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

[andrew1]

I've got a heavy week this week tbern, but you ain't leving me out of this one -well done matey !

[andrew1]

tbern, I've just allocated myself a tea break and couldn't stop myself browsing:p Have you been following this one with Lowell? cos it looks kinda interesting. Post 100 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/59677-re-assignment-debts-dcas-5.html - oh dear - back to work !

[tbern123]

Thanks Andrew1, I'll have a read of it later..

[tbern123]

Ok, I checked my bank account today...

 

Cabot Financial (europe) ltd have banked their cheque.. but Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd haven't.

 

I wonder if this is because the cheque was made out to Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd and it was crossed account payee only and that they have changed their name to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd..

[elizabeth1]

Ok, I checked my bank account today...

 

Cabot Financial (europe) ltd have banked their cheque.. but Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd haven't.

 

I wonder if this is because the cheque was made out to Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd and it was crossed account payee only and that they have changed their name to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd..

 

 

Should be interesting to see what happens there?

[debt_mountain]

 

I wonder if this is because the cheque was made out to Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd and it was crossed account payee only and that they have changed their name to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd..

Kingshill banked mine and it was crossed and also well after the 15/1/07. I have asked the bank to investigate.

[elizabeth1]

Kingshill banked mine and it was crossed and also well after the 15/1/07. I have asked the bank to investigate.

Makes you wonder how they did it??

[debt_mountain]

Makes you wonder how they did it??

thats why I have asked the bank to investigate.....

[PriorityOne]

I read on the Legalities thread that the bank can adjust the payee on a cheque.... I didn't think they could do this. Aren't we meant to initial any changes ?

[FANTASY CHARGES]

found this on the SCABOT WEBSITE

Why has my account been sold?

You may have stopped paying your account altogether or not kept up with the minimum monthly contractual payment. Your lender will usually have attempted to recover the money you owe which may have included action by a debt collection agent. Your account has been sold if a satisfactory response has not been made by yourself.

Why didn't my lender tell me?

You would have signed a Credit Agreement with the lender when originally opening this account with them. This Credit Agreement allows the lender to sell your account, and all of the rights under that agreement, to another company. They are not required to give you advanced notice of this.

You will normally receive a letter from the lender advising you of the sale of your account and at the same time Cabot Financial will send you a letter which acts as legal notification of the change of ownership.

What if I haven't heard from my lender?

Your lender would have attempted to contact you when you first fell behind with your payments. They may have spoken with you quite recently or indeed their attempts to contact you might have been unsuccessful.

Their lack of success has resulted in your account being sold to us. You should not therefore attempt to contact your original lender - they will only refer you back to us.

What happens to my credit record?

The lender may have marked your credit record with a 'default' at or around the time that you fell behind with your contractual repayments. This action may prevent you from obtaining other forms of credit. In addition, a County Court Judgement (CCJ) may also have been entered on the credit records in association with your account.

Cabot Financial work closely with the Credit Reference Agencies to ensure that your credit record is updated to reflect the payments made to us and show the actual status of your account at the end of each month.

If there is a CCJ on record for an account that you settle with us, we will provide you with the documentation for the CCJ to be marked as 'satisfied' on your credit record.

 

SPOT THE "PORKIES"

[InKogneeToh]

Hi

 

Yes, I have also seen something like that. I think it was an in-house DCA, Arrow Global who I think are listed as dormant and when the person had sent a cheque payable to Arrow, it was the bank (can't remember which one) who cashed it. They claimed that they were able to change the A/C payee to themselves!!

 

Regards, Pam

[lookinforinfo]

Priority One, banks cannot alter the payees name-but especially not when it

is a limited company that is involved. What they can do is enter anything on

the cheque that the drawer has not filled in-the date, the payee, the amount

in words or figures. But in no circumstances can they effect a material

alteration without the drawers permission.

[stan5131]

Just wanted to say, what a fantastic letter.

[PriorityOne]

Hi

 

Yes, I have also seen something like that. I think it was an in-house DCA, Arrow Global who I think are listed as dormant and when the person had sent a cheque payable to Arrow, it was the bank (can't remember which one) who cashed it. They claimed that they were able to change the A/C payee to themselves!!

 

Regards, Pam

 

 

Are they ? How convenient if they are !!

[PriorityOne]

Priority One, banks cannot alter the payees name-but especially not when it

is a limited company that is involved. What they can do is enter anything on

the cheque that the drawer has not filled in-the date, the payee, the amount

in words or figures. But in no circumstances can they effect a material

alteration without the drawers permission.

 

 

I was told they could. My in-house DCA is reg. as dormant/non-trading, but my CCA request was banked by them. It was clearly made out to the DCA and banked with their name on it - as have other transactions. The DCA has collected payments from me for 4 years on behalf of Liars & Leicester !! I was told on Legalites that this was ok because banks could alter the payee details on a cheque.

 

Sorry if I am hijacking here... but it ties in with what Debtmountain said.

