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

[Seahorse]

Doesn't look half bad as it is, tBern, me old son.

[andrew1]

Big thanks to Andrew1 for the additional info (Sorry, CAG won't let me give you rep points at the moment)

 

This is a work in progress of my next letter to Cabot... I thought I would post it on here now, so that they know I am still here...

 

Dear Mr Maynard

 

 

Firstly, please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in providing you with a written response to the letter from your legal representative, Hodsons Solicitors. I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that I intend to delay the instigation of litigation proceedings in relation to the alleged Barclaycard account, your ref: 1173130.

 

 

I have taken the decision to delay litigation, as I intend to make a formal complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service in relation to the conduct of Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd and in relation to the way my complaint has been handled.

 

 

I first contacted Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd on 8th September 2006. I am extremely disappointed that after six months, I find myself still being forced to write to you. I understand that Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd, do not believe that they are the creditor as defined in section 189 of the Credit Consumer Act 1974.

 

 

I understand that this opinion has been formed as you feel that only the rights and not the duties of a consumer credit agreement is assigned and that this belief is based on section 136 the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

 

This view is further reinforced in the article published on the Cabot Financial website by your colleague Mr Glen Crawford, entitled “Legal Misconceptions in Debt Sale and Administration”. Mr Crawford, quotes the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, as saying:

 

 

"When explaining the new category of licence during parliamentary debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the category was intended to cover those who “purchase portfolios of existing loans and administer them”.

 

 

As Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd are not the creditor, I feel that they are. ( doesn't make sense tbern)I would like to take this opportunity to fully clarify my thoughts.

 

 

Mr Crawford is willing to accept the opinions of Mr. Gerry Sutcliffethe Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, you should also be aware of the other comments he made:

 

 

“There is a problem with the existing coverage of the licensing regime. It is not clear that businesses that purchase a portfolio of existing loans require a licence. The Department of Trade and Industry, the Office of Fair Trading and advice bodies have received complaints about businesses that purchase existing debts. Consumers are often confused about who is responsible for the contract and what controls there are on those businesses.”

He continues...

“Hon. Members will see that the definition of consumer credit business now covers businesses relating to the provision of credit by a person, or otherwise being a creditor. A creditor is a person who provides credit under an agreement or a person to whom the rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of the law. The new definition ensures that businesses will need a licence even if they are no longer making new agreements. They will need a licence if they only administer existing agreements by taking over the rights and duties of the creditor. The same logic applies for the new definition of consumer hire business.”

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffethe Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, also states:

 

“Under clause 23, a debt purchaser who became a creditor or owner when he purchased the loan would require a licence.”

 

Source: House of Commons Standing Committee D Tuesday 28 June 2005.

In summary the source quoted by your colleague Mr Glen Crawford, has stated on record that a debt purchaser, (in this instance Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd) becomes the creditor when they purchase the loan.

Furthermore, as the Chairman of the Debt Buyers and Sellers Group “The Voice of the Debt Sale and Purchase Industry”. I presume, you are aware that your colleague Dr Roger Lucas of the Lewis Group and of the Debt Buyers and Sellers Group is quoted by Credit Today Online Magazine as saying:

"When we take assignment of debts we stand in the place of the original creditor so it’s only right we should have the same obligations and rights."

This statement is contradictory to your own article published on the Cabot Financial website, in which you state:

“In addition, Citizens Advice is currently pursuing a series of court cases which challenge the right of debt purchasers to pursue a regulated debt through the courts. They argue that according to the definition of ‘creditor’ under section 189 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a purchaser must prove that he has acquired the duties as well as the rights to a consumer credit agreement before he can become the ‘creditor’ and therefore pursue the right to sue for the debt. This goes against the general industry belief that section 139 of the Law of Property Act 1925 applies in the case of debt purchase, which only requires that written notice of the assignment is given to the debtor in order to complete a legal assignment of a debt, and again has serious implications for the industry”.

I would also like to refer you to the following court case UNADKAT & Co (ACCOUNTANTS) LTD And ASHOK BHARDWAJ .V. The TREASURY SOLICITOR [2006] EWHC 2785 (Ch) paragraph 2

This case confirms that by virtue of of a debt assignment, the interested party becomes the creditor.

 

In summary I have provided three sources to support my belief.

1. Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (previously quoted by Mr Glen Crawford)
   
2. Dr Roger Lucas of the Lewis Group and of the Debt Buyers and Sellers Group (of which you are the Chairman). I also understand that Dr Lucas is / was the Vice President of the Credit Services Association, of which Cabot Financial is a member.
   
3. Legal precedence.

I trust that these examples establish that Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd are the creditor for the purpose of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I also hope that you will reconsider your legal status and the responses that will be provided in future.

 

I will post my full response, once I have finished it

 

Brilliant I'm just nit picking...

[tifo]

excellent! .... could be useful to us all anti-Caboters

[Rhia]

This is terrific, excellent work Andrew1/Sarah for info Tbern for letter. Can I just double check is it 139 of the Property Law or 136? I remember a slight amount of confusion about this before. I think Mr Maynard said one and when we read the Act he was mistaken and his remarks actually applied to the other but can't remember if it was 136 or 139.

[Guest jamesroberts]

awesome tbern.

[dori2o]

What an awesome thread so far!!!!!

 

One request though, would it be possible to make a seperate thread, which just shows the correspondence from tbern to cabot and visa versa.

 

Would make following the paper trail a little easier without having to trawl through 71 pages so far.

[tbern123]

I'll have a go at doing that this weekend

[andrew1]

Don't you dare, make them read the lot - better entertainment than a night out on the town :D

[dori2o]

Don't you dare, make them read the lot - better entertainment than a night out on the town :D

Don't worry, I've read the lot so far, been subscribig since the beginning, but it takes me ages to read back through all the correspondence! LOL.

[tifo]

This view is further reinforced in the article published on the Cabot Financial website by your colleague Mr Glen Crawford, entitled “Legal Misconceptions in Debt Sale and Administration”. Mr Crawford, quotes the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, as saying:

 

 

"When explaining the new category of licence during parliamentary debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the category was intended to cover those who “purchase portfolios of existing loans and administer them”.

 

What Glen Crawford said before this is

 

"We believe that the Government’s decision to create a new category of business for which a licence is to be required, namely debt administration, when the Act is amended in April 2008, reflects the fact that debt administration companies are not creditors for the purposes of the Act".

[Seahorse]

What Glen Crawford said before this is

 

"We believe that the Government’s decision to create a new category of business for which a licence is to be required, namely debt administration, when the Act is amended in April 2008, reflects the fact that debt administration companies are not creditors for the purposes of the Act".

 

He believes!!! He seems to assume an awful lot. Unfortunately for him, we think he's talking out of his backside.

[Guest The Terminator]

He believes!!! He seems to assume an awful lot. Unfortunately for him, we think he's talking out of his backside.

 

Is there any chance of him becoming the next England Football manager:D

[ODC]

Is there any chance of him becoming the next England Football manager:D

More chance than his company have of getting money from some folk on here:-D

[Seahorse]

OK, had a thought this morning while I was shovelling horsesh1t (as opposed to producing Bullsh1t, which seems to be the forte of our learned Cabuddies).

 

Mr Bean signs an agreement. He sincerely hopes that he'll be able to stick to his side of the agreement, but hey, ho, sometimes sh1t happens. Whatever, at least he is safe in the knowledge that if the worst should happen, he'll be able to rely on the CCA to keep him right.

 

OH NO!!! Mr Bean has lost his job!!!! Oh, dear. Well, he'll do his best to keep up the repayments on his Beancounter credit card.

 

Oh, he can't quite manage it. ;( He tries to get the Beancounters to accept reduced repayments, but they think they'll get a better deal if the sell the account on to Stitchemup Debt Purchase Agency.

 

Oh well, at least Mr Bean can count on the fact that as his agreement was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, he can rely on that Act to protect him from the nasty people at Stitchemup. Why???

 

BECAUSE. The CCA 1974 allows for the reassignment of any account or debt UNDER THE CCA 1974!!!!! AS WAS MR BEAN'S UNDERSTANDING IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN HE (MAYBE) SIGNED AN AGREEMENT WITH BEANCOUNTER CREDIT CARD. He did NOT envisage some weaselly wee shower of bandits coming along and trying to tell him the goalposts have changed.

 

Mr Bean says, "Feck You, Stitchemup DPA. Either the rights AND duties apply to you, or NEITHER do. Make up your mind which it is to be, or shove your portfolio up your rather well padded backside!!!!"

[Seahorse]

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm going to write to Barclaycard to get them to tell me under what bit of law they thought gave them the right to sell on my account to someone else. I'm guessing they're going to be quoting the CCA 1974. In which case....

[louiboy]

Hi

 

I've just been reading my Cabot files. In preparation for the start of the summons serving.

