed to go a whole year with the only one person permanantly leaving the company, the rest being internal promotions.

 

21%? Stand in the corner and hang your head in shame, Ken.

 

Er, not wishing to alarm you too much, but getting his staff turnover down to 21% was one of the reasons why he won an award last year.

 

Sarah; I wonder if we can find out just how many temp staff they have there - surely it's impossible to educate and train all these staff re the rules, regulations and laws on consumer credit. I mean, they have to rely on a new £250k letter machine just to sort the post out, what does that tell you?

[djdave]

From what I understand, Cabot pay their staff pretty well, and have plenty of opportunity for them to earn big money if they perform well. Also, I've been to King's Hill, it's a pleasant enough little estate (although somewhat bland and sterile for my tastes).

 

So to have such terrible staff turnover begs the question: what's so horrific about working for Uncle Ken?

 

I'd dearly love it if any ex-Cabot employees would like to comment on this thread.

[andrew1]

 

So to have such terrible staff turnover begs the question: what's so horrific about working for Uncle Ken?

 

 

I know someone who sat next to him at one of their functions, it's something to do with his deodorant/ aftershave/other aroma's ;)

[elizabeth1]

I know someone who sat next to him at one of their functions, it's something to do with his deodorant/ aftershave/other aroma's ;)

 

 

ha ha ha so he ran out of Linx ? tut tut tut :o Best sit the other side of room next time :D

[Ell-enn]

Anyone want to apply for a job at Cabot - sounds just great from their side of the desk!!!!!!!!!! Would love to know what the interview technique's like...............

 

Cabot Financial Group

 

look at their careers section (won't let me copy the entire link for some reason)

[Seahorse]

OK, PMHFC posted an extract from Glen Crawford a while back regarding assignment... and it seems to be backed up by this...

 

In the case of both factoring and invoice discounting the purchase of debt is effected by assignment. The requirements of a legal assignment are set out in s136 Law of Property Act 1925 (this provides: "Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law"). This section requires written notice of assignment to be sent by the client company and received by its customer, the debtor. As noted above prior to any collect out, the assignments (even where notice is given to the debtors of the arrangement) will usually be equitable. If the financier wishes to commence proceedings for collection of any assigned debt they will need to perfect the assignment and convert it from an equitable assignment to a legal assignment.

However, assignments in factoring and invoice discounting agreements are almost always structured as equitable assignments which utilise the methods referred to below in order to avoid the historical requirement to pay Stamp Duty.

 

I assume that it coud be converted to a legal assignment like this...

 

While no longer an issue this factor served to shape the products we now see in the sector and therefore is worth understanding. As noted above it was possible to avoid Stamp Duty by use of equitable, rather than legal assignments. The two most common structures for the equitable assignments of debt is by either the whole turnover method (which relies on the uncertainty of the level of debts to be assigned) or facultative method (which proceeds on the basis that there is no stampable document which effects the actual assignment). Notwithstanding the availability of these options certain financiers proceed on the basis of an equitable assignment on which they will only pay stamp duty if they need to take court proceedings to enforce.

The major legal implications for failure to stamp being inadmissibility of an unstamped document in court. While a liquidator could therefore seek to challenge a non-stamped assignment the financier is always able to rectify this by paying a late registration fee and penalty interest (currently 6%). It is common for the financier to be indemnified in respect of any such associated costs by the Company in any event.

[Seahorse]

Whilst the above is based on corporate finance, we are all aware that Cabot claim that debts are assigned under s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, so I have assumed the same principal applies.

 

What I'm really concerned about here is, Glen Crawford has admitted that assignments are equitable to avoid stamp duty. But what I read into this is, if Cabot have sued for an assigned debt in the past, were they then obliged to pay stamp duty? And if so, did they? If not, why not? And would HM Treasury be interested if they were supposed to, but haven't?

 

I could be wrong about all this. But if anyone has a definitive, please feel free to step in.

