Findings so far

[CabotFG]

Your theory may be correct in relation to other DCA's, however not in relation to most of the accounts "purchased" by Cabot.

 

I must apologise for the number of my posts tonight. Something snapped, when I read the remarks in relation to the Cabot Fan Club. I admire the time and effort they have spent researching. I wish each one of them, the best of luck.

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[CabotFG]

Boy, your not going to give in are you. Why are you so unwilling to accept that you may be wrong, when it comes to Cabot ?

[make them aktiv runners]

Elizabeth & Rhia

 

I apologise if you were offended by me saying Cabot Fan Club. I was jus trying to differentiate a little not offend. Yes, like FG I do agree that you have done a lot of research.

[make them aktiv runners]

FG, I do not care whether I am right or wrong. I just fail to understand the 2 statements in Cabots letters.

[CabotFG]

Here is another quote from Ken..

 

 

"Given that the majority of companies file their accounts on 31st December or 31st March, deciding how best to deal with the debt on your balance sheet is a major consideration for firms at this time of year. Debt sale is a useful answer as once a portfolio has been written-off by an originator, any value achieved on sale is immediately added back on the bottom line. This gives the lender certainty over their cash flow by allowing them to unlock the valuable working capital tied up in the sales ledger."

[CabotFG]

FG, I do not care whether I am right or wrong. I just fail to understand the 2 statements in Cabots letters.

 

The easiest way to understand it is, Cabot can't have their cake and eat it.

 

The statements in their letters are wrong and contradictory.

[Rhia]

Don't mind me guys (gals?) it's a great debate. Most illuminating. Better than the Oxford Union.

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[elizabeth1]

There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding in this thread.

 

To clarify, I will use Cabot as an example...

 

When they "purchase" a debt.. They buy it. They do pay the OC's money for the debt. Any money they reclaim, in relation to the debt is not returned to the OC.

 

If a DCA is unable to reclaim funds, due to lack of documentation etc.. They have an agreement with OC's that they can sell these back to them.

 

I appreciate that this concept may be hard for some to accept, but this is the way the industry operates. tbern, has already posted that he has proof of this in relation to Cabot...

 

tbern please , to stop this from going on can you please post your proof.

 

I think you will find that both Debt_Mountain and tbern have both already started legal action against Cabot.

 

 

Cabotfg - what you said above is clearly what we are finding from the original lenders.

 

Aktiv you said

"Yes there may well be a deed of assignment but if no payment has been made upfront and there is instead a charge then it is not an absolute assignment. Poor Ken must be getting rather fed up of the Cabot Fan Club not understanding why none of the Cabot companies are the creditor after all he does tell everyone exactly where to look! Bet he wonders why people love to write to him instead of exercising their right to deal with the actual creditor."

We are not writing to Ken Maynard and his crew because we love the "sound of his or their names" - this company are clearly contradicting everything we have found from the original lenders we have each dealt with

to date. I agree that Ken must be getting a little fed up - because his game is up!!!

 

The case I mentioned earlier - where Cabots were struck out of court for not having the relevant paperwork etc.. - is perfectly TRUE - I have no doubt about that persons integrity at all. CABOTS / HODSON's were actually given extended time by the judge to file their papers etc. THEY FAILED TO DO SO. I hardly think they'd be sat upon papers like this and getting struck out of court for fun? Seems to be they are a company who have been so used to bullying people who never knew their rights - and NOW there are people who actually have the nerve to ask questions - well poor KEN & crew must be shocked? Having to answer to these "rogue customers" who actually do have laws on their side - must be a first?

 

I think it's time this company held their hands up and took responsibility for the wrongs they are so obviously doing. Gone are the days where this company told people to jump - and we asked how high.

[CabotFG]

Again, I apologise

 

I just wanted to clarify and respond to your post:

 

"Yes there may well be a deed of assignment but if no payment has been made upfront and there is instead a charge then it is not an absolute assignment. Poor Ken must be getting rather fed up of the Cabot Fan Club not understanding why none of the Cabot companies are the creditor after all he does tell everyone exactly where to look! Bet he wonders why people love to write to him instead of exercising their right to deal with the actual creditor."

[Rhia]

The easiest way to understand it is, Cabot can't have their cake and eat it.

 

The statements in their letters are wrong and contradictory.

Indeed if their assignment is absolute they have no rights to process personal data for instance as that right (even if properly executed) will have ceased with the termination of the original contract.

