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

[Seahorse]

Having said that, external links to your site play a VERY big part in the rankings. If we could get enough sites with a relevant theme eg sites dealing with financial issues and DCAs in particular, to have a link to our threads... AND those links were clicked on often enough, it MIGHT be enough to push our threads up the page on Google.

 

That's about the only way I can see of managing it. But can't see how to do that.

 

Mind you, when I got my first phone call from Cabot, the first thing I did was type Cabot into Google, and got directed here. In fact, I think it was YOUR thread tBern. So I don't think we need worry that anyone else doing a search will miss us.

 

NOW it's time for bed, Zebedee.

[tbern123]

Mind you, when I got my first phone call from Cabot, the first thing I did was type Cabot into Google, and got directed here. In fact, I think it was YOUR thread tBern. So I don't think we need worry that anyone else doing a search will miss us.

 

NOW it's time for bed, Zebedee.

 

So so glad I didn't use my real name then lol

[Seahorse]

Your name's not really tbern??????

 

Maybe I shouldn't have used my real name, Seahorse. :(

[andrew1]

... and thats why I always call myself Andrew

 

 

Sarah xx

[tbern123]

... and thats why I always call myself Andrew

 

 

Sarah xx

 

Oh, Andrew/Sarah, I thought you was just confused

[andrew1]

Oh, Andrew/Sarah, I thought you was just confused

 

[Seahorse]

Confused doesn't mean gay.

 

(Sorry Sarah )

[FANTASY CHARGES]

lol, don't shot the messenger

 

Banks' secret blitz on overdraft claims | the Daily Mail

 

 

THEY SNEEKED this in on December 1st

 

but fantasy "was tipped off" straight away !!!

 

see the date of the post " it helps to know VIP insiders" they are very unhappy with the HSBC usa sub-lending

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/50391-december-1st-hsbc-has.html

[InKogneeToh]

Hi tbern at al

 

It's all gone very quiet on here! :?

 

What's cookin'?

[elizabeth1]

Hi tbern at al

 

It's all gone very quiet on here! :?

 

What's cookin'?

 

 

HUBBLE BUBBLE TOIL & TROUBLE????

[tbern123]

Sorry guys...

 

I am just waiting to hear back from the court, regarding their defence in relation to my claim re the HSBC account. I am also still working on the Creditor issue and trying to get my POC together for my second, large claim against them...

[InKogneeToh]

Sorry guys...

 

I am just waiting to hear back from the court, regarding their defence in relation to my claim re the HSBC account. I am also still working on the Creditor issue and trying to get my POC together for my second, large claim against them...

 

Oh, okay then - well what are doing dilly dallying on here then? Nose back down immediately! :D:p

[andrew1]

I've got to go back over these threads to read up on the buying by Cabot of the rights to a debt rather than the duties, but can someone just confirm to me how this is done and which Act or law allows this to happen.

 

Say, for example, I am in a position to by a debt which has a guarantee/warranty period attached to it. Can I buy the debt and not pick up the responsibility of the guarantee/ warranty period? Is this the Law of Property or what and how do Cabot for example justify their right to do this?

 

 

Oh, and by the way Happy Mothers Day to all the MUMS on here..

 

 

.

[Seahorse]

As far as I know, Cabot haven't yet told us that this is the law they are basing their assumptions on. (I don't THINK, but I may have missed it if they have). But PMHCFC has raised a point about this. Have a look on over at the post and article about it in the alternative Fan Club site. Where you are now a mod, BTW

[andrew1]

As far as I know, Cabot haven't yet told us that this is the law they are basing their assumptions on. (I don't THINK, but I may have missed it if they have). But PMHCFC has raised a point about this. Have a look on over at the post and article about it in the alternative Fan Club site. Where you are now a mod, BTW

 

Wow - a mod? !

[Seahorse]

Well, Admin anyway. Same thing I suppose.

 

Didn't you get my email????

[TideTurner]

Andrew1,

 

If you look at your original contract, there will be a term in there where you agree to the transfer of rights and the debt to a third party without your consent. However, if the transferred information is wrong eg. the original creditor provides the transferee details of your unlawful charges, you can apply for this information to be corrected.

 

This way the DCA's are on a win-lose.

 

If you then apply to the DCA for a copy of an authority which you have signed which enables them to store, process or provide your information, the DCA's are then in a lose-lose.

 

Tide

[tbern123]

PLEASE READ THIS:

http://www.cabotfinancial.com/pdf/Legal%20Misconceptions%20in%20Debt%20Sale%20and%20Administration.doc

 

I wonder if, this has to do with us ???

 

As far as I know, Cabot haven't yet told us that this is the law they are basing their assumptions on. (I don't THINK, but I may have missed it if they have). But PMHCFC has raised a point about this. Have a look on over at the post and article about it in the alternative Fan Club site. Where you are now a mod, BTW

 

They haven't told us directly, but if you remember this:

http://www.cabotfinancial.com/pdf/Increased%20Scrutiny%20of%20The%20Debt%20Sale%20Industry.pdf

 

As we have previously discussed, the wrong section is quoted. It should be section 136 and not 139

 

Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20) - Statute Law Database

[Seahorse]

Yes, I remember. But I have asked WW for clarification and he has yet to reply. But I suppose he's under no obligation to do so. I guess the only time we'll know for definite is in court.

[tbern123]

PLEASE READ THIS:

http://www.cabotfinancial.com/pdf/Legal%20Misconceptions%20in%20Debt%20Sale%20and%20Administration.doc

 

There are also popular misconceptions about the rights and obligations of debt purchase companies under the Consumer Credit Act. We do not believe that debt purchasers fall within the definition of "creditor" in section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act, because they take assignments of the rights, but not the duties, of creditors under consumer credit agreements: they collect the debts, but they do not themselves lend money

 

So,,, they don't believe hmmmmm not actual law then

[tbern123]

Another extract

 

However, the fact that in our view debt purchase companies are not creditors does not mean that they are not entitled to enforce the debts that have been assigned to them, or which, in laymen’s terms, they have bought. As a legal assignee, under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, a company which has bought a creditor’s rights under a credit agreement is entitled to sue the debtor for any repayment that remains due under the agreement.

 

In their view....... ?

 

In my view I should win the lottery.....

[Seahorse]

Now I hadn't seen that one for some reason. OHO!!!!

 

And reading further, I see Glen is doing some of our homework for us.

 

What a nice Guy!!!!!

[tbern123]

It must have only been put on their site recently... interesting reading though..

[tbern123]

Sorry, I know everyone can read it for themselves.. but here is another extract

 

It is worth pointing out that the Citizen’s Advice Bureau is currently pursuing a series of court cases which challenge the right of the debt purchasers to enforce regulated debts through the courts. The CAB’s argument appears to be that according to the definition of "creditor" under section 189 of the CCA, a purchaser must prove he has acquired the duties as well as the rights to a consumer credit agreement. This is an interesting assertion, but misses the point entirely on the basis that a debt purchaser needs only to be a legal assignee to enforce the credit agreement, which it is as soon as written notice of the assignment is given to the debtor. In my view, the actions of the CAB in these cases are ill conceived and in many ways the outcome of the cases themselves is entirely irrelevant.

 

They need to stop all this in my view business.... When a precedent has been set in court, it is highly relevant

[tbern123]

Whatever the correct interpretation of the word "creditor" for the purposes of any relevant provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, it is clearly important that debtors should have access to information relating to their debts and that all lenders, debt buyers and administrators should use all reasonable endeavours to assist in the provision of that information.

 

Doesn't sound like they are 100% positive.

 

Seahorse, most of it is very similar to your letters from WW