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

[Rhia]

Yes I know laughable isn't it? It says on their stationary (and web site I think) that they are licensed under the Consumer Credit Act...another hole in their nonsensical ramblings

[humbleman]

So apart from chasing debts, do they actually offer credit to consumers.

[debt_mountain]

Is this why they are trying delaying tactics in complying with SARs. One more nail in their various coffins. I honestly think theyw ill be lucky to keep their consumer credit licenses when all these chickens come home to roost.

(Welcome back DM...been on hols?)

Not quite but a few other financial institutions are beavering away with my court forms and replies.... but thanks to HBOS (or was this one MBNA, Ive lost track now) I have booked up for Tenerife in June for 10 nights though.:grin:

 

I have been going back through my phone book of financial institutions who have paid out for the 6 years of charges and hitting them with a claim for everything beyond the 6 years, HBOS, Clydesdale, Blackhorse, MBNA, CitiFinancial sent a copy of the same N1 to each , then after a months or so I sort of forgot that I would then have to do the AQ and respond to the defence ooops.

 

Anyway back to Cabot, looks like both Tbern and my cases are heading a similar direction, delaying, rewite POC/defence and I am guessing the new defence I will get in May will be similar to the one seen by Tbern.

 

Tbern, watch out for the mediation, if they try that one I would hold off until we see how mine progresses, not sure how it will end. whether a complete waste of 3 months or satisfactory resolution. Luckily the court I am using is not the busiest in the land so a general wait for a hearing date is a couple of months so hopefully should it have to go back to a hearing it woun't have delayed too much.

 

From all the contradictions etc between defences and SARs and breeches etc I can't actually see mediation resolving this as Mediation, from what I can make out, doesn't give a final arbitration I can't see me and them agreeing on many points and it will take a judge to decide.

 

I am obviously going into the mediation with an openmind and working with Spencer to try to get all the required evidence for it on the table, then there may actually be a chance of a result, but that is only if they share all the info they need to share.

[tbern123]

Tbern, watch out for the mediation, if they try that one I would hold off until we see how mine progresses, not sure how it will end. whether a complete waste of 3 months or satisfactory resolution. Luckily the court I am using is not the busiest in the land so a general wait for a hearing date is a couple of months so hopefully should it have to go back to a hearing it woun't have delayed too much.

 

Welcome back DM, I thought Cabot must have sent the boys round...

 

I have beaten them to the punch on this one. I suggested this to them already and in his letter Mr Dean Spencer, has already rejected my proposal. So now it will be down to the Judge.

 

Good to see you back fella

 

When I suggested arranging a mutually beneficial settlement, i was told:

 

"The proper and appropriate forum for your "concerns" to be addressed is within the exisiting litigation follwoing the making of appropriate directions by the Court"

[ODC]

Welcome back DM, I thought Cabot must have sent the boys round...

 

I have beaten them to the punch on this one. I suggested this to them already and in his letter Mr Dean Spencer, has already rejected my proposal. So now it will be down to the Judge.

 

Good to see you back fella

 

When I suggested arranging a mutually beneficial settlement, i was told:

 

"The proper and appropriate forum for your "concerns" to be addressed is within the exisiting litigation follwoing the making of appropriate directions by the Court"

Yes and m'learned friends will make mincemeat of the Cabot Cowboys

[elizabeth1]

Yes and m'learned friends will make mincemeat of the Cabot Cowboys

 

 

That is the plan!!!! :grin:

[debt_mountain]

"The proper and appropriate forum for your "concerns" to be addressed is within the exisiting litigation follwoing the making of appropriate directions by the Court"

 

Was this in writing, as it would be worthwhile making the court aware that they don't want to dicuss settlement but want to use the courts time instead. Judges like people trying to be grown up about claims.

 

I think the pram may be missing some toys in the Cabot household.

[ODC]

Was this in writing, as it would be worthwhile making the court aware that they don't want to dicuss settlement but want to use the courts time instead. Judges like people trying to be grown up about claims.

 

I think the pram may be missing some toys in the Cabot household.

and hopefully some of the babies from the said prams may be lookin alternative forms of employment if they are not making mailbags for her majesty

[NailPost]

I was at a county court hearing the other day and one of the first things the judge asked both sides was if there had been any attempt at settlement before it came before him.

 

The judge didn't take the fact no attempt had been made by either side to reach a settlement too kindly, especially from the side of the defendant. He gave what appeared to be a prepared sermon on the topic.

 

All judges may not be the same but if there is written evidence Cabot don't want to discuss a settlement that should carry considerable weight against them.

