Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I apologise if I was being unclear. Where it currently stands is that they will have it repair, placing scaffolding in our garden for 5 days. They have moved fast, but we will still have to postpone our contractors, meaning, we won't necessarily have the work done in time for the wedding and therefore will incur additional expenses for either a marquee or a wedding venue. They are vehemently against having any kind of liability in any regard but continue repeating that they are legally entitled to use our garden for their repairs (I believe this is true unless the work can be carried out using a cherry picker). The neighbour seems either indifferent or oblivious to the fact they can't reach all of the side of the roof from the space where they can place the scaffolding. They have asked their roofer of choice about using a cherry picker but the roofer has said it wasn't possible. It's not clear whether the roofer doesn't want to use a cherry picker or whether there is an issue with it. They have told us it is a problem that we are installing a gazebo as it will prevent them to access their roof from our garden in the future?!?  
    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

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


tbern123
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5439 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

This is clearly just a toothless, useless, semi masonic drinking club for the boys.

What is the point of this organisation if they really can't do much about anything, except, err...exist.

 

Perhaps a follow up letter should ask: "what exactly is it that you do?"

 

Suggested answers? Get to wear a meaningless chain of office every three years? Have an annual dinner in the West End? Exchange funny handshakes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The letter to CSA was a waste of time but useful in that it will add fuel to the flames when the matter is brought to court and useful when the FSA get to grips with these scumbags and realise the CSA are interested only in their members interests and the consumer can go to hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tamadus we always welcome people of energy, talent, intelligence and with a GSOH to the Cabot Fan Club. Please hop on board with your broadside ready to fire.

 

 

Hmmm energy levels are on the red, my only talent is singing badly in the shower, intelligence is always doubtful but I do laugh a lot :)

 

This should be good as I am already challenging the Cabot look alikes over at Asset Link, Maybe I can send the same letters to both of them and save myself some typing lmao

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I reralise that Tbern is upset at the response from the CSA but I hope he will smile when I tell him I am about to officially join the Cabot fan club :)

 

getting the opening broadside ready to send tomorrow

:)

Remember if you find anything I say helpful, please click the scales

 

 

tbern123 vs Cabot

  1. Cabot again !!! Urgent Help Needed
  2. Litigation - tbern123 V Cabot Financial (Uk) Limited
  3. No more calls from Cabot... lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

They let me in Tamadus! :D

 

That's very true Andrew :wink:

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the welcome everyone :D

 

I did warn Tbern a few weeks ago I was joining and have kepot a close eye on the thread because there are so many similarities to the Asset link group of companies.

 

In regard to which the ICO have now replied that GEMoney are seriously in the worng over my SAR and they are writing to them and Lo and behold what should arrive :D

 

Now I can get down to hitting GE, but thats a story for another thread :)

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Terminator, Sea Horse (thought you were on board anyway) you are all welcome - strength in numbers. Now it is slightly quiet on here but there are more plots here than on an allotment so keep watching, posting and investigating and adding to the case building.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was browsing around my credit report with credit expert and found this

in the key explaining the graphics used.

8.gif The account is defaulted. You have failed to keep to your credit agreement and have not responded satisfactorily to requests to put your account in order. As a result the credit agreement has ended

 

Is this correct, how do I confirm that if a default has occured the agreement has ended?

If I have helped click my scales....

 

Find my threads by clicking here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again all well since my reply from mr Maynard via cabots (had sent letter to Kings hill) i have recieved no futher response to my CCA request which was sent 6Th December 06 so who do i report them to now they are way over due for compliance I decided to leave them long enough to hang themselves.Mr Maynards response to my request is posted earlier in this thread, basicaly denying all rsponsibility and not liable to supply the information requested all Citicards responsibility and cabbot the same firm as Kingshill etc. etc. if i have put this on wrong thread please let me know and move it if neccessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All letters to Kingshill No1 Ltd are being answered by Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd. All reference to who bought the debt is referred to as Cabot Financial and all communications one makes to any of the companies are referred to as Cabot Financial or Cabot Financial Group - talk about confusing and ALL of these are seperate Limited companies all within the group.

 

My distinction, and we must not forget : as I have said before is that if one supplied goods or a service to any one of these companies and that one went bust NONE of the others would pay you out - so how can they go on implying it the other way around.

 

They are getting the messege slowly as we detect things changing slightly but they have a long long way to go to get their act together.

 

ACT - the way they perform

ACT - the things they ignore

ACT - about time they changed it and became professional and knew what they were doing. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailiffchaser viewpost.gif

speak to this lady at hm customs and revenue about trading dcas which are dormant according to companies house.

judith sweatman 08707853833 "

 

 

Did you all see this post on the mass complaint sticky thread??

Could be interesting conversations going on about a certain "dormant" company who are still trading , writing to CRA's, trying to get court claims through court to gain money etc... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

well kinshill and cabot cashed my cheque but the people at A&L was £10 for a copy of he cheque. Anyone any ideas how to get it for free. I don't want to give a bank any money I don't have too? Can I say to the bank that I have suspisions the wrong company may have presented it and would they then investigate for free? Explaining to the bank that Kingshill is a dormant company etc. Might do it anyway and see what happens.

 

Mod note;While I understand your emotion please be more careful with words -they are libellous

If I have helped click my scales....

 

Find my threads by clicking here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Debt Mountain, tbern et al, there's something extremely fishy going on here and the penny, although I hate to admit not noticing before, has just dropped. DM you just prompted me to look again at Kingshill No1 following your post above as I was sure they were a trading company. Not a bit of it, you are right, they are dormant BUT..... do you know Kingshill No1 Limited were the previous trading name of Cabot Financial (UK)Limited and for some reason they have swopped the names over on 15/01/2007 ?

 

Cabot Financial (UK)Ltd were the company that would have been buying all these debts under their previous name of Kingshill (No1)Limited so would have been trading at the time under Company Nos 03757424 and Kingshill (No1) Ltd is now a Dormant company No 03514391 they just swopped names over - WHY?

 

This might also explain why people are saying it's not Kingshill putting the defaults on anymore. Beggars belief doesn't it?

 

 

Bear this in mind Debt Mountain when putting your case together, because it'll come back and bite you in the mub !

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

 

If this is the case, then wouldn't they have to inform everyone who has an account/debt with Kingshill No 1 that the debt is now owned by Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd?

 

 

Jeff.

You would think they would have to, unless of course they are trying to dodge the bullits by this change.

 

Are they not now sharing our personal data with a further seperate limited company? yet another breech of the DPA to add to the list.

 

Where is Tbern when you want to read a good long rant!!!!:grin:

If I have helped click my scales....

 

Find my threads by clicking here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget CABOT FINANCIAL (EUROPE) LIMITED Company No. 03439445 All the documents I have are from the the Europe version with Kingshill buying the debt and instructing as their agents.

 

It's a change of name. The same as Chartered Trust becoming Black Horse Ltd. For my Hillesden case the lawyers produced the company house print out to prove that Black Horse Ltd had previously traded as Chartered Trust. This was their entitlement to pursue the debt. The judge was satisfied that a change of name left Black Horse with the same rights and responsibilities.

 

It did however leave BH in trouble with the Information Commissioners Office for some time. Incorrectly registered address.

He didn't come looking for trouble, but trouble came looking for him.

When the smoke clears, it just means he's reloading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...