Taking Cabot to court for failing to supply HSBC CCA + Distress etc

[tbern123]

Right - so if say Barclaycard put a default on my file - then even though they have passed it to Cabot, they can't just put a default on for the sake of it?

 

Mike

 

To be honest, I am not 100% sure... But I intend to have as much fun as possible finding out..

 

Even though Kings Hil, never wrote to me, never telephone me, made no arrangement with me, they have placed a default on my credit file. The shard my personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act with their appointed agents.

 

Even though Kings Hill and Cabot are really one and the same.. They have scored some own goals...

 

They have admitted in writing that when they buy a debt, they recieve no documentation.

 

1) How do they know the debt exists ?

2) They have permission to process personal data

3) They have authority to disclose your personal data

 

They assume everything.... And when they assume all they try to do is make an ass of u and me

 

The facts remain, that Kings Hill and Cabot are both registered as Limited companies and are both registered with the Information Commissioners Office as data controllers.....

[jdene]

Just thought this may amuse you, Cabbot have answered my CCA but I havent sent it off yet they are slowly drowning in thier own incompetence, either that or mystic meg has joined them lol great thread by the way better than the telly.

[me_n_my_kids]

jdene if you dont mind me asking, who was the original creditor for the debt now with cabot? were there any DCA's in between?

[lookinforinfo]

Is there any truth in the rumour that Cabot have just started a new thread-"Tbern again!!! Urgent Help Needed".

[me_n_my_kids]

LMFAO

[tbern123]

Is there any truth in the rumour that Cabot have just started a new thread-"Tbern again!!! Urgent Help Needed".

 

lol, I think they are going to need some help...

 

I recieved their defence to my claim today.... The solicitors acting on their behalf are Hodsons Solicitors (no surprise there) as followers of the Cabot's threads, people will know the relationship with this firm and that they share an address with the Messageing Service Ltd (or whatever they call themselves)

 

Anyway bank to the nitty gritty of their defence....

 

I am only going to post their defence now, I will post my response later today... (please remember this claim is ONLY in relation to Kings Hill No.1 Ltd and ther alleged HSBC debt)

 

3. Defence

 

1. The Defendant denies having committed an offence (s) under S77, S78 and 97 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

2. The Defendent denies that the Defendant has breached the Claimants rights to privacy under Acticle 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998

3.The Defendant denies that it has committed an offence under th Data Protection Act 1988.

4. At all material times the Defendant was a company which was a part of the Cabot Financial group of companies which operate from 10 Kings Hill Avenue, Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent.

5. The Defendant company is a vehicle by which portfolios of debt are purchased from credit card companies and other similar financial organisations.

6. Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited is a company whcih administers accounts aquired by the Defendant (Cabot).

7. It is admitted that following a request for information made by the Claimant a request was made by Cabot as administrators of the debt to HSBC for documentation. HSBC were unable to supply such copies. In consequence HSBC has taken the said debt back into its ownership.

8. The Defendant in any event puts the claimant to strict proof that it was a 'creditor' for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and not an assignee of the debt.

9. The Defendent denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claime or at all

 

For reasons I will explain later on today, I am very pleased with this defence and honestly speaking this is better then I was hoping for.

 

It would appear that their Solicitors have not actually read the CCA 1974 and they have also contradicted themselves.

 

[mcuth]

It would appear that their Solicitors have not actually read the CCA 1974 and they have also contradicted themselves.

 

I think I'd be happy to receive that defence too

Love the contradiction between 5 & 7 - if they've purchased the debt, how come it was taken back by HSBC? LOL

 

Of course, they've neglected to read CPR16.5 too, where you have to explain why you deny an allegation, rather than just simply saying that it's denied

 

Go gettem

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Seminole]

I'm also puzzled by what they are getting at.

 

As far as I was aware purchasing a debt means that all the rights and obligations of ownership transferred with the purchase. Are they trying to argue in 8 that the obligation to comply with Section 77 of the CCA didn't transfer with the debt?

 

Very strange. If they're right it's a serious loophole in the CCA.

[tbern123]

I'm also puzzled by what they are getting at.

 

As far as I was aware purchasing a debt means that all the rights and obligations of ownership transferred with the purchase. Are they trying to argue in 8 that the obligation to comply with Section 77 of the CCA didn't transfer with the debt?

 

Very strange. If they're right it's a serious loophole in the CCA.

 

They are wrong Semi, I am working on my response now... But just for you lol here is a sneak peek

 

8. The Defendant in any event puts the claimant to strict proof that it was a 'creditor' for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and not an assignee of the debt.

 

Easy... As per a letter from HSBC dated 12th September 2006:

 

"I am writing to inform you that the above account was sold by HSBC Bank plc to Kingshill No.1 Limited on 2nd May 2006. This mean that the effective owners of the above account are now Kingshill No.1 Limited.

