Findings so far

[Seahorse]

OK, I've finally had enough. It is my BELIEF that make them aktiv runners is DELIBERATELY disseminating contradictory and inaccurate theory and misinformation. The reasons for which I am not clear.

 

It MAY be that Aktiv truly believes that his point of view is correct. But he seems to be in a minority of 1.

 

However, the only other explanation i can think of at the moment is, Aktiv has a hidden agenda.

 

Now, I wouldn't normally come right out and condemn posts where the points of view expressed are totally at odds with each other, as I do believe in a healthy debate.

 

But where one poster is writing comments and assertions that are so at odds with actual research, findings and personal experience gleaned by other posters, then there IS no debate, and is simply gainsaying whatever each person posts. Dress it up how you like, what it boils down to is a playground argument of "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is"... ad nauseum.

 

Worse, I believe that anyone trying to make sense of the whole Cabot/Debt Purchasing issue will be so perplexed at the so-called logic of Aktiv and his meanderings, will be so put off from reading any other posts on the same subject, that they won't feel able to tackle the issue as it relates to them.

 

I'm not advocating censorship... But I AM asking anyone reading this to consider my comments, and ask yourself why one member seems so hell bent on contradicting everyone else. Of course, he might be right, and we're all wrong. So please consider that too.

 

Apologies if this comes across as a personal attack on you Aktiv. But in my own humble opinion, your ideas at best are confusing, and at worst are dangerous and misleading.

[tbern123]

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

 

I know I said that I was not going to post in this thread again, but I seriously can't believe this is still going on.

 

As I have been asked to post and to bring these debate in relation to assignment and if Cabot "purchase" or "buy" debts

 

This is a quote from my SAR:

 

75, 18/12/2006 15:09, Take a note : information - email recd from HSBC recalling acct and requesting purchase price. Replied that he has price.

 

Then there are various notes, were the account is paid of and returned to HSBC.

 

I am in agreement with Seahorse, I do not understand peoples motivations on this thread, but I would ask everyone that reads this not to be disheartend.

 

As I can confirm that money is actually paid, I hope the debate in relation to assignment is finished. I have not relied on my personal opinion, but on hard cold evidence supplied by Cabot themselves.

 

Remember was CAG is all about ???

 

RECLAIM THE RIGHT

[make them aktiv runners]

However, the only other explanation i can think of at the moment is, Aktiv has a hidden agenda.

 

.

 

Sorry but I have not

[make them aktiv runners]

This is a quote from my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request):

 

75, 18/12/2006 15:09, Take a note : information - email recd from HSBC recalling acct and requesting purchase price. Replied that he has price.

 

Then there are various notes, were the account is paid of and returned to HSBC.

 

 

FG did say most are bought not all. But that is not my point. It does not matter what anyone believes it is the discrepancies I am looking at. For example, your above case was sold back whereas many that are unexecuted have not been, in both cases people including yourself have been fiercely corresponding, does it seem strange that Cabot seem to be operating 2 different procedures? As you all claim to have a low opinion of Cabot and how underhand they may be, is it not logical to tell them exactly what is missing just to cover your own back?

[tbern123]

As you all claim to have a low opinion of Cabot and how underhand they may be, is it not logical to tell them exactly what is missing just to cover your own back?

 

Firstly, I think I can speak on behalf of most of the people currently dealing with Cabot on here, when I say.. We do NOT claim to have a low opinion of Cabot.

 

It is more accurate to say we DO have a low opinion of Cabot.

 

What do mean tell them exactly what is missing ?

 

I have personally corrected Cabot directly on a number of occassions and I am currently taking them to court for their mistakes.

 

Would it be more beneficial for me to design a training course for them ?

 

I think people might be a little more understanding if you explained your interest specifically in Cabot ? You name includes Aktiv, but your posts are very limited in relation to Aktiv.

 

People like myself, Seahorse, Rhia and Elizabeth are posting in relation to personal experience. This is a very sensitive subject, due to the conduct and behaviour of Cabot.

 

I think you may get peoples backs up as a lot and I do mean a lot of time and effort has been put in, my many members researching Cabot. There is a lot going on behind the scenes that we can't post about.

 

It does not appear strange that Cabot are using two methods. I have posted this on numerous occassions. They pick and choose what applies to them and when it applies to them. It is for that simple fact that we doing everything we can to help Cabot learn and put an end to this once and for all.

[tbern123]

is it not logical to tell them exactly what is missing just to cover your own back?

 

To cover our backs in relation to what ?

[tbern123]

But where one poster is writing comments and assertions that are so at odds with actual research, findings and personal experience gleaned by other posters, then there IS no debate, and is simply gainsaying whatever each person posts. Dress it up how you like, what it boils down to is a playground argument of "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is"... ad nauseum.