[Curlyben]

Bear in mind LoP s136 deals only with ABSOLUTE (Legal) assignment.

[Seahorse]

I've been doing a bit of digging into this CB, and I've come up with this...

 

it (s136) simply provides a

means of transferring the legal interest in a chose in circumstances where it was

considered by the legislators safe to abandon the general rule in equitable assignments

that in any action to enforce a chose, both the assignor and the assignee

should be a party. As will be seen, s 136 applies only in the case of the transfer of

legal bilateral choses in action.

 

The above is from a book I'm trying to get my hands on so I can find out more...

 

http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199284368

[Curlyben]

Interesting reading there SH.

Now I wonder if I should write Cabot a letter and ask them to explain exactly how they use LoP s136 to purchase debt.

Interesting overview on that book.

I was going to copy the important parts, but they've protected it, so here's a copy.

 

The bits we are interested is 1.10 in the overview section, pages 3 and 4

0-19-928436-9.pdf

[make them aktiv runners]

At last, you are willing to consider assignments being Equitable.

 

What I'm really concerned about here is, Glen Crawford has admitted that assignments are equitable to avoid stamp duty. But what I read into this is, if Cabot have sued for an assigned debt in the past, were they then obliged to pay stamp duty? And if so, did they? If not, why not? And would HM Treasury be interested if they were supposed to, but haven't?

 

I could be wrong about all this. But if anyone has a definitive, please feel free to step in.

 

Did you keep a copy of all RS posts? There was a suggestion of involving HMRC but no explanation as to why, so above could be right.

 

Tolhurst is another book full of assignment information. There is a section on debtors right to vary contract after notice of assignment which could prove interesting. There was a suggestion from you-know-who that there is a reason why DCA's are relunctant to issue the notices but again no full explanation.

[pmhcfc]

Now that Citigroup own most of Nikko - this must mean (in effect) they own Cabot - Doesn't the plot thicken eh ?

 

In anticipation of Nikko Cordial becoming a 100%-owned subsidiary of Citi, Nikko Cordial shareholders will be asked to approve a change in Nikko Cordial's articles of incorporation in order to change Nikko Cordial's fiscal year end to December 31 (from March 31), beginning with the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007. Approval for this change will be sought at the extraordinary meeting of shareholders scheduled for December 19, 2007. Changing Nikko Cordial's fiscal year to December 31 will cause Nikko Cordial's tax year end to be changed to December 31.

[andrew1]

Now that will be interesting, for citi have another supersidious, self opinionated, arrogant member of staff Cabot might like to add to their collection of same - One Brian Smith - Legal hussey. Miserable g*t and totally wrong most of the time...should fit in well with Cabot staff

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Whilst the above is based on corporate finance, we are all aware that Cabot claim that debts are assigned under s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, so I have assumed the same principal applies.

 

What I'm really concerned about here is, Glen Crawford has admitted that assignments are equitable to avoid stamp duty. But what I read into this is, if Cabot have sued for an assigned debt in the past, were they then obliged to pay stamp duty? And if so, did they? If not, why not? And would HM Treasury be interested if they were supposed to, but haven't?

 

I could be wrong about all this. But if anyone has a definitive, please feel free to step in.

 

 

Here FC is trying to give a bit of background on one or two angles of stamp duty as mentioned in the mbna v vat people house of lords case 1 and the subsequent appeal as search for the magic words revealed

( note this blue text and underlining is uncontollable!!)