 

I also have a statement of account from Cabot Financial confirming that they aquired the debt 2nd May 2006.

 

And... In a letter from Cabot Financial dated 18 December 2006:

"We can confirm that your account has subsequently been reassigned to HSBC Bank plc"

 

Now to put the above correspondance into context, the CCA 1974 states:

 

189. Definitions

"Creditor" means the person providing credit under a credit consumer agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit, includes the prospective creditor'

[Seminole]

Excellent. That's what I was planning to look up.

 

It seemed that intuitively that ought to be the position. The only thing I would be wary of is some obscure legal precedent that muddies the water. However, I would have expected them to have referred to this in the defence. I think you're on safe ground.

[andrew1]

Sounds like they could do with new solicitors!

[PriorityOne]

This is a blinding thread I have copied and pasted some of your defence, as it may also apply to me with my barstewards. Hope that's ok....

[tbern123]

Ok, this is what I have done for now, I will work on it a little more later on...

Comments and suggestions greatly appreciated.

 

P.S feel free to copy whatever anyone wants...

 

3. Defence

 

1. The Defendant denies having committed an offence (s) under S77, S78 and 97 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Number 7 States: "It is admitted that following a request for information made by the Claimant a request was made by Cabot as administrators of the debt to HSBC for documentation. HSBC were unable to supply such copies"

 

So they admit they were unable to provide any documentation, but still feel they have not committed an offence ????

 

Funny..... I am pretty sure that the CCA 1974 states:

 

77 Duty to give information to debtor under fixed-sum agreement

b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

 

78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement

b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

 

97. Duty to Give Information

(1) The creditor under a regulated consumer credit agreement, within the the prescribed period after he has received a request in writing to that effect from the debtor, shall give the debtor a statement in the prescribed form indicating, according to the information to which it is practical for him to refer, the amount of the payment required to discharge the debtor's indebtedness under the agreement, together with the prescibed particulars showing how the amount is arrived at.

 

b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

There are three offences there.

 

2. The Defendent denies that the Defendant has breached the Claimants rights to privacy under Acticle 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

3.The Defendant denies that it has committed an offence under the Data Protection Act 1988.

 

There seem to have forgotten that Cabot said on 31st October 2006:

 

"When purchasing accounts we are not supplied with any documentation (i.e. copy agreements or statements of account) and therefore any requests for such have to be forwarded to the originators"

 

So, how exactly did they know they had my permission to process and disclose my personal data as defined by the DPA then ?

 

The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) also states:

 

Q: What do I need to put in my fair processing notice, which is given to individuals before I process their information? You will need to outline what and how information is going to be processed. This is to make sure the individual knows exactly what is going to happen to their information and how it is going to be used. You shouldn't be doing anything with personal information unless the individual is made aware (unless certain exemptions apply)

 

So Hodgson, where is my fair processing notice then ???

 

4. At all material times the Defendant was a company which was a part of the Cabot Financial group of companies which operate from 10 Kings Hill Avenue, Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent.

 

And ????? Is that an excuse or a reason ????

 

5. The Defendant company is a vehicle by which portfolios of debt are purchased from credit card companies and other similar financial organisations.

 

I don't dispute this and I don't really care either.

 

6. Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited is a company whcih administers accounts aquired by the Defendant (Cabot).

 

Erm No........ As stated on the Court papers, the named Defendant is actually Kings Hill No.1 Limited not Cabot

 

7. It is admitted that following a request for information made by the Claimant a request was made by Cabot as administrators of the debt to HSBC for documentation. HSBC were unable to supply such copies. In consequence HSBC has taken the said debt back into its ownership.

 

So Hodson Solicitors are using the defence that is was in fact a muti-national billion pound financial institution that committed the offence. HSBC will be so pleased to hear about that.

 

8. The Defendant in any event puts the claimant to strict proof that it was a 'creditor' for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and not an assignee of the debt.

 

Easy... As per a letter from HSBC dated 12th September 2006:

 

"I am writing to inform you that the above account was sold by HSBC Bank plc to Kingshill No.1 Limited on 2nd May 2006. This mean that the effective owners of the above account are now Kingshill No.1 Limited."

 

I also have a statement of account from Cabot Financial confirming that they aquired the debt 2nd May 2006.

 

And... In a letter from Cabot Financial dated 18 December 2006:

"We can confirm that your account has subsequently been reassigned to HSBC Bank plc"

 

Now to put the above correspondance into context, the CCA 1974 states:

 

189. Definitions

"Creditor" means the person providing credit under a credit consumer agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit, includes the prospective creditor'

9. The Defendent denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claim or at all

[mcuth]

They are wrong Semi, I am working on my response now... But just for you lol here is a sneak peek

 

8. The Defendant in any event puts the claimant to strict proof that it was a 'creditor' for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and not an assignee of the debt.