 

I thought it strange at the time... but the advice came from someone with loads of green blobs !!

[PriorityOne]

Both are limited companies, by the way...

[elizabeth1]

I read on the Legalities thread that the bank can adjust the payee on a cheque.... I didn't think they could do this. Aren't we meant to initial any changes ?

 

If this is the case why bother with the Account Payee stuff - were open to all sorts of mishaps happening with chques then?? Something seriously wrong if that is the case??

 

But wouldn't it be the "company" banking the cheque making the changes? I can't fathom how they've got away with this as Kings Hill - Cabot's - not a "mere" typo is it?

 

I am very curious as to how this has happened.

[tbern123]

If a cheque is for a small amount, the banks don't even check the payee. In days gone by you could have written a cheque out to Micky Mouse and providing it was for less then £5k it would mostly likely have been processed.

 

Things have moved on these days and the limits have been reduced, but for cheques for £1 (cca) and £10 (S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)) the banks simply won't even check the payee

[InKogneeToh]

Hi PriorityOne

 

I got my wires crossed a bit in my last post - it was actually your case that I was thinking of - Global (not Arrow Global) - well close!.:o

 

It was A&L who told you this and I've copied the part from your thread:

 

With reference to the issue raised regarding why payments made to Global Debt Management Services (no mention of Limited) are banked by Alliance & Leicester this is due to the fact that Global Debt Management (still no mention of Limited) work on behalf of Alliance & Leicester as an inhouse debt recovery team and therefore use the same banking facilities (so, what's the advantage to you of doing that then, eh?...and, why do my statements show payments being collected by Global and not A & L PF ?)

 

 

 

Regards, Pam

[InKogneeToh]

P.S.

 

A&L are not saying which account the cheque is actually being credited to, are they!?!

[PriorityOne]

No they are not... but my bank statements show debit card payments going to them by name from 2002 - 2005.

 

Going back to the cheque issue though... even if the amount is small, say £1 - £10 to the in-house DCA or whatever, how can it get paid into the bank account of a creditor with a completely different name ? Can they really "share" bank accounts to this extent ?

[lookinforinfo]

Hi PriorityOne

With reference to the issue raised regarding why payments made to Global Debt Management Services (no mention of Limited) are banked by Alliance & Leicester this is due to the fact that Global Debt Management (still no mention of Limited) work on behalf of Alliance & Leicester as an inhouse debt recovery team and therefore use the same banking facilities (so, what's the advantage to you of doing that then, eh?...and, why do my statements show payments being collected by Global and not A & L PF ?)

Regards, Pam

 

Well there is no mention there that they are altering the payees name. In

fact all it says is that that they both share the same bank, so the payments

may well be getting paid into Global's account. In the recent past, it was

possible to endorse cheques that were crossed a/c payee only to be paid

into other accounts. But this practice was stopped a few years back with an

amendment to the Cheques Act, I think. But in the case of limited companies,

even without a/c payee only added, it should not be possible to endorse

a cheque from one limited company to another.

 

If you believe, or are sure that your money is not going into the account

that you have denoted as the payeee on your cheque, you could ring your

friendly Inland Revenue office and ask if it is correct that you are making

payments to a supposedly dormant limited company, but the company is

paying the cheques into the account of another limited company. If you say

that you are worried that the paper trail left by your cheques does not tie

up with the actual account it is supposed to, and you are worried that sometime down the line, they may come back to you and say they have no record of having received payments from you, and is this practice ok in their

eyes?

[elizabeth1]

If you believe, or are sure that your money is not going into the account

that you have denoted as the payeee on your cheque, you could ring your

friendly Inland Revenue office and ask if it is correct that you are making

payments to a supposedly dormant limited company, but the company is

paying the cheques into the account of another limited company. If you say

that you are worried that the paper trail left by your cheques does not tie

up with the actual account it is supposed to, and you are worried that sometime down the line, they may come back to you and say they have no record of having received payments from you, and is this practice ok in their

eyes?

There is a contact number of someone in inland revenue who is interested in dormant companies still trading etc.. it was by Bailiffchaser I think.

 

I t is posted further up this thread.

[saxon]

"Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailiffchaser

speak to this lady at hm customs and revenue about trading dcas which are dormant according to companies house.

judith sweatman 08707853833 "

 

 

Did you all see this post on the mass complaint sticky thread??

Could be interesting conversations going on about a certain "dormant" company who are still trading , writing to CRA's, trying to get court claims through court to gain money etc... :grin:

[elizabeth1]

"Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailiffchaser

speak to this lady at hm customs and revenue about trading dcas which are dormant according to companies house.

judith sweatman 08707853833 "

 

 

Did you all see this post on the mass complaint sticky thread??

Could be interesting conversations going on about a certain "dormant" company who are still trading , writing to CRA's, trying to get court claims through court to gain money etc... :grin:

 

 

Saxon - thanks for that - I am sure that was the post I'd seen.