Cabot states they have the rights but not the duties which under legal assignment is correct. So how can they keep registering defaults, sharing data, adding interest etc?

[make them aktiv runners]

I realise you are not writing for fun. Not sure about the OC though as it is possible they are accidently misleading you due to their accounting systems. If FG would answer the "creditor" bit it would help!

 

The court cases, I gave a summary of various questions which were aimed at any case heard about, not the one mentioned. For the one mentioned, your winging it theory and my finding a friendly court are both appropriate possibilities.

[CabotFG]

I think the previous quotes from the under_secretary and of Dr Roger Lucas, both clearly explain the "creditor" bit.

 

However

 

Cabot, do not want to be the creditor. As they are fully aware, this would mean that they have certain obligations. As long as they live in denial, they can ignore these obligations.

[CabotFG]

your winging it theory and my finding a friendly court are both appropriate possibilities.

 

Is your theory a "winging it theory" Rhia ?

[Rhia]

The winging it theory was Elizabeth's comment I think but seeing as how you've asked. Yes I think they wing rather a lot of things and it would seem they have, in the past, got away with it.

[make them aktiv runners]

Sorry, it was Elizabeth's

[CabotFG]

My mistake sorry Rhia...

 

See what happens when you have had 1 WKD to many

[elizabeth1]

Elizabeth & Rhia

 

I apologise if you were offended by me saying Cabot Fan Club. I was jus trying to differentiate a little not offend. Yes, like FG I do agree that you have done a lot of research.

 

 

I wasn't offended at all - different opinions are good to learn and reason with? I am smart enough to realise I may not always be right and my opinion isn't all that counts.

 

Don't feel that you offended me - you didn't.

[make them aktiv runners]

I think the previous quotes from the under_secretary and of Dr Roger Lucas, both clearly explain the "creditor" bit.

 

However

 

Cabot, do not want to be the creditor. As they are fully aware, this would mean that they have certain obligations. As long as they live in denial, they can ignore these obligations.

 

They can deny whatever they want in their own minds, but to make a written statement is another thing.

[CabotFG]

I am really finding hard, what point you are making.

 

Cabot are using sections from the LPA and CCA for their own benefit and ignoring the sections they don't like.

[CabotFG]

In an artical written by Mr Glen Crawford, he has quoted a source (the under_secretary) and this same source also confirms that Cabot become the creditor.

 

They have simply got it wrong.

[Deepthroat]

Indeed if their assignment is absolute they have no rights to process personal data for instance as that right (even if properly executed) will have ceased with the termination of the original contract.

Cabot states they have the rights but not the duties which under legal assignment is correct. So how can they keep registering defaults, sharing data, adding interest etc?

 

I have read elsewhere that they say the are required by law to report info to the credit reference agencies. Wouldn't this be classed a a obligation or a duty ?

[make them aktiv runners]

Tbern's theory is they cherry pick the pieces of legislation they want. i like that quote, it is rather amusing, but of course I like to dot the i's and cross the t's to include all the legislation!

 

rights & duties - well depends how you view it, for example right to collect payments can also be read as a burden, hence duty to collect payments (how can they bank it etc without performing duties). Just a thought, but as they claim not to have the duties, surely a simple letter saying "Sorry cannot pay you anything because it will give you duties that you claim not to have" would leave them with a problem.

[elizabeth1]

I realise you are not writing for fun. Not sure about the OC though as it is possible they are accidently misleading you due to their accounting systems. If FG would answer the "creditor" bit it would help!

 

The court cases, I gave a summary of various questions which were aimed at any case heard about, not the one mentioned. For the one mentioned, your winging it theory and my finding a friendly court are both appropriate possibilities.

 

I am quite sure the "winging it" and finding a friendly court could very well be part of this theory.

 

I just reckon this guy/company had better stop doing his Del Boy impression and start taking responsibilty - nevermind his calling customers "rogues" - I reckon he will need the "trotter" 3 wheeler sooner than he realises if that attitude is continued. But I must say it seems to be an industry wide thing and not just Cabots

 

Seems there is a distinct failure to recognise that things have changed in the industry and the "rogues" are becoming enlightened to their games - he has so much to lose by showing such ignorance to these changes. It has to be realised that this company as with any other DCA have to evolve with the times and realise that they TOO have to adhere to laws provided.