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

[tbern123]

Tbern my friend, you really need to get out more, you should be in the pub at the weekend not studying up on rights and duties....ok I am lying. What an excellent couple of finds, well done once more.

 

 

Lol very very true....... thanks DM, I am not going to let them off. The info in my SAR suggests, that they think as the HSBC account and the Barclaycard accounts have been returned to the originators, they nolonger have anything to do with them. But my claim is in relation to the time that they owned the accounts...

[ODC]

 

Mr Maynard CEO of Cabot Financial thinks:

 

 

"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."

Can someone tell him its now 2007 not 1925. We the consumers now actually have rights

[tbern123]

lol Welcome to the land of confusion Pam..

 

This is a quote from one of their letters:

 

"This letter constituted written notice of the assignemnt under section 25 of the Law or Property Act and therefore we have no need to provide a copy of the assignment deed itself"

 

Mr Maynard CEO of Cabot Financial thinks:

 

 

"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 can't find the post now, but we established that Mr Maynard was refering to s136 and not S139. However, S136 does not state that the duties of an agreement are not bestowed upon the new owner.

 

This misconception forms the basis of the debt purchase industry in the United Kingdom and as stated by Mr Maynard, if it is established that the DCA becomes the creditor, it will have an impact on this sector...

 

Now wouldn't that be a shame.....

[Seahorse]

Hi all

 

It has just occurred to me that maybe Cabot (and perhaps other DCAs) does only buy the debt from the banks/creditors and that there is no formal assignment of the consumer credit agreement.

 

It just seems quite odd that none of the DCA's seem to have a copy of the credit agreement for the accounts they are chasing. Surely if they had been legally assigned the entire agreement and therefore the right to enforce it, then they would hold a copy of that important document??

 

Please, Miss. Please, Miss. I've got one. Sort of. Not ACTUALLY what you might reasonably call an agreement, but I think it's the only one they're going to be able to get their grubby mitts on.

 

[tbern123]

Can someone tell him its now 2007 not 1925. We the consumers now actually have rights

 

 

lol, even though you say this in jest, you have hit the nail on the head. Since 1925, legislation has been introduced that may not replace the Law of Property act, but has more of a bearing in relation to debt, i.e the CCA 1974 and subsequent amendments.

 

I think that this will boil down to a matter of commen sense

[InKogneeToh]

Please, Miss. Please, Miss. I've got one. Sort of. Not ACTUALLY what you might reasonably call an agreement, but I think it's the only one they're going to be able to get their grubby mitts on.

 

 

Was that sent to you by a creditor/DCA? What is/was/should be where the blacked out bits are - ought or nought?

 

Regards, Pam

[Seahorse]

Was that sent to you by a creditor/DCA? What is/was/should be where the blacked out bits are - ought or nought?

 

Regards, Pam

 

Supplied (eventually) by my pal WW, Pam. Blacked out bits are as it came. All I've done is erase my personal details, and chopped off my address from the top.

 

And this is what they think they can rely on in court!!! Oh, my aching sides.

[tbern123]

Supplied (eventually) by my pal WW, Pam. Blacked out bits are as it came. All I've done is erase my personal details, and chopped off my address from the top.

 

And this is what they think they can rely on in court!!! Oh, my aching sides.

 

I presume the original had a dark background, which didn't photocopy very well... Now that is a shame.... Is it signed by Barclaycard anywhere ???

[Seahorse]

I was just wondering, tbern. In the bumff that came in response to your SAR, was there any mention of posts here on the forum?

[Seahorse]

I presume the original had a dark background, which didn't photocopy very well... Now that is a shame.... Is it signed by Barclaycard anywhere ???

 

Signed by Barclaycard? Oh, how you make me laugh. haha. haha.

 

OK, off to beddy bobo's now. More Cabot Capers tomorrow hopefully.

[tbern123]

I was just wondering, tbern. In the bumff that came in response to your SAR, was there any mention of posts here on the forum?

 

 

Not a single mention, but then again it is far from complete... It does refer to emails between members of staff and other companies, but no copies of these emails were provided.

 

One message from HSBC was them asking Cabot how much it would cost to buy back the account... Guess what ??? no answer from Cabot lol

[InKogneeToh]

Mr Maynard CEO of Cabot Financial thinks:

 

"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."

 

This quote convinces me even more that they are only buying/being assigned the debt and not the credit agreement! The fact that they are relying simply on the LOP Act for their right to collect indicates that's the basis on which they claim to have acquired the rights but not the duties.

 

BUT - unfortunately for them and whether they recognise it or not, the CCA makes them the new creditor by that very act of assignment and they'd better wake up soon before their premises get totally obliterated by an avalanche of CCA requests!

 

Regards, Pam

[InKogneeToh]

[edited]

 

Delinquent?? They ain't seen nuffin' yet!!

[InKogneeToh]

I presume the original had a dark background, which didn't photocopy very well... Now that is a shame.... Is it signed by Barclaycard anywhere ???

 

This is 1000000% an application form - no credit limit, no repayment info, no interest rate, no statements of rights and protections, no cancellation info. etc. etc. etc. etc...........

[ODC]

Delinquent?? They ain't seen nuffin' yet!!

Lets all go to Leeds:D

[Rhia]

Originally Posted by tbern123

Mr Maynard CEO of Cabot Financial thinks:

 

"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."

 

Has anyone been in touch with CAB's head office to find out more about their test cases? I'll try and contact them on Monday (their press office may know) and see what this unearths. However if anyone out there has details I think we'd all like to know more.

[Seahorse]

Not a single mention, but then again it is far from complete... It does refer to emails between members of staff and other companies, but no copies of these emails were provided.

