Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Shein has been linked to unethical business practices, including forced labour allegations.View the full article
    • Hi I have to agree with @unclebulgaria67 post#3 For the funding side of moving to a new area and it being private supported accommodation I would also suggest speaking to private supported accommodation provider about funding but also contact the Local Council for that area and have a chat with them about funding because if you are in receipt of Housing Benefit certain Supported Accommodation that meets a certain criteria is treated as ‘exempt accommodation’ for Housing Benefit purposes but you need to confirm this with that relevant Council in your new area especially since it is Private Supported Accommodation as each Council can have slightly different rules on this. If you have a certain medical condition look up the charities and also have a wee chat with them as they may be able to point you to different Grants to assist with moving costs and your question about funding for private supported accommodation as well.
    • Hi Just to be clear a Notice to Quit is only the very start of the Housing Association going down the Eviction route there is a long process to go. Also to be clear if you leave at the Notice to Quit date only and go to the Council claiming you are Homeless they will more than likely class you as Intentionally Homeless therefore you have no right to be given temporary housing by the Council. The only way that works is when the Court has Granted a Possession Order then you can approach the Council as Homeless with the Court Order. As for the Housing Association issuing the Notice to Quit because there investigation has proved it's not your main residence but you have witness statement to prove otherwise. From now on with the Housing Association you need to keep a very good paper trail and ensure to get free proof of posting from the post office with anything you send to them. You now need to make a Formal Complaint to the Housing Association and please amend the following to suit your needs:   Dear Sir/Madam FORMAL COMPLAINT Reference: Notice to Quit Letter Dated XX/XX/2024, Hand Delivered on XX/XX/2024 I note in your letter that you stated that the Housing Association has carried out an investigation into myself and came to the conclusion that I am not using this property as my main residence and have evidence of this and have therefore issued a 'Notice to Quit' by XX/XX/2024. I find the above actions absolutely disgraceful action by the Housing Association. 1. Why have I never been informed nor asked about this matter by my Housing Officer. 2. Why have I never been given the opportunity to defend myself before the Housing Association out of the blue Hand Delivered a Notice to Quit Letter. 3. I have evidence and witnesses/statements that prove this is my Main Residence and more than willing provide this to both the Housing Association and the Court. I now require the following: 1. Copy of your Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Copy of your Customer Care Charter (not the leaflet) 3. Copies of your Investigation into this not being my main residence.    As well as the above you need to send the Housing Association urgently a Subject Access Request (SAR) requesting 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase covers whatever format they hold that in whether it be letters, email, recorded calls etc. The Housing Association then has 30 calendar days to respond but that time limit only starts once they acknowledge your SAR Request. If they fail to respond within that time limit its then off with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).     
    • Hi Sorry for the delay in getting back to you The email excuse and I do say excuse to add to your account and if court decide LL can't recoup costs will be removed is a joke. So I would Ask them: Ask them to provide you with the exact terms within your Tenancy Agreement that allows them to add these Court Fees to your Account before it has been decided in Court by a Judge. Until the above is answered you require these Court Fees to be removed from your Account (Note: I will all be down to your Tenancy Agreement so have a good look through it to see what if any fees they can add to your account in these circumstances)
    • Thank you for your responses. As requested, some more detail. Please forgive, I'm writing this on my phone which always makes for less than perfect grammar. My Dad tries but English not his 1st language, i'm born and bred in England, a qualified accountant and i often help him with his admin. On this occasion I helped my dad put in his renewal driving licence application around 6 weeks before expiry and with it the disclosure of his sleep apnoea. Once the licence expired I told him to get in touch with his GP, because the DVLA were offering only radio silence at that time (excuses of backlogs When I called to chase up). The GP charged £30 for an opinion letter on his ability to drive based on his medical history- at the time I didn't take a copy of the letter, but I am hoping this will be key evidence that we can rely on as to why s88 applies because in the GP opinion they saw no reason he couldn't drive i need to see the letter again as im going only on memory- we forwarded the letter in a chase up / complaint to the DVLA.  In December, everything went quiet RE the sleep apnoea (i presume his GP had given assurance) but the DVLA noticed there had been a 2nd medical issue in the past, when my father suffered a one off mini stroke 3 years prior. That condition had long been resolved via an operation (on his brain of all places, it was a scary time, but he came through unscathed) and he's never had an issue since. We were able to respond to that query very promptly (within the 14 days) and the next communication was the licence being granted 2 months later. DVLA have been very slow in responding every step of the way.  I realise by not disclosing the mini stroke at the time, and again on renewal (had I known I'd have encouraged it) he was potentially committing an offence, however that is not relevant to the current charge being levied, which is that he was unable to rely on s88 because of a current medical issue (not one that had been resolved). I could be wrong, I'm not a legal expert! The letter is a summons I believe because its a speeding offence (59 in a temp roadworks 50 limit on the A1, ironically whist driving up to visit me). We pleaded guilty to the speeding but not guilty to the s87.  DVLA always confirmed to me on the phone that the licence had not been revoked and that he "May" be able to continue to drive. They also confirmed in writing, but the letter explains the DVLA offer no opinion on the matter and that its up to the driver to seek legal advice. I'll take the advice to contact DVLA medical group. I'm going to contact the GP to make sure they received the SAR request for data, and make it clear we need to see a copy of the opinion letter. In terms of whether to continue to fight this, or to continue with the defence, do we have any idea of the potential consequences of either option? Thanks all
  • 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