[tbern123]

Was this in writing, as it would be worthwhile making the court aware that they don't want to dicuss settlement but want to use the courts time instead. Judges like people trying to be grown up about claims.

 

I think the pram may be missing some toys in the Cabot household.

 

lol, yep I have it in writing, from Mr Dean Spencer himself. So when I get to court I can show the judge that I have done everything I can to prevent it taking up the courts valuable time.

[tbern123]

As they have totally ignored the below email, can I take them to court for £10 ?

 

To: wwellinghoff@cabotfinanci al.com ; jmccluskey@cabotfinancial .com ; cbowyer@cabotfinancial.co m ; jrandall@cabotfinancial.c om ; kmaynard@cabotfinancial.c om ; bburdett@cabotfinancial.c om ; spratt@cabotfinancial.com ; erobertson@cabotfinancial .com ; cabotcustomer@cabotfinanc ial.com ; customercare@cabotfinanci al.com ; cdennison@cabotfinancial. com ; chepworth@cabotfinancial. com ; jhorton@cabotfinancial.co m ; kbruno@cabotfinancial.com ; mcristi@cabotfinancial.co m ; khanger@cabotfinancial.co m ; anewman@cabotfinancial.co m ; jadams@cabotfinancial.com ; mchellen@cabotfinancial.c om ; ltaylor@cabotfinancial.co m ; jkinloch@cabotfinancial.c om ; kschofield@cabotfinancial .com ; jparker@cabotfinancial.co m ; lgray@cabotfinancial.com ; ekemp@cabotfinancial.com ; rreynolds@cabotfinancial. com ; aarnold@cabotfinancial.co m ; fkent@cabotfinancial.com ; poverton@cabotfinancial.c om ; icraig@cabotfinancial.com ; lwelton@cabotfinancial.co m ; ghowes@cabotfinancial.com ; kearl@cabotfinancial.com ; dchristiane@cabotfinancia l.com

Cc: compliance@ico.gsi.gov.uk ; TSAdvice-SP@kent.gov.uk

Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 5:39 PM

Subject: Urgent Response Required - Please do not ignore this email

 

8th April 2007

 

Mr Ken Maynard

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited

10 Kings Hill Avenue

Kings Hill

West Malling

Kent

ME19 4LT

 

 

Dear Mr Maynard

 

 

I am very disappointed that I am forced to write to you again, in relation to the conduct of your company. As you are fully aware on 28 January 2007, as per my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, I made two Subject Access Requests. My first request was made to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited and my second request was made to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to refer you to the letter I received from your legal representatives Hodsons Solicitors, dated 20 February 2007. Mr Dean Spencer states:

 

“Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited is contracted to act as an agent for Cabot Financial (UK) Limited (formerly Kings Hill (No.1) Limited) Your subject access request sent to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited was passed to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited in order to process the request. We are instructed that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited does not hold any data to which relates to your request.”

 

He continues....

 

“For the avoidance of doubt we are instructed that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited does not hold any data about you. It is Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited that holds the data and therefore it will be that company which responds to any subject access requests directed to the Cabot Group.”

 

Following receipt of my Subject Access Request, cheque number 300064, payable to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited was presented for payment on 12 February 2007. As confirmed by Mr Dean Spencer, it is Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited that holds the data, so I can understand why this particular cheque was presented for payment.

 

You can imagine my surprise, to learn that Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd presented cheque number 300063 for payment on 3 April 2007. My letter of 28th January 2007, clearly states, that payment was in relation to a Subject Access Request. As Cabot Financial (UK) Limited were unable to fulfil my request can you please let me know why this cheque has now been presented for payment.

 

I cannot understand the completely unprofessional conduct of the Cabot Group of companies. I have already commenced legal proceedings against Cabot Financial (UK) Limited and I am in the process of making a formal complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, in relation to some of my other concerns. I would have thought that given the circumstances, you would have ensured that I would not have further cause to complain. Sadly this is not the case and I require your urgent response. I have taken the liberty of sending a copy of this email to the Information Commissioners Office and to Kent Trading Standards, both of which I will now be making formal complaints too.

 

Regards

 

 

Mr tbern123

CC Information Commissioners Office

Kent Trading Standards

[ivorbiggun]

Go get them tbern!

 

Some organisations routinely bank all cheques automatically regardless whether a service has been given or not.

[Seahorse]

Go get them tbern!

 

Some organisations routinely bank all cheques automatically regardless whether a service has been given or not.

 

Although, obviously not your £3.

