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

[InKogneeToh]

... so what would you do in Rhia's and my situation where the charges have been refunded to Cabot instead of to us by the bank/Card co and what argument would you use against them? Do you think the bank have a right to send a refund to the DCA? In my case the debt was ALL charges.

 

Hi

 

Had you issued court proceedings for these charges?

[whats a mook?]

O/T, but I feel like a little boy on Christmas Day, I don't know which Cabot thread to open and read! Any recommendations please?

[Rhia]

Had you issued court proceedings for these charges?

Yes I have as the lender has written admiting the amount but said they ahve sent it to the DCA. This action had started anyway but I am letting it run now instead of withdrawing as these penalty charges are mine by rights.

I think the situation should be that if the DCA can prove the debt the debtor should agree settlement with them but be free to reclaim the penalties from the original lender to be paid to the individual.

[andrew1]

Hi

 

Had you issued court proceedings for these charges?

 

No. I haven't even asked for the yet.

[andrew1]

I think the situation should be that if the DCA can prove the debt the debtor should agree settlement with them but be free to reclaim the penalties from the original lender to be paid to the individual.

 

actually, I agree with you Rhia. I think Citi should, despite them giving the monies to Cabot, send the lot to me and reclaim it from Cabot themselves as I had no contract with Cabot and it was all fees and charges. I also do not believe they should keep the OFT £12 and refund the difference between their £25 and £12-cos that's exactly what they did.

[InKogneeToh]

Hi

 

I agree with you both. The way I see it, those charges made by the creditor are not/were not payments by you to the account and IMO should not be transferred to a third party as payment towards a debt without your consent.

 

Also many people have continued to claim the full amount after the banks have offered/repaid the difference between the OFT limit and the actual charge. The claim needs to be continued because that £12 was only the maximum, above which the OFT would take action, and they also said that they were not saying that this figure was fair. It is still up to the bank to show that the cost of each breach WAS £12 if that is what they are charging.

 

Regards, Pam

[andrew1]

Hi

 

I agree with you both. The way I see it, those charges made by the creditor are not/were not payments by you to the account and IMO should not be transferred to a third party as payment towards a debt without your consent.

 

Also many people have continued to claim the full amount after the banks have offered/repaid the difference between the OFT limit and the actual charge. The claim needs to be continued because that £12 was only the maximum, above which the OFT would take action, and they also said that they were not saying that this figure was fair. It is still up to the bank to show that the cost of each breach WAS £12 if that is what they are charging.

 

Regards, Pam

 

....also Pam, and thanks for that, the OFT do not make the laws of this land and if the charges are unlawful by exceeding the liquidated loss ( what it costs the bank) then even £12 is unlawful which makes the whole lot reclaimable anyway until they disclose their true costs.... onwards and upwards !

[Rhia]

Andrew1 Citi are particularly horrible to deal with as I helped my son reclaim his penalties and although we don't want to hijack this thread so PM me and I can fill you in.

Getting back to the topic in hand there is little doubt that these charges are owed to you. Perhaps it would frighten Cabot if you claimed against them (plus contractual interest). I think they would soon start squealing and suddenly find that the illegible application form they are trying to fob you off with (if they are) isn't a correctly executed agreement after all and whoops file goes back to original creditor.

If your account is all penalty charges and your SAR/CCA application shows it then game, set and match. They don't have a leg to stand on.

[Janet-M]

A penalty charge is unenforceable in its entirety , they can't just pay the difference

 

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915], in which Lord Dunedin stated that: "A charge will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach. A penalty clause is void in its entirety and unenforceable."

[Rhia]

Magnificent Janet-M. That is very useful information.

And another thought Andrew1. If your account was defaulted on penalty charges then that default must be removed completely it may even open the way to a few damages due to erroneous information.

[andrew1]

Magnificent Janet-M. That is very useful information.

And another thought Andrew1. If your account was defaulted on penalty charges then that default must be removed completely it may even open the way to a few damages due to erroneous information.

 

Now, pm me your thoughts as to compensation. Citi never took the default off - it's been there since 2004 AND Cabot added one too... me see's £'s signs

[Seahorse]

Magnificent Janet-M. That is very useful information.

And another thought Andrew1. If your account was defaulted on penalty charges then that default must be removed completely it may even open the way to a few damages due to erroneous information.

 

Agreed. I'm itching to get "see you in court" into my next letter.

[scouser9]

Hiya Guys And Gals

 

Just to add if we are not careful the Bailiffs are going to get more power to break and enter your house for goods or monies owed. Please click on the link below and join the petition that we need to sign on line to stop this dead.

 

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Restore the ancient rights of British citizens to refuse the forced entry of bailiffs.

 

Come on guys keep fighting for the right

 

Thanks in Advance

Mikey

[tbern123]

A penalty charge is unenforceable in its entirety , they can't just pay the difference

 

 

 

This is why you will find Banks are now playing word games and issueing new terms and conditions calling it an administration fee

[Seahorse]

They can call it what they want. If it doesn't cost them £38 to "administer" a bounced DD, they're still penalties.

[Janet-M]

This is why you will find Banks are now playing word games and issueing new terms and conditions calling it an administration fee

When they do this it is called 'cloaking the penalty ' and it is very well known in the courts .As seahorse says they can call it what they want

[tbern123]

lol, don't shot the messenger

 

Banks' secret blitz on overdraft claims | the Daily Mail

[Seahorse]

I don't think the intention was to shoot the messenger. I think she's stalking me.

 

Janet, could you stalk me on my own thread, please? So as not to hijack tBern's thread. :D:D:D:D

[tbern123]

Your like this one Seahorse...

 

Google Uk - Cabot Financial Complaints and we are Number 1 and 2

cabot financial complaints - Google Search

[Seahorse]

And 5th one down. Have we already covered this???

 

Information Commissioners - Data Protection Register - Entry Details

[elizabeth1]

Your like this one Seahorse...

 

Google Uk - Cabot Financial Complaints and we are Number 1 and 2

cabot financial complaints - Google Search

 

 

:-D

[Seahorse]

It's the price of Fame, tBern. Shall we do book signings????

[tbern123]

I wish I knew how search engines work. It would be nice if our complaints came first when you searched just for cabot financial

[pmhcfc]

I wish I knew how search engines work. It would be nice if our complaints came first when you searched just for cabot financial

 

Try: Cabot Complaints ..Number 1 and 2 there as well (just different threads lol)

 

I think if we typed Cabot Financial in all our threads, instead of just Cabot- that would do it re getting googling number 1

[Seahorse]

It's a matter of evolution where Google is concerned, as they continually update their software. BUT. In general, it's a matter of how relevant the content of a site is, that elevates its rankings. Plus, big business pays big bucks to keep their site up there. So, again in general, although it doesn't ALWAYS work, if you search for a company specifically, unless the content of their site has absolutely no relevance to the companies description, it will usually end up at the top of the 1st page. And believe me when I say that Cabot have an excellent design team tweaking their content to ensure it stays at No 1.

 

Too much beer means too much blethering. I think I need to switch the auld laptop off until the morning.