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

[Seahorse]

THAT's where they have got it wrong, then.

 

He thinks that "debt purchase companies are not creditors". Well, I've got news for you Glen. YES YOU BLOOMIN WELL ARE!!!

[tbern123]

Now this is my favourite part.. so kind of them to even quote a case for me lol

 

In order for a debtor to receive compensation under the Data Protection Act, or to have accurate data erased, any financial damage suffered must have been caused by the data controller's contravention of the Act (see sections 13 and 14 and Johnson v The Medical Defence Union, Times 4th April 2006). Where, due to an accurate adverse credit history, a debtor is refused further credit or is offered a loan at a higher rate of interest than a person with a less adverse credit history, then it is the adverse credit history which causes any such loss as the debtor may suffer.

 

So as they have been supplying the CRA's with duff information, they confirm that I am entitled to compensation.. Thanks Mr GC very much appreicated.

[Seahorse]

I'm off to have a read all the way through. And I'll pop it in our Fan Club too in case it vanishes from their site.

[tbern123]

I'm off to have a read all the way through. And I'll pop it in our Fan Club too in case it vanishes from their site.

 

I save and print all their snipets... They make my claims stronger.. Thanks Cabot

[tbern123]

In response to this:

 

http://www.cabotfinancial.com/pdf/What%20does%20access%20to%20white%20data%20mean%20for%20the%20debt%20purchase%20industry.doc

 

I have just submitted a petition on the Governments website, which reads:

 

----- Original Message ----- From: "Number 10"

To: tbern123

Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 5:42 PM

Subject: Confirm your new petition to the Prime Minister - 'Restict Access to Consumers White Data By the Debt Purchase Industry'

 

 

 

Please click on the link below to confirm that you wish the

Number 10 website to display the petition at the bottom of this

email in your name.

 

Your petition reads:

 

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Restict

Access to Consumers White Data By the Debt Purchase Industry

 

The Debt Purchase Industry, want to have access to Consumers

Personal data, before they purchase a debt from a financial

institution. Legislation should be introduced to strenghten

Consumers rights for privacy and to prevent the Debt Purchase

Industry accessing this data.

 

Thank you for submitting your petition.

 

[ This email has been automatically sent by the Number 10

petitions system ]

 

 

Once this has been accepted I will post the link here and everywhere else I can think of

[tbern123]

Creditors and debt administration companies disclose information to credit reference agencies about debtors’ conduct of their accounts because that disclosure is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the creditors,

 

So contrary, to what they have told us before, they aren't legally obligated lol

 

The truth is out lol

[Seahorse]

Here's an interesting point. If, as they say, they are relying on the Property Act, then it would appear that we should not be challenging the original creditor. That's how I see it anyway, as per...

 

15. The reason that the debtor's consent is not required to an assignment of a debt is that the assignment cannot prejudice him. The assignment is subject to equities, which means that any set-off which the debtor may have against the assignor can be asserted against the assignee.

 

Would this mean that, if we dispute for instance, that the amount claimed to be owed is accurate, by way of having unfair penalties applied by the original creditor, we should then challenge the assignee (Cabot) regarding those penalties?

 

The whole thing is here...

 

House of Lords - Mulkerrins (formerly Woodward (FC)) (Appellant) v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers (a firm) (formerly trading as Coopers & Lybrand) (a firm) (Respondents)

[tbern123]

As usual Cabot have interpreted things for their benefit

 

There are also popular misconceptions about the rights and obligations of debt purchase companies under the Consumer Credit Act. We do not believe that debt purchasers fall within the definition of "creditor" in section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act, because they take assignments of the rights, but not the duties, of creditors under consumer credit agreements: they collect the debts, but they do not themselves lend money. We believe that the Government’s decision to create a new category of business for which a licence is to be required, namely debt administration, when the Act is amended in April 2008, reflects the fact that debt administration companies are not creditors for the purposes of the Act. (When explaining the new category of licence during parliamentary debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the category was intended to cover those who "purchase portfolios of existing loans and administer them".) However, the fact that in our view debt purchase companies are not creditors does not mean that they are not entitled to enforce the debts that have been assigned to them, or which, in laymen’s terms, they have bought. As a legal assignee, under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, a company which has bought a creditor’s rights under a credit agreement is entitled to sue the debtor for any repayment that remains due under the agreement.

 

But, as Cabot have purchased the account, they are not acting as a Debt Adminstrator.

House of Commons Standing Committee d

 

Cabot, you stand them up and I'll knock them down

 

Under clause 23, a debt purchaser who became a creditor or owner when he purchased the loan would require a licence. However, if the creditor or owner subcontracted the administration of his loan agreements to a third party, clause 24 means that the third party would require a debt administration licence. The combination of clauses 23 and 24 is important, as it will ensure that the OFT can protect consumers throughout the life of their agreement.

[tbern123]

Just for the avoidance of doubt Cabot, the above quote confirming that you are in fact the creditor was also from

 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe)

 

 

Sorry for all my posts, they have really put my back up with this rubbish

[Seahorse]

Sorry for all my posts, they have really put my back up with this rubbish

 

Hey, it's your thread. Blether on all you want. And very useful it is too.