[tifo]

I am in the process of making a formal complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, in relation to some of my other concerns.

 

I have been told by the FOS that they do not handle complaints regarding debt collection agencies.

 

"DEBT AGENCIES

These businesses currently fall outside our cover, therefore we cannot assist you in this connection".

[ScarletPimpernel]

I have been told by the FOS that they do not handle complaints regarding debt collection agencies.

 

"DEBT AGENCIES

These businesses currently fall outside our cover, therefore we cannot assist you in this connection".

 

Oh yes they do:

 

From 6 April 2007 all businesses with a standard consumer-credit licence (issued by the Office of Fair Trading) must – by law – have in place formal complaints-handling procedures that comply with the rules. And for the first time, these businesses will also be covered, on a statutory basis, by the Financial Ombudsman Service. These changes come about as a result of new legislation – the Consumer Credit Act 2006. The businesses affected by the new rules include:

• businesses whose main activity is lending and hiring
  
• businesses licenced for ancillary consumer-credit activities, such as debt collecting and credit brokerage and
  
• many businesses - for example motor dealers and furniture retailers - where consumer credit is secondary to their main activities.

 

 

FAQs - changes in consumer-credit complaints-handling

[tifo]

so shall i go back to my advisor at the FOS (who is handling 3 claims for me) and copy that text to him?

 

i also believe the above only applies to contracts entered into after 6 April 2007 so would not apply to a lot of the cases on this website.

 

i've also read somewhere that DCAs come under OFT scrutiny this year and the FOS next year on 6 April 2008?

[tifo]

received a response from FOS stating that :

 

"we only consider issues against debt collecting agencies for events that took place on or after 6 April 2007"

 

So ... no help with existing complaints?

[ScarletPimpernel]

A shame they don't make that clear on their website or literature!

[tifo]

yes, but it means anything the DCA does after this date and is a new complaint may be covered.

[Jeff2000]

yes, but it means anything the DCA does after this date and is a new complaint may be covered.

 

 

Yes, so just wait until they p*** you off again, then complain!

 

 

Jeff.

[tbern123]

received a response from FOS stating that :

 

"we only consider issues against debt collecting agencies for events that took place on or after 6 April 2007"

 

So ... no help with existing complaints?

 

 

No offence, tifo but when I saw your post, I couldn't believe it....

 

I called the FOS and it is true, contrary to what is on their website, they will only investigate events after 6 April 07.

 

Thanks for letting us know, very much appreciated. I had been waiting on a response from them...

[tbern123]

I am not playing anymore. That was the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

I have just sent this email to every name I could find at Cabot, the Information Commissioners Office and to Kent Trading Standards.

 

 

----- Original Message ----- From: tbern123

To: wwellinghoff@cabotfinancial.com ; jmccluskey@cabotfinancial.com ; cbowyer@cabotfinancial.com ; jrandall@cabotfinancial.com ; kmaynard@cabotfinancial.com ; bburdett@cabotfinancial.com ; spratt@cabotfinancial.com ; erobertson@cabotfinancial.com ; cabotcustomer@cabotfinancial.com ; customercare@cabotfinancial.com ; cdennison@cabotfinancial.com ; chepworth@cabotfinancial.com ; jhorton@cabotfinancial.com ; kbruno@cabotfinancial.com ; mcristi@cabotfinancial.com ; khanger@cabotfinancial.com ; anewman@cabotfinancial.com ; jadams@cabotfinancial.com ; mchellen@cabotfinancial.com ; ltaylor@cabotfinancial.com ; jkinloch@cabotfinancial.com ; kschofield@cabotfinancial.com ; jparker@cabotfinancial.com ; lgray@cabotfinancial.com ; ekemp@cabotfinancial.com ; rreynolds@cabotfinancial.com ; aarnold@cabotfinancial.com ; fkent@cabotfinancial.com ; poverton@cabotfinancial.com ; icraig@cabotfinancial.com ; lwelton@cabotfinancial.com ; ghowes@cabotfinancial.com ; kearl@cabotfinancial.com ; dchristiane@cabotfinancial.com

Cc: compliance@ico.gsi.gov.uk ; TSAdvice-SP@kent.gov.uk

Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 5:39 PM

Subject: Urgent Response Required - Please do not ignore this email

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8th April 2007

 

Mr Ken Maynard

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited

10 Kings Hill Avenue

Kings Hill

West Malling

Kent

ME19 4LT

 

 

Dear Mr Maynard

 

 

I am very disappointed that I am forced to write to you again, in relation to the conduct of your company. As you are fully aware on 28 January 2007, as per my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, I made two Subject Access Requests. My first request was made to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited and my second request was made to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to refer you to the letter I received from your legal representatives Hodsons Solicitors, dated 20 February 2007. Mr Dean Spencer states:

 

“Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited is contracted to act as an agent for Cabot Financial (UK) Limited (formerly Kings Hill (No.1) Limited) Your subject access request sent to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited was passed to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited in order to process the request. We are instructed that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited does not hold any data to which relates to your request.”

