Findings so far

[make them aktiv runners]

Deleted - happy now Tbern?

[Sve]

I realise that I do not usually share the same opinions as some Cabottors. It is of course entirely your choice whether you discuss or discard any of the issues I have raised. What I will say is, whatever you decide, I have nothing to gain or lose as I have purely undertaken to disclose the above as a matter of courtesy and assistance. Nevertheless, you will at least appreciate how much time it has taken me to do this. Some of you will possibly be pleased to learn that I have decided to cease posting in the Cabot Forum unless specifically asked by the thread originator.

 

Did I miss something? Why the negative post? Have you got into argument with somebody?

[make them aktiv runners]

Kind of. Some say that Cabot must own both the rights & duties whereas my opinion is that there must be some legal framework that shows statements in their letters to be correct (albeit without the same knowledge, a little misleading to the consumer). As you can probably guess each time I raise the issue I get ignored, accused of being a Cabot friend or just told it has already been discussed and they cannot do it.

[Sve]

I see... I want to discuss this with you - can you explain where you are coming from and why do you think that?

[make them aktiv runners]

deleted

[Sve]

It does make sense. But also, when companies - or the original creditor - assigns the debt to another company it also must assign and the duties, otherwise the original creditor is condoning possible breach in the OFT guidelines and related legislative acts. What I mean is that by passing the right and ALSO the duties to the company assigned to collect the debt, the Law actually creates sort of a regulatory mechanism - otherwise what is to stop the DCAs to come into your house to collect money or harrass you (as they do) into paying the full amount NOW or whatever other awful practices they can come up with (read the forum and take your pick)?

I think, the 'transfer of the rights and duties' is drafted with this in mind - but then again I might be wrong...

The fact and the matter is that regardless who is the original owner of the debt - i.e. the creditor, there SHOULD be a credit agreement - properly executed. Otherwise I do not understand how you can delegate or assign the debt to somebody...

Imagine I am original creditor and you are DCA - if I don't have the credit agreement how do I prove to you that what I'm selling to you (or assigning) actually exists? By pinky swear? I have to actually show you documents that the debt exists (and application form does NOT prove this).

You do raise some points in your post and I wish that other people get in on the discussion as well.

[make them aktiv runners]

deleted

[Rhia]

What does work though is if the assignment is equitable and, irrespective of whether the hello or goodbye letter is produced, the other 2 conditions required for absolute legal assignment have not been accounted for in the actual DOA.

This is very interesting Activ so what are the two other conditions you mention here?

and...

Now the DCA concept is working in exactly the same way (except they are authorised to data process too and probably get a % of income generated).

 

 

This idea of the DCAs getting a cut of the data processing has been aired before and a number of us believe this to be the case. Richard Spud suggested serving a S10 under the Data Protection Act removing your permission to process your personal data would remedy this.

They are skating on thin ice though surely as many, if not most, of these so called agreements are nothing more than the original application form and there is no executed agreement then the debt is unenforceable and the data processing is being unlawfully applied. Do you think companies like Cabot realise that they are possibly staring at a jail sentence?

I see that only today Richard Thomas the Information Commissioner has asked for sweeping powers to act on the banks (and DCAs) to stop them using personal data in this way.

[make them aktiv runners]

deleted

[make them aktiv runners]

deleted

[tbern123]

Richard kindly explained to us all that there are 3 conditions that need to be met in order for absolute legal assignment to take place. The hello/goodbye letters are only one of the conditions contained in the full DOA.. As I have already said absolute legal assignment does not fit in with what the DCA’s are actually doing.

 

Hello all, I thought I would add my two pence worth

 

to quote from Richard himself:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/56819-deed-assignment-help-needed-3.html#post777598

"However, simply if the OC either sells the debt to the AC without giving Notice of Assignment to the debtor, in which case the sale will be an “Equitable Assignment” which in order for the debtor to be sued the Claim would need to be issued in the names of both OC and AC, or when Notice of Assignment is received by the debtor, the assignment automatically becomes a “Legal Assignment”, thus allowing the AC to then sue in their own name. Either way, a transfer of the title to the debt passes to an identifiable AC on the date the transfer document, “DOA” if you like, is signed by the OC."

 

 

 

So upon receipt of a Notice of Assignment, the assigment automatically becomes a "legal assignment"

 

I don't ever recall anyone actually being sent a Deed of Assignment. However, I do have three Notice's of Assignment from 3 OC's and copies of the subsequent Cabot "Hello" letters next to me,

 

I can't comment in relation to other DCA's, however in relation to Cabot as confirmed by Richard Spud the debts are not assigned by equitable assignment but by absolute assignment.

[tbern123]

Having hijacked a Cabottors thread (SH) on my first posting, I have decided to share with all Cabottors my opinions of what I have discovered to date. Some relate solely to Cabot but the majority apply to all.

 

CCA non-production

 

In some cases this may well be genuinely gone forever. Are they holding it back, perhaps to make you out of time for obtaining some of the illegal charges later?

CCA request

 

Why do they then request from OC if they supposedly bought it. Under Absolute Legal Assignment all correspondence would have moved to the new owner. .

 

When a debt is sold to a DCA by a financial institution, they are normally provided with no documentation. Absolute Assignment only relates to the actual selling of the debt. Before any questions this, I do know this for a FACT and this does not mean the assignment must then be equitable.

 

Rights & duties

These are still there but not where you think. CCA 74 applies to the OC as it never really moved in the first place, it just appeared so (they have just appointed some-one to receive monies on their behalf in such a technical way even their own staff do not understand)..

 

The CCA does not only apply to the original creditor.

 

186 Agreement with more than one creditor or owner

Where an actual or prospective regulated agreement has two or more creditors or owners, anything required by or under this Act to be done to, or in relation to, or by, the creditor or owner shall be effective if done to, or in relation to, or by, any one of them.

 

I am sure I don't have to also remind people that the CCA also states:

“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;

 

 

 

Assigned back to OC

 

This is the giveaway to it having been Equitable Assignment all along. Remember these debts are bought in full and the legal document covering the legal jargon alone will consist of a vast number of pages. Do you seriously think they go to the same hassle of assigning back one at a time? Easier way to look at it, if you buy a book and decide you do not want it, can you then make the seller buy it back?.

 

I am in the fortunate position of having both correspondence from Cabot and from the OC and the proof in my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) documentation to show that this does in fact happen.

 

 

AC using OC letterhead

 

The paper has come from some-where and I do not mean the bin. It is perfectly legal for the OC to authorise AC to use their letterheaded paper. The OC as “authoriser” is fully responsible to the receiver of such letter irrespective who wrote it or even if in their remit to write it. There may be issues between OC & AC over what has been written but without sight of the contract between those 2 parties, the receiver has no idea whether AC as acted within the limits it as been “authorised” to do.

 

I agree they must have agreement from the OC to use their headed paper. However, this opens a can worms. There are members on here that have had legal proceedings started against them by Cabot. This is in their sole name and the OC is not named as a co-claimant. So if the goodbye letter was written by Cabot on the other banks headed paper as per the LPA 1925 the assignment could only be equitable, this means that they can't actually start proceedings in their own name.

 

Cabot can't pick and chose which parts of the law applies to them.

 

CRA

 

There are guidelines they follow. Why do DCA’s often use £1 CCA fee as a payment towards debt? It extends the time taken to clear your credit file. Say a default was registered 5 years ago then it is due to come off in another year, adding another payment in year 5 suddenly creates another default and consequently it stays another 6 years..

 

A default stays on a credit file for six years, DCA can't reset the clock. It may be that they use the £1 to restart the 6 year period under the statue of limitations. However, as the payment of £1.00 is not an admission of the debt, they can't.

 

When you send £1.00, they don't actually pass this onto the OC, as the OC will give the DCA a copy of the documentation free of charge.

The above comments are based on my own personal opinion.

[tbern123]

Aktiv, please don't take my response to your OP personally. This is a forum and we may not always like what other people post, but we read the posts and then have the opportunity to respond.

 

People see things differently, this is the beauty of this site. I have learnt so much from the people here. If we all agreed, it wouldn't be so much fun.

[Sve]

There are so many things I wanna say right now but my brain is going on overload

Will try later...

[tbern123]

I would strongly advise, everyone dealing with cabot to read the following document:

 

www.b-mag.org.uk/memos/Cascading%20Memo%2032.doc

 

Take a look at their website B-MAG - Home they know their stuff

[make them aktiv runners]

deleted

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[tbern123]

You can certainly email and ask him.... I did a couple of months ago...

 

 

I won't post his email address here, but you can find it on their website

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[Rhia]

1) All sales must be conducted under the Law & Property Act (ie nothing whatsoever to do with CCA 74)

 

No, no, no. RS said that the LOP was just the mechanism by which the transaction is assigned. The CCA still applies.

You also said something about these contracts existing somewhere. They don't. There are people right across CAG dealing with different DCAs, different credit card providers and banks and it seems something like 90% of them have the same problem the OC is stumping up a copy of the application form (and this has been debated many times and confirmed by the highest legal sources) but an application form is not a true copy of the executed agreement. Hence many companies have actually been operating accounts unlawfully/ illegally and stand to have to refund all interest charged for the lifetime of the account and the even greater issue of having illegally processed personal data and on this latter point the Information Commissioners Office is getting very, very annoyed indeed.

I must also observe that this assignment talk was first raised by the Cabot raider (and you can call me a cynic for I am) but I think it's been planted as a red herring to divert the Caboteers from the issues mainly facing their cases that the contracts don't exist. And what the feck is an hello and goodbye letter? Jeesus. A myriad of Cabot companies have been used to confuse the consumer - deliberately in my view and they are also guilty of abusing the court system by bringing cases they cannot justify. I have read some of their claims and defences and they are skating on very thin ice and have been getting away with it until recently.

And the real biggie is illegal data processing without the data subject's explicit written permission (not given in perpetuity by signing an application form) and the rather wonderful prospect of Cabot and their ilk doing a stretch or losing their CCA Licence (or preferably both).

This comes down to a very simple principle, no executed agreement, unenforceable and no data sharing.

And before I leave for the night why does Cabot have a CCA licence if they don't need one ? Total and utter bollix chaps. Keep it coming Activ we just love a great debate.

[tbern123]

Tbern, looking at your own case, which is cheaper, paying the compensation you asked for, or losing it in court (travel costs, solicitors costs, court fees, your other costs on top of the compensation)? Whichever they chose to do, it would surely open the floodgates for even more claims so being a profit making institution they are going for the cheapest & least damaging.

 

This is the thing...

 

Either way it is going to cost them money.

 

They do have a 3rd option though

 

Settle this claim and the amount I have indicated that my second claim will be for and I would happily sign a confidentiality agreement and never tell a soul..

 

But, if they want to play. I'll play and I am having so much fun

[tbern123]

Can't you pm the answer?

 

 

Sorry, not on this one..

[tbern123]

(and you can call me a cynic for I am).

 

Ok if your gonna twist my arm behind my back

 

 

Rhia, you are cynic lol

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[louiboy]

Thanks for the B-Mag doc Tbern. That leaves me prepared for court next week with 4 aces in my hand. 1 up my sleeve another in my sock and it's my turn to deal.