 

===================

 

33 The arrangements must, if they are to be effective, satisfy a number of requirements of regulatory agencies and accounting bodies, which do not always coincide; the solution to one problem might give rise to another. Some, such as the isolation of the lender from the risk of the credit card issuer's insolvency which we have already mentioned, are dictated by market requirements but are also imposed by the regulatory authorities. In particular, the FSA and other regulatory bodies, we were told, do not consider it appropriate that the credit card issuer should, even indirectly, underwrite the ultimate repayment of the borrowing (from which, if MBNA's arguments are correct, it has distanced itself) and the contracts expressly exclude any such underwriting. On the other hand, the issuer has an interest in seeing that the investors are repaid since otherwise it would encounter difficulty in undertaking a further securitisation in the future. The FSA's objection extends, however, to support which, even though not a contractual obligation, is in fact given by the issuer if there is any risk that the loan will not be paid. There are also tax considerations to be borne in mind since the securitisation might generate a tax liability which (we infer) would not arise were the credit card issuer to raise money in another way, and Mr Ingram and his colleagues have spent a significant amount of time obtaining Inland Revenue clearances for this and other securitisations in which they have been involved. (We should perhaps add that there is no suggestion by the Commissioners that securitisation is a tax-avoidance device). MBNA's 2001 securitisation structure was designed not to create any form of agreement for sale in the form of a stampable document.

 

============================

 

48 The offer is of an assignment of receivables; the value of the receivables to be assigned, and the amount which MBNA expects to receive in return, are not specified in the offer itself. It does state, however, that it may be accepted, once the face value of the Existing Receivables included in it has been notified by MBNA to CCSE, by the payment by CCSE to MBNA of an "Acceptance Price" of £10,000. Although the prescribed form of the offer itself does not say so, the contracts provide that the Acceptance Price is to be followed immediately by a "Further Payment". The Further Payment is defined as the "Outstanding Face Amount of the Existing Receivables … less the Acceptance Price". There will, of course, be a change in the value of the Existing Receivables between the date of the offer and the date of acceptance, since there are daily movements on customers' accounts, and the deed provides for calculation and notification of the precise amount on the day on which an offer is to be accepted. The two-stage payment process is not a factor material to our decision; it was designed primarily to avoid the imposition of stamp duty by reference to the value of the Further Payment (the stampdutyrules have since been changed, making this complication no longer necessary). Since CCSE, through Deutsche, is required to accept any offer which complies with the deed's conditions, MBNA is effectively able to dictate the amount it receives, by nominating accounts with an aggregate value of Existing Receivables of the chosen sum. In practice, it nominates accounts whose Existing Receivables have, or are expected to have, a face value significantly higher than the amount it wishes to receive in cash. This is done in order to ensure that there will at all times be sufficient receivables to provide security for the amount raised, allowing for the fluctuations which will occur as customers pay off their debts and create new debts, and to provide a margin for the predictable level of customer default (that is, complete failure to pay the amount due rather than delay in payment, a topic with which we do not need to deal further). We shall explain how the structure accommodates the surplus shortly

 

 

=========

 

2nd case the mbna appeal against vat tribunal

 

 

 

51 By contrast with other schemes commonly the subject matter of tax appeals, the Tribunal found (and it is common ground) that although the schemes were fine-tuned in such a way as not unnecessarily to incur tax liabilities (for example stamp duties) the schemes were not to be regarded as tax driven in the sense that the avoidance of tax formed any part of their essential purpose. Their sole purpose was as I have already identified, the obtaining of working capital by credit card issuing banks at a highly competitive cost

 

===========================

 

 

60 Clause 5.1 provided for a Further Payment (as defined) to be made by the Receivables Trustee to the Offeror "immediately after … acceptance" of any relevant Offer. The Further Payment amounts to the "Outstanding Face Amount of the Existing Receivables … less the Acceptance Price". The split between £10,000 and the Face amount of the Existing Receivables minus £10,000 was a Stamp Duty avoidance device having no particular VAT consequence

[Seahorse]

In English this time, for us less well educated?

[FANTASY CHARGES]

is this act still in force ??

 

Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c. 18)

 

 

seahorse perhaps an extra arrow ?

 

 

honest m'lord this post was here all the time !!!

[andrew1]

DO YOU REALISE that turkey aviator (apart from not being able to fly ) is a cannibal

 

You've lost me!