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

lol, no comment.. I appreciate that he has at least bothered to respond to me in a civil manner, without trying to brush me aside. Saying that, I will wait and see what his letters say first. Can't imagine I am going to like what they say. But hay ho :)

 

 

Sure is nice that he took notice and will reply to you etc..

 

Andrew - 4.44 ?? LOL :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

tbern, I have dreams about 4.44 - used to wake up during the night digital clock always said 4.44, whenever I seem to look at a clock it said 4.44 - for years - spoooky, honest... hope our Deans not the darker side of life coming into the open :-D

No that would be 666

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, Postie came today, bearing letters from Hodsons....

 

I have read the letters a couple of times and I now have a headache...

 

I will post the content and show the inconsistentcies.....

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

ok, Postie came today, bearing letters from Hodsons....

 

I have read the letters a couple of times and I now have a headache...

 

I will post the content and show the inconsistentcies.....

 

Inconsistencies from Shodsons. Surely you are mistaken. They are a professional outfit and you are a mere Rogue Debtor. They are always right:rolleyes:

 

Looking forward to you posting them I need a laugh

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, in relation to the infamous cheque 300063.

 

They say:

 

Paragraph 2

We are instructed that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited does not process customer data. As a result the payment forwarded to Kings Hill was paid to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited in order to process the subject access request for that account. Our clients deny that the cheque was cashed on 3rd April 2007 as alleged and we enclose a copy statement for your perusual. The answer may be a banking error.

 

I say:

 

This could be a possibility, as it is not unknown for a cheque to be lost then found in the clearing system. However, I am confused as I sent two cheques. One payable to Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd 300063 and one to Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd 300064. BOTH HAVE BEEN CASHED

 

They say:

 

Paragraph 6

This is incorrect. Mr Marsh was informed by Mr Wellinghoff that the cheque was not presented on the date alleged.

 

Mr Marsh said:

 

----- Original Message ----- From: removed email address

To: tbern123

Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:54 AM

Subject: RE: Cabot Financial Group

 

 

 

Dear Mr tbern123

Apologies for not getting back to you on this point. I have spoken to my contact at Cabot who states that they do not accept the cheque was presented by them.

I am aware that your dispute with Cabot has reached the courts and I would hope that this and other issues you have raised are dealt with. As I mentioned in my last email, most of those issues are outside our remit but I would appreciate if you could contact me with the outcome

Regards

Jeremy Marsh

I say:

So are they saying that Trading Standard lied to me then ??

They say:

1. Cheque was presented on 30th January 2007

They also say:

Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd changed its name to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd as you are aware this may account for the apparent confusion in relation to cheque 300063. That cheque was payable to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd, the cheque was accepted by Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd as the servicing company on behalf of Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd.

I say:

Mmmmmm not quite..

The cheque was payable to Kings HIll (No.1) Ltd and was crossed account payee only.

copychq.jpg

A seperate cheque 300064 was sent to Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd, so I have been charged twice for one Subject Access Request.

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

Oh dearie me more blatant untruths. Cant wait for the next instalment. Bet when they read this thread at Cabot Towers and see the picture of the cheque in question there will be underwear needing changed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this is where I get really confused and I need someone to explain this to me.

 

Data Protection Act

 

They say:

We are instructed that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited does not process customer data.

 

They also say:

3. Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd has provided all data processed by it. Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd (formerly Kings Hill (No.1) Limited) is the assignee of the debt and as the purchaser of the debt has a duty to report or continue to report to the CRAs

4. Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd does not process any data relating to customers, only Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd does so.

 

I say:

 

What ????

 

As the purchaser of the debt has a duty to report or continue to report to the CRAs. But and this is the real kicker, in the same paragraph, I am told that they don't process data.