 

Excellent post Seahorse. I could not have worded it better myself. I know exactly how you feel:D

[tbern123]

Sorry Sarah, I know I said I would stay off here today, but I just couldn't help it.

[Seahorse]

You just wouldn't let it lie.

[Seahorse]

FG did say most are bought not all. But that is not my point. It does not matter what anyone believes it is the discrepancies I am looking at. For example, your above case was sold back whereas many that are unexecuted have not been, in both cases people including yourself have been fiercely corresponding, does it seem strange that Cabot seem to be operating 2 different procedures? As you all claim to have a low opinion of Cabot and how underhand they may be, is it not logical to tell them exactly what is missing just to cover your own back?

 

[elizabeth1]

It's because this company met us with such a "pick and choose - let's wing it" attitude that we have had to point out their errors?

 

This company have been so used to spinning yarns and winding people up over years - they find it hard to realise that YES the laws do actually apply to them too.

Poor old Ken & crew must really wonder what has hit them as they are at the end of their line now and they haven't any excuses left to fob people off with.

Surely they realise by now that they have made mistakes and they need to put them right?

[make them aktiv runners]

Firstly, I think I can speak on behalf of most of the people currently dealing with Cabot on here, when I say.. We do NOT claim to have a low opinion of Cabot.

 

It is more accurate to say we DO have a low opinion of Cabot.

Did not want to go that far in quoting you.

What do mean tell them exactly what is missing ?

 

I have personally corrected Cabot directly on a number of occassions and I am currently taking them to court for their mistakes.

 

Would it be more beneficial for me to design a training course for them ?

 

Perhaps it would be a good idea. There is little point in explaining, as you already have a low opinion of Cabot you should be able to work out why. Yes I do understand your theory that you should not have to tell Cabot what CCA says.

I think people might be a little more understanding if you explained your interest specifically in Cabot ? You name includes Aktiv, but your posts are very limited in relation to Aktiv.

 

Aktiv seem to be one of the better DCA's (if there is such a thing) which I am guessing as there is very little on here compared to others. The industry seems to be doing pretty much the same overall,but individual DCA's are approaching slightly different. Cabot (forgive me if I got this wrong) seem to be the industry leaders (or most hated to the likes of us). Also your threads are more interesting (hard to follow sometimes) and follow through stage by stage, ie there's not so much information on any other single thread.

People like myself, Seahorse, Rhia and Elizabeth are posting in relation to personal experience. This is a very sensitive subject, due to the conduct and behaviour of Cabot.

 

I appreciate that and it is nice of you to share your experiences. As you know I have offered little bits of information, some of which you have taken on board.

 

 

Rest to follow

[make them aktiv runners]

I think you may get peoples backs up as a lot and I do mean a lot of time and effort has been put in, my many members researching Cabot. There is a lot going on behind the scenes that we can't post about.

 

I do not intend to. Whenever I mention a certain subject you immediately jump in, in what I can only describe as a bully boy way (Tbern is right, no-one else can question). When you make judgements you must remember that I can only see the bits that you choose to post, ie I cannot mind read the rest. So what I see is a pile of information that is mostly released by Cabot, taking the same low opinion as you (and obviously not knowing what you have not disclosed) I can realistically only say that is possibly being deliberately leaked. quote]

 

As for the rest of yours & Seahorses posts, a bit pathetic. I was only trying to offer help but as you know it all I will leave you to it.

 

ps. despite everything, I am not vindictive so for the final time I wish you all the best for your court case.

[Seahorse]

[snlc]

Snlc, you make a very valid comment which may make it much easier for the Cabot Fan Club (my opposing theorists choice of name) to see my point.

 

Cabot’s letters state “purchased your account from”, they also state “rights but not the duties” and “we are not the creditor” My “opponents” claim that Cabot have paid for a portfolio of debts via a deed of assignment and therefore Cabot are illegally stating the other 2 comments. I find it totally incredible that they have not taken Cabot to court to prove their point without having to start off on the data protection route etc.

 

I am going to use Tbern’s example of a deed of assignment to show the crux of my theory, ie use “In consideration of the sum of (insert name pounds sterling value in numbers and words)”

 

Snlc, I appreciate you used the word “buy” , As I think that skips a step, I will use Cabot’s actual word “purchase” (well near enough).

 

What does “purchase” mean. To you and me it does indeed been buy, but what does the dictionary actually say. Lets examine in it in more detail:

 

 

 

1. To obtain in exchange for money or its equivalent; buy.

2. To acquire by effort; earn.

3. To move or hold with a mechanical device, such as a lever or wrench.

n.

1.

a. The act or an instance of buying.

b. Something bought.

c. Acquisition through the payment of money or its equivalent.

2. A grip applied manually or mechanically to move something or prevent it from slipping.

3. A device, such as a tackle or lever, used to obtain mechanical advantage.

4. A position, as of a lever or one's feet, affording means to move or secure a weight.

5.

a. A means of increasing power or influence.

b. An advantage that is used in exerting one's power.