 

In each of the early letters from the customer service people they happily quote their rights under the CCA 1974. They indicate they are serving defaults under the terms of the CCA 1974. They are contractually obliged to report to CRA, etc. The CCA is our best friend.

 

Nipping up to the top floor of Cabop Rowers and they are shouting it's the law of property. HMMMM!

 

What ever way Cabot are trying to spin this they are leaving no way out.

 

CCA offences clearly committed. Spin it the other way to the law of Property and there's CCA offences clearly committed.

[Rhia]

I have started a new thread re this but have alook at this as a group action may well be on the cards under the CAG banner.

 

http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/enforcement/group-claims/index.html

 

So as not to hijack Tbern's thread any further (brilliant read though innit?) Here's my new post please go to it and leave your comments there. Thanks.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cabot/77517-time-mass-complaint-about.html#post678991

[elizabeth1]

Hi

 

I've just been reading my Cabot files. In preparation for the start of the summons serving.

 

In each of the early letters from the customer service people they happily quote their rights under the CCA 1974. They indicate they are serving defaults under the terms of the CCA 1974. They are contractually obliged to report to CRA, etc. The CCA is our best friend.

 

Nipping up to the top floor of Cabop Rowers and they are shouting it's the law of property. HMMMM!

 

What ever way Cabot are trying to spin this they are leaving no way out.

 

CCA offences clearly committed. Spin it the other way to the law of Property and there's CCA offences clearly committed.

 

 

These companies / people have been so silly - they have repeatedly screwed up and have used "excuses after excuses" - and now they have backed themselves into a corner!!!

 

Time they held their hands up and admitted how wrong they have been??

 

I am amused with them and their excuses because these people never ever bargained that they'd see a day where people had the courage to fight them back - and now they are floundering in a big way cause we are not having the "fob offs" :-D

 

It's really time Mr M and his crew gave it up!!

[andrew1]

 

It's really time Mr M and his crew gave it up!!

 

 

Do you think they'd sell me their shares?

[Guest The Terminator]

136. Legal assignments of things in action.- (1) 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 (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice-

 

(a)

the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b)

all legal and other remedies for the same; and

©

the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice-

 

(a)

that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b)

of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;

he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the Trustee Act, 1925.

 

(2) This section does not affect the provisions of the Policies of Assurance Act, 1867.

 

Just I little problem using this section of the LPA is that for it to be effective a properly executed agreement would have to be in place.So if Carboot are using this then it is not legal due to the fact that they would also have to comply with S61 or S77/78( properly executed agreement) of the CCA(1974)

[ODC]

Do you think they'd sell me their shares? :D

More to the point. Would you really want them. Of course you could offer them 6p in the pound for them and then demand the company give you 100% on them plus charges or you will send the baliffs round:-D

[TideTurner]

More to the point. Would you really want them. Of course you could offer them 6p in the pound for them and then demand the company give you 100% on them plus charges or you will send the baliffs round:-D

 

Yep, they're in trouble - with the Banks! Aren't all of these purchased debts underwritten? If they've bought a load of white elephants, they won't have an income. Additionally, the comfy lifestyle they led before where nobody questioned what they did has collapsed.

 

They now find themselves with a huge overhead for administration costs just to administer / defend claims against them.

 

I'll give you tuppence in the pound.

 

Tide

[elizabeth1]

Yep, they're in trouble - with the Banks! Aren't all of these purchased debts underwritten? If they've bought a load of white elephants, they won't have an income. Additionally, the comfy lifestyle they led before where nobody questioned what they did has collapsed.

 

They now find themselves with a huge overhead for administration costs just to administer / defend claims against them.

 

I'll give you tuppence in the pound.

 

Tide

 

 

I RECKON WE HAVE A CAG BUY OUT AND GIVE THEM A PENNY IN THE POUND!!

 

BUT DO WE BUY THE "RIGHTS AND NOT THE DUTIES" AND SHIRK OUR RESPONSIBILITIES?? :-D

[ODC]

I RECKON WE HAVE A CAG BUY OUT AND GIVE THEM A PENNY IN THE POUND!!

 

BUT DO WE BUY THE "RIGHTS AND NOT THE DUTIES" AND SHIRK OUR RESPONSIBILITIES?? :-D

And sell them back to the debtors at 1.01p in the pound. Result debts paid small profit to CAG = Everyone happy

 

 

 

Except the DCAs

[TideTurner]

Trading now suspended due to unforeseen market climate!