 

He continues....

 

“For the avoidance of doubt we are instructed that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited does not hold any data about you. It is Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited that holds the data and therefore it will be that company which responds to any subject access requests directed to the Cabot Group.”

 

Following receipt of my Subject Access Request, cheque number 300064, payable to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited was presented for payment on 12 February 2007. As confirmed by Mr Dean Spencer, it is Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited that holds the data, so I can understand why this particular cheque was presented for payment.

 

You can imagine my surprise, to learn that Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd presented cheque number 300063 for payment on 3 April 2007. My letter of 28th January 2007, clearly states, that payment was in relation to a Subject Access Request. As Cabot Financial (UK) Limited were unable to fulfil my request can you please let me know why this cheque has now been presented for payment.

 

I cannot understand the completely unprofessional conduct of the Cabot Group of companies. I have already commenced legal proceedings against Cabot Financial (UK) Limited and I am in the process of making a formal complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, in relation to some of my other concerns. I would have thought that given the circumstances, you would have ensured that I would not have further cause to complain. Sadly this is not the case and I require your urgent response. I have taken the liberty of sending a copy of this email to the Information Commissioners Office and to Kent Trading Standards, both of which I will now be making formal complaints too.

 

Regards

 

 

Mr tbern123

CC Information Commissioners Office

Kent Trading Standards

 

When I made my SAR request, I sent two cheques to Cabot. One was made payable to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited and one to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited.

 

This is a cut and paste from my on line bank account:

 

12 February 2007 Cheque 300064. £10.00

 

03 April 2007 Cheque 300063. £10.00

 

 

 

 

In reponse to the above email, I finally had a reponse today... I am now an official member of the WW received letter fan club.

 

"Mr tbern123

 

Re: CABOT REFERENCES etc.. etc..

 

Thank you for your recent email correspondence dated 28 March 2007 and 8 April 2007 addressed to our Cheif Executive Officer, which has been passed to my attention for response.

 

I regret that you again felt the need to write to Cabit Financial (Europe) Ltd ("Cabot") in relation to this matter.

 

Cabot has noted the contents of your emails, however Cabot on behalf of the Cabot Financial Group of companies does not accept your interpretation in this matter. As you are aware the case is currently proceeding through the usual litigation process and Cabot served its defence pursuant the Order made by the Court. The matters which you have raised and which are also contained within your claim shall be considered by the court in due course.

 

Accordingly Cabot has no propsals to put forward to you in relation to this matter. Furthermore I would wich to clarify that Cabot has not presented any cheque reference 300063 for payment on 3 April 2007."

 

Ok, both cheques, were sent by recorded delivery to Cabot. Both letters were signed for. I have tonight asked my Bank for copies of both cheques. As cleary shown on my statement, cheque 300063 was debited from my account.

[TideTurner]

Oh dear,

 

Me thinks this needs to be highlighted to the Judge asap. Looks like a deliberate attempt to mislead / defraud, and you have a paper trail!!

 

Tide

[elizabeth1]

Oh dear,

 

Me thinks this needs to be highlighted to the Judge asap. Looks like a deliberate attempt to mislead / defraud, and you have a paper trail!!

 

Tide

 

 

Tbern - I do often wonder what is in the minds of these people!!!

 

You can clearly show there is a "true paper trail" - it would be interesting to know what "kicks" these people get out of their misleading ways - because this would never wash with any judges?

 

They clearly don't intend appearing in court?? It's just a stall tactic ?

 

I reckon they just get their cheque book out and write you a nice cheque - time they stopped wasting peoples time ???

 

Either that or they've gone raving bonkers

[Seahorse]

Why are they now putting (Cabot) after their official name now, I wonder. Is it perhaps their standard on their templates to further confuse? In an attempt to convince anyone who hasn't yet had the cabot pleasure that it is just plain old Cabot they should be addressing? So if they get taken to court they can just say, "sorry m'lud, but we haven't a Scooby which Cabot the claimant is referring to. We have lots of little Cabots, so I suggest you strike this out."?

 

Or am I just being my usual cynical self?