 

One message from HSBC was them asking Cabot how much it would cost to buy back the account... Guess what ??? no answer from Cabot lol

 

Hmm. Might I be so bold as to suggest that they have not fully complied with your SAR? I thought they had to provide EVERYTHING that related to you, and if emails are mentioned, clearly those emails constitute part of your personal data too?

[Seahorse]

This is 1000000% an application form - no credit limit, no repayment info, no interest rate, no statements of rights and protections, no cancellation info. etc. etc. etc. etc...........

 

.....No terms and conditions, no indication that I authorise the sharing of my data. Oh dear, Barclaycard, it would appear that YOU may be in breach of the DPA too, in that case. It's a bugger, innit?

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Has anyone been in touch with CAB's head office to find out more about their test cases? I'll try and contact them on Monday (their press office may know) and see what this unearths. However if anyone out there has details I think we'd all like to know more.

 

Ahhha in that case and i know zilch about law then couldn't we ask for a "stay" (if that be the correct name ??) until the outcome of thes CAB cases ???

 

i am talking generally about anyone who might be taken to court by someone like cabot etc

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-612945.html

[tbern123]

I have been giving the reliance of Cabot on the Law of Propery Act 1925, some serious thought today. Something has really been bothering me about it, I just couldn't put my finger on it..

 

Anyway, I just had a thought and I would really appreciate peoples opinions.

 

By relying on s136 LPA 1925, and not s189 of the CCA 1974 they appear to suggest that the CCA does not apply to them... This got me thinking....

 

If you take a look at their website it states...

Cabot Financial Group

 

Cabot Financial is licensed under the Consumer Credit Act

 

Ok, I know what you are thinking hardly a revelation as they are a Debt Collection Agency....

 

Now the OFT, website states:

The Office of Fair Trading: Businesses requiring a licence

 

You are likely to need a licence if you want to:

• sell on credit
  
• hire or lease out goods for more than three months
  
• lend money
  
• issue credit cards or trading checks
  
• arrange credit for others
  
• offer hire purchase terms
  
• collect debts
  
• help people with debt problems
  
• advise on people's credit standing.

But surely, as they have to be licenced under the Consumer Credit Act, s189 of that act must then apply to them, otherwise why would they have to be licenced under this act and not under different legislation

 

Is it that simple ??????

[InKogneeToh]

Hi tbern

 

This goes back to what I was saying yesterday. It seems to me that Cabot, and probably many other DCA's, are buying (or think they are buying) just outstanding accounts and are relying solely on the LOP 1925 for their right to collect.

 

Relying on this Act, they are assuming that they do not need the CCA to be able to enforce a debt but will still rely on the original agreement (as proof of a contract just like any other) if they take it to court.

 

I think they have made a big mistake but this situation is again one that needs clarifying.

 

It will be interesting to see if the CAB test cases have/will establish any clarity.

 

Regards, Pam

[tbern123]

In relation to the three alledged debts, I have 3 letters reportedly written and sent to me by the originators, I say reportedly as two of the letters are identical word for word

 

(draw your own conclusions and remember as per my SAR info, they have confirmed that they will print things on other companies headed paper)

 

Anyway, the Barclaycard and Bank of Scotland letters both say.

 

We hereby give you notice of the assignment of the debt to us in respect of the outstanding balance of your ***bank name *** account

 

Now, the HSBC letter states:

 

I am writing to inform you that the above account was sold by HSBC Bank plc to Kings Hill No.1 Limited on 2nd May 2006.

 

This means that the effective owners of the above account are now Kings Hill No.1 Limited.

 

As per my previous post... The relevance of the CCA instead of the LPA is that s189 defines the DCA as the creditor

 

“creditor” means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor;

 

Now, I appreciate that the LPA would make life so much easier for Debt Collection Agencies, but surely the fact that they need a CCA licence must mean that they are governed by this act

[Rhia]

Credit licensing

 

Under the Consumer Credit Act, businesses that offer goods or services on credit or lend money or are involved in activities relating to credit or hire must be licensed by the OFT.

The OFT has a duty to protect the interests of consumers by monitoring the fitness of those holding or applying for licences.

In considering fitness, the OFT takes into account a number of factors carried out by the business or anyone involved in running the business including:

• any offence or conviction of violence or dishonesty
  
• failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act or other consumer protection legislation
  
• consumer complaints
  
• evidence of unfair business practices
  
• evidence of discrimination on grounds of sex, race or ethic/national origin.

The OFT can refuse or revoke a licence if it decides that a trader is not fit to hold one. Where there are substantiated doubts about a trader's fitness, the OFT issues a 'minded to refuse' or 'minded to revoke' notice. This is a formal notice letting the trader know that the OFT is minded to refuse to grant a licence or to revoke an existing licence.

The Consumer Credit Public Register is maintained by the OFT. The register documents traders that hold a licence and any action taken against them. It also details traders that have applied for a licence. Enquiries can be made to Consumer Credit Licensing on 020 7211 8608.

This is from the OFT. Of course Cabot must have a licence despite the fact they try and tangle us with their weasle words into believing they float on water. They wouldn't be able to do what they do without one. Perhaps a swift call to the licensing section will confirm?

[tbern123]

failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act

What more can I say ?

[Rhia]

P.S. This is why any one of us who has a complaint with regard to their practises and can support this with evidence should not hesitate to lodge a complaint with the OFT.

They won't investigate individual cases they need a number of complaints before they do anything and the frustrating bit is even if they do act they can't tell you under business confidentiality rules. However they will investigate if you have a case.