 

Easy... As per a letter from HSBC dated 12th September 2006:

 

"I am writing to inform you that the above account was sold by HSBC Bank plc to Kingshill No.1 Limited on 2nd May 2006. This mean that the effective owners of the above account are now Kingshill No.1 Limited.

 

I also have a statement of account from Cabot Financial confirming that they aquired the debt 2nd May 2006.

 

And... In a letter from Cabot Financial dated 18 December 2006:

"We can confirm that your account has subsequently been reassigned to HSBC Bank plc"

 

Now to put the above correspondance into context, the CCA 1974 states:

 

189. Definitions

"Creditor" means the person providing credit under a credit consumer agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit, includes the prospective creditor'

 

Nice - got them bang to rights there mate

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[tamadus]

I don't know which is making me laugh most, their defence or tberns comments on it

 

I am sure the judge will be hard put to keep a straight face when he reads through it all. I hope he has aknife handy to lend them so they can try cutting their way out of the knots they are tying themselves into.

 

I hope all the defences I get are just like this one

 

Nice work tbern keep it up please

[ivorbiggun]

Brilliant tbern!

 

Is the solicitor of Hodsons called Piers Morgan? If so then their defence will help my case greatly as he obviously has never read up in the CCA.

 

So Cabot/KH#1/Hodsons all think they are above the law then? Just to dismiss it so lightly shows great arrogance.

[tbern123]

Brilliant tbern!

 

Is the solicitor of Hodsons called Piers Morgan? If so then their defence will help my case greatly as he obviously has never read up in the CCA.

 

So Cabot/KH#1/Hodsons all think they are above the law then? Just to dismiss it so lightly shows great arrogance.

 

Thanks... It was signed by a Dean Spencer......

[lookinforinfo]

Just be careful Tbern. When [if] you get to Court make sure that you clarify

the differing roles of Cabot and Kingshill within the structure. When they say

they deny culpability, they are talking about Kingshill perhaps, but maybe

they couldn't deny culpability if Cabot had been named.

 

Are you going for compensation as well?

[tbern123]

Thanks Lookingforinfo...

 

I am trying to keep any claims I make against just Kings Hill as Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited are a different company. Going by the defence sent to Debt_Mountain, they use the confusion between each limited company to their advantage.

 

I have made a claim of £500.00 compensation. I based this on the FOS guidelines for awards for non financial loss. I appreciate that DCA's are not governed by the FOS, but these guidelines are accepted within the Finance Industry as a basis to calculate compensation and I feel that may be acceptable in court.

[lookinforinfo]

[[/font]4. At all material times the Defendant was a company which was a part of the Cabot Financial group of companies which operate from 10 Kings Hill Avenue, Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent.

 

And ????? Is that an excuse or a reason ????

 

It could be their defence. It was not us [Kings Hill] it was them

[Cabot]..

[jdene]

jdene if you dont mind me asking, who was the original creditor for the debt now with cabot? were there any DCA's in between?

 

The original creditor is citicards i have a thread in the citicards forum

[Turnaround]

Superb thread and a personal thank you to those who have shared their experience, knowledge and resources.

 

Good luck tber123, you’re an inspiration to us all.

 

Perhaps you might consider writing an e-book entitled "Cabotomy"

[tbern123]

It could be their defence. It was not us [Kings Hill] it was them

[Cabot]..

 

Very true, but in relation to the breach of data protection, the only way Cabot Financial Group could have access to my personal data would be if Kings Hill disclosed it to them.

[lookinforinfo]

Very true, but in relation to the breach of data protection, the only way Cabot Financial Group could have access to my personal data would be if Kings Hill disclosed it to them.

 

Not sure that you should pin too much on that since I have seen allusions to

companies who are related having the ability to pass information between themselves, without breaching the Act.

 

Also bear in mind that with Cabot having so many different companies

within their framework,that they could spread their misdemeanours over

several of their companies thus possibly lessening the seriousness, compared to having been confined to just one company.

[tbern123]

Not sure that you should pin too much on that since I have seen allusions to

companies who are related having the ability to pass information between themselves, without breaching the Act.

 

Also bear in mind that with Cabot having so many different companies

within their framework,that they could spread their misdemeanours over

several of their companies thus possibly lessening the seriousness, compared to having been confined to just one company.

 

This is the beauty of the situation. Kings Hill never had my authority to process my personal data. So even though rightly or wrongly, they shared the data with other linked companies, they should not have started processing it in the first place.