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

[Rhia]

Ah welcome back CabotFG. Was just about to turn in but thought I'd say hello as all the gang is quiet tonight. Thanks for the info. And PM wlecome back too where have you been. You said "away" what the divil does that mean? Wormwood Scrubs?

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[Seahorse]

This is all as we suspected and is soooo good to have confirmed. There IS no physical KH/UK.

 

So, what you are AHEM, implying, is that it is Europe who continue the default with the CRA's? And this info is missing from our S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s?

 

Although, I do have [edit]

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[Seahorse]

Well, Barclaycard certainly have a substantial interest in our mates in Kings Hill.

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[CabotFG]

sorry

[Rhia]

Oh lovely FG partner. A disclaimer. That has given me much enjoyment. Thankyou for posting and we will look forward to your partner joining us soon Mrs Maynard (Joke!)

[Rhia]

As I understand things, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited (a.k.a Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd only exists on paper. Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited is the actual "working" company.

 

I think you will find that your data was never given to (UK) as there is no one there to disclose your data too.

 

I can only assume:rolleyes: that your data must have been passed directly from which ever bank, directly to (Europe)

 

 

CabotFG this is for when you get in from work. Just what (in your opinion) is the benefit of KH/Cabot UK anyway in saying they are buying the account? Why doesn't CF(E) do it from the start and save all the aggrevation. I would suggest that this conflicting company set up has angered most posters and set them against Cabot from then start. From there on it all goes downhill.

[humbleman]

Why doesn't CF(E) do it from the start and save all the aggrevation. I would suggest that this conflicting company set up has angered most posters and set them against Cabot from then start. From there on it all goes downhill.

 

the only reason could be as follows:

 

The company that buys the debt is a non trading company(or call it dormant if you like), if you at a future date decide to sue this company and were successful, you get nothing it a company with no assets.

[louiboy]

The tax benefit. Business Asset Taper Relief On business assets.

Cabot (uk) are holding all the business assets of the Group.

 

The 20% tests

Inland Revenue Tax Bulletin 53 - June 2001 helped to clarify the definition of a trading company and trading group by introducing tests to determine whether a company had substantial non-trading activities:

The “substantial or > 20%” test looks three factors:

1. Income from non-trading activities.

2. The asset base of the company

3. Management time.

If investment activities are shown to be more than 20% of any of these, then it may be presumed that a company is not wholly carrying on a trade.

Some more when I crack open the archives. Programme this stuff for the big boys. Some of it sticks.

 

If you had a large amount of assets how would you lower the tax bill?

[Seahorse]

So... if Europe is only collecting on BEHALF of UK. Where does the money go? If there WAS a debt to be repaid, it certainly isn't Europe who has any right to the dosh.

 

Although I wasn't under the impression that UK WAS a dormant/non trading company. Just merely that it doesn't exist anywhere other than in Ken's fertile imagination and as an entry in Companies House's register. Allegedly.

[Seahorse]

Here you go Louiboy. Take your pick...

 

[humbleman]

So... if Europe is only collecting on BEHALF of UK. Where does the money go? If there WAS a debt to be repaid, it certainly isn't Europe who has any right to the dosh.

 

Although I wasn't under the impression that UK WAS a dormant/non trading company. Just merely that it doesn't exist anywhere other than in Ken's fertile imagination and as an entry in Companies House's register. Allegedly.

 

this is where the term COOKING THE BOOKS come into play, when the debt is realised then it becomes the receipt of CF (E) LTD when there is a dispute it is referred back to the original lender. This way they ensure that the trading company is not at a disadvantage from any lawsuit.

[louiboy]

Corporation Tax Modules are missing. Never mind

The answer the Cabot (uk) is in the Corporation Tax system somewhere. It's of some sort of tax benefit. Had a google for Business Asset Taper Relief and other stuff that hurt my head.

 

(uk) has the assets

(Europe) has the people

 

Business Asset Taper Relief may be down the wrong path although it's definately in the right direction.

 

Is there a Corporation Tax Specialist in the house? Full set of Cabot accounts would be handy.

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[TideTurner]

All,

 

If it's any use.

 

I have had numerous battles with DCA's over the term of my 'problem'. Cabot were the first to roll over, albeit reluctantly, and by far the easiest.

 

My thoughts are they are so close to the banks that they are on fire.

 

If you let them bully you, they will. If you stand up to them they will will back off straight away.

 

They are in my little black book, and the board will be pursued for all damages they have caused.

 

Clever - Yes

Balls - No

Suspiciously close to the banks - Yes

Liability to Exposure - Yes

 

Me going after them wherever they may go (Spain, Buenes etc) Priceless

 

Tide

[CabotFG]

sorry

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[CabotFG]

sorry

[CabotFG]

sorry

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[CabotFG]

sorry