[tbern123]

As usual Cabot have interpreted things for their benefit

 

There are also popular misconceptions about the rights and obligations of debt purchase companies under the Consumer Credit Act. We do not believe that debt purchasers fall within the definition of "creditor" in section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act, because they take assignments of the rights, but not the duties, of creditors under consumer credit agreements: they collect the debts, but they do not themselves lend money. We believe that the Government’s decision to create a new category of business for which a licence is to be required, namely debt administration, when the Act is amended in April 2008, reflects the fact that debt administration companies are not creditors for the purposes of the Act. (When explaining the new category of licence during parliamentary debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the category was intended to cover those who "purchase portfolios of existing loans and administer them".) However, the fact that in our view debt purchase companies are not creditors does not mean that they are not entitled to enforce the debts that have been assigned to them, or which, in laymen’s terms, they have bought. As a legal assignee, under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, a company which has bought a creditor’s rights under a credit agreement is entitled to sue the debtor for any repayment that remains due under the agreement.

 

The Under-Secretary also said:

 

Hon. Members will see that the definition of consumer credit business now covers businesses relating to the provision of credit by a person, or otherwise being a creditor. A creditor is a person who provides credit under an agreement or a person to whom the rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of the law.

 

The new definition ensures that businesses will need a licence even if they are no longer making new agreements. They will need a licence if they only administer existing agreements by taking over the rights and duties of the creditor. The same logic applies for the new definition of consumer hire business.

 

These guys make me laugh

[tbern123]

They should really do their homework before posting things on their website.

 

The article from Mr Maynard, quoted the wrong section of the act and this latest effort from Mr Crawford, clearly demonstrates that they do in fact have it wrong and are deluding themselves.

 

Can't wait for the next thing they post lol

[Seahorse]

Soooo. As (Europe) has been subcontracted by (UK), they are the 3rd party who require a debt administration licence, right? So in fact (if they DO have a licence), they ARE debt administrators. So they should have been ASSIGNED the debt. But they have not told me so, and have indeed told me that (UK) are the legal owners of the debt, and so are still creditors for the purposes of the Act? So (UK) are still committing the offence, as they are not responding to the CCA request. Yes?

[tbern123]

That is how I would read it.

 

(UK) is the creditor

(Europe) is the administrator

 

tbern123 is happy

[Seahorse]

Seahorse too.

 

Hmmm. Do we know if Europe has such a licence?

[tbern123]

I don't think that the role of a debt administrator comes into effect until 2008.

 

I guess we would have to check with the OFT, to see if they had a one or not

[Seahorse]

Well, surely that alone shoots their whole argument down in flames then.

 

This is MUCH better fun than the telly.

[tbern123]

It just gets better:

 

We do not believe that debt purchasers fall within the definition of "creditor" in section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act, because they take assignments of the rights, but not the duties, of creditors under consumer credit agreements: they collect the debts, but they do not themselves lend money.

 

Have they actually read the act ???? A Creditor is not just someone that lends money

[tbern123]

My personal favourite

 

It is just a shame that there appear to be so many debtors, and apparently advice agencies, keen to frustrate attempts by legitimate businesses to seek payment of bona fide, and usually undisputed debts.

 

No comment needed on this one:D

[FANTASY CHARGES]

They should really do their homework before posting things on their website.

 

The article from Mr Maynard, quoted the wrong section of the act and this latest effort from Mr Crawford, clearly demonstrates that they do in fact have it wrong and are deluding themselves.

 

Can't wait for the next thing they post lol

 

do a printout of the page and it is also to save the page that is displayed ion the internet ........ save it on a cdrom then it can't be overwritten

[tbern123]

Don't forget the one on wednesday about banks....

[Seahorse]

Saved on my server too, FC. As will all my useful little bits and bobs in the future. Bulletproof even if my house burns down, then.

[InKogneeToh]

As usual Cabot have interpreted things for their benefit

 

There are also popular misconceptions about the rights and obligations of debt purchase companies under the Consumer Credit Act. We do not believe that debt purchasers fall within the definition of "creditor" in section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act, because they take assignments of the rights, but not the duties, of creditors under consumer credit agreements: they collect the debts, but they do not themselves lend money. We believe that the Government’s decision to create a new category of business for which a licence is to be required, namely debt administration, when the Act is amended in April 2008, reflects the fact that debt administration companies are not creditors for the purposes of the Act. (When explaining the new category of licence during parliamentary debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the category was intended to cover those who "purchase portfolios of existing loans and administer them".) However, the fact that in our view debt purchase companies are not creditors does not mean that they are not entitled to enforce the debts that have been assigned to them, or which, in laymen’s terms, they have bought. As a legal assignee, under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, a company which has bought a creditor’s rights under a credit agreement is entitled to sue the debtor for any repayment that remains due under the agreement.

 

But, as Cabot have purchased the account, they are not acting as a Debt Adminstrator.

House of Commons Standing Committee d

 

Cabot, you stand them up and I'll knock them down

 

Under clause 23, a debt purchaser who became a creditor or owner when he purchased the loan would require a licence. However, if the creditor or owner subcontracted the administration of his loan agreements to a third party, clause 24 means that the third party would require a debt administration licence. The combination of clauses 23 and 24 is important, as it will ensure that the OFT can protect consumers throughout the life of their agreement.

 

Tbern, you're a diamond!!!:D

 

Get them on the hook - I want to see them squirm!!

[InKogneeToh]

Hi

 

I tried to give you some well earned rep. tbern but it seems I have to spread my 'lurv' around a bit first!

 

Regards, Pam

[tbern123]

Hi

 

I tried to give you some well earned rep. tbern but it seems I have to spread my 'lurv' around a bit first!

 

Regards, Pam

 

lol thanks Pam

 

I am used to not getting any love... Enough about my personal life, back to working on Cabot