 

So if they don't process data, how exactly do they report anything to the CRAs ???? (yes I know in acutal fact it is Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd, that reports the data to the CRA's, because experian have written to me and told me)

 

They say:

7. Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd is the licensed Data Controller and registered with the Information Commissioner. It is not relevant that Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd is also a seperate data controller for the purposes of the act as it does not actually process data.

 

I say:

 

Oh really. As much as I hate to say it, I can understand the right being passed to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd as the assignee to process data, but no rights have been assigned to Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd to do anything. So I think this is very relevant.

 

And for the record so does the ICO:

 

ICO say:

 

It may be the case that Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd has simply misinterpreted their role as a data controller under the Act. After all, Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd and Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd are both registered with the Commissioner as separate data controllers under the Act.

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

I wonder who the guest is that is reading my thread ???:rolleyes:

 

Anyway in summary, I have been charged by both companies for one Subject Access Request.:mad:

 

They say (UK) does not process data, but reports to data to CRA's (nice trick, worthy of Paul Daniels)

 

They think that it is not relevant that (UK) is registered as a Data Controller (begs the question, why are they registered then?)

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

Sorry this is a balant additional post to reach 1000 posts..

 

Just for the record, the statement they refer me to in relation to cheque 300063 is not a bank statement, but a Cabot internal statement. Clearly showing they receive this cheque on 30 January 2007

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

I wonder who the guest is that is reading my thread ???:rolleyes:

 

Guest gone now, just me and ODC

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

Tbern this sorry saga just gets sorrier.

As you are involved in court proceedings it might be useful to request further information under Part18 of the CPR. Using this request you can ask Cabot whoever to explain just how the account is assigned to UK. Once assigned to UK just how does it hop from UK to Europe for data processing (as you say a trick worthy of Paul Daniels).

Also ask them to explain how, if they have the rights (to the money and to sue) but not the duties (to process data), they are managing to actually execute these rights if they don't have them in the first place.

The Court would have to order disclosure but there shouldn't be any grounds why they shouldn't.

Of course you can also ask for disclosure on any other troubling topics including the cheque at the same time.

They really cannot keep playing fast and loose with consumer rights in this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest gone now, just me and ODC
No doubt the 'Guest' is reporting to his masters. When it gets to court subpoena the person who made up the bank lodgement and the person who actually lodged it along with their supervisors. They should have realised a L o n g time ago how serious you are. But with each pathetic letter they send they give you more and more ammunition in your quest.

 

As my OH says it takes a liar to have a good memory

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest gone now, just me and ODC

 

It could have been me. Had a quick look, don't always loggon.

 

Interesting that they still deny cashing the cheque when it's obviously been cashed by somebody.

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

The Cheques Act of 1992 was specifically designed to clarify the position

with "A/C Payee Only" cheques, as banks had been abusing the instruction.

 

So I am surprised that their bank is paying cheques from one limited companies

account into anothers-something that is illegal, regardless as to

the a/c payee wording. However I am not sure what you can do about it.

Nor does it appear an Information Commissioners Office problem, nor even one for the OFT.

 

Perhaps the Banking Ombudsman is the guy to go digging as I imagine that it

is not only your cheques that are being converted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can rest assured that if you or I lodged a cheque marked A/C Payee into and account other than our own the Old Bill would be at your door quicker than you could say Williem Wellinhof (crazy guy, crazy name)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they can, they run the gaff from their Ivory Towers.

 

They are in control of which cheques should be paid. They are also in control of which building projects, business funding, pension investments, insurance claims, stock markets, estate agents, private investigators, debt collection agencies, bailiffs, consumer credit, mortgages, loans, overdrafts, clearance payments, credit cards, direct debits, client income, client payment via branch or ATM, savings, and the average day to day running of Joe Blogg's financial life.

 

Wow

 

Tide

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point, both Hodsons and Cabot seem to have missed, is that they have charged me twice for ONE SAR.

 

They have now confirmed they recieved ny chq 300063 on 30 Jan 2007 and due to a bank error, it did not debit my account until March.

 

However, the whole point is that they should never have banked it anyway, as I had also sent a chq for (europe).

 

So I will go back to them with two questions.

 

1) Why did they charge me twice ?

2) As the chq was payable to Kings Hill, how did they manage to bank it, as at that time Kings Hill was a dormant company.

 

I will also remind them that if they don't refund me, I will be taking them to court for a refund of the fee (and report them to the ICO again !!!)

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

Well, I think I'm just going to have to set the cat amongst the pigeons and get Cabot and Barclaycard to fight it out amongst themselves. When I get home from this trip, I'm just going to write to both of them and tell them if anybody wants any cash, they'll have to convince me who owns what. And if they won't play ball, we'll let a judge decide. And I'll drag both of them into court if I have to, to sort this out once and for all.

 

This has gone on way too long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...