 

I have used this dictionary but then any would do.

http://sb.thefreedictionary.com/purchase

 

So, after all that, the dictionary does not say that a sum of money must be paid before the “goods” are delivered. Neither does it say that a sum of money cannot be paid at a much later date.

 

Section 136 of Law of Property Act states “Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action……” Read the words in bold!

 

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.

 

Lets look at the Cabot Fan Club’s logic in very simple terms:

Bank X create a new company DCA Y and gives it money for all resources (buildings, equipment etc).

Contract 1 - Y has no money to buy anything with so Bank X give them some. Yes X pays X for the sale. Note, this must be done for an absolute deed of assignment.

X writes off the debt and recover a small portion of it by payng less tax. Result X (who lent the money originally) make a loss.

Y keeps any money they make. Result Y makes a profit.

 

Lets look at my logic in the same very simple terms:

X creates a new company Y and gives it money for all resources.

Contract 1 – X offer Y 20% return of any income they receive for a portfolio of debt, and retain 80% for themselves. Note, no money is paid upfront (absolute deed of assignment fails due to there being a charge).

X receives 80% of anything Y recovers and writes off the remaining 20%. Result X will have made a small loss against the interest element but not the capital originally lent.

Y make a profit.

 

Right, both methods work fine if X effectively own the lot as you could say it is all one big company. What happens if sold to a totally unrelated company Z – a slight inbalance X continues to make a loss while Y (now owned by Z) profit out of it. Would it be more logical for X to chase their own debts thus keeping any profit to themselves, or, alternatively did they sell the right business?

 

This I am afraid is going to be my last posting on this subject as I seriously do think I am hitting my head against a brick wall.

 

PS. If anyone can work it out and I did work in the industry, do you not think my job could have become rather insecure by now?

 

 

 

 

Blimey, I make one posting and all hell lets loose ! Aktiv, when I mentioned there were 2 sides I didn't realise it was like Chelsea and Man U. I thought fan clubs were for pop idols and footy clubs. :grin: Cabot must have some following!

 

Anyhow, I have sat and read this thread since my post and was really only trying to get a grip on the basics. I haven't the time to get as deep as the rest of them, but there are a couple of things you said I still find a bit contradictory. In the list of red examples above - it clealy states what your sentence following denies. I've been up in front or a judge a number of times myself for various misdemoneanours and they don't take playing on words by barristers too kindly as (I found to my cost). It's what is widely believed by the masses and what could be misleading that they are concerned about. From what you say in your thread it has more twists and turns and plays on words than the Artful Dodger could ever dream of - you'd go down mate if that's your point of veiw.

 

Another thing you said which caught my eye was your other examples, it might have been missed by others, ( although going by some comments I doubt it) but I am wise these days to little ' slip overs ' of words ( when you mix with crooks you become a better one from what you learn!) you glibbly say the bank GIVEs money - show me the way young man - I haven't found any bank that 'gives' me anything, you either sign up with your shirt and braces in a 'promisory note' or loan agreement/hp whatever or you stomp up the cash for it. Kid me not, a consideration of some kind be it promisory or otherwise WILL have been paid or made.

 

Anyway, whatever your argument, from what you say here you haven't a cat in hells chance with that kind of position in front of the beak.

 

Sorry mate your argument just doesn't hold water and will be seen for what it is. Just my honest opinion.

 

PS. I'm speaking from the point of view of a businessman. Despite my limited 'legal' mind, I have a lot of business experience and contracts have been at the core of it. Playing on words may carry some limited legal weight, but if the statements from these people who owe money and have researched is right, and I wouldn't mind using some of them myself as they seem very thorough in their research, I can't see Cabot carrying YOUR argument through a court. You have tried very hard to put a case for Cabot but I for one am not convinced. As a man who likes the GG's my money is with the so called 'fan club' - how do you join?

 

As a matter of interest Aktiv, would you happen to have a contract between the bank and a dca in your archive? You seem to be well versed in the workings of these outfits. I could take a look over it to see for myself. you can send it via the internal personal messaging thingy if you don't want to post it. Make interesting reading.

[CabotFG]

I was watching Little Britain last night on UKgold...

 

There was one sketch that reminded me of this thread.

 

Everytime someone posts facts or produces evidence which is contrary to the OP personal opinion, the usual response is no but, yes but, no but, yes but:p

 

I think the time has come to lock this thread, it is of no real benefit to anyone and only serves to increase the confusion in relation to Cabot.

 

I would recommend that everyone reads, Debt_Mountain's, tbern's and Seahorse's threads as these are based on facts not opinions.

 

Please accept my gratitude for everyones messages of support.

 

Have a Good Bank Holiday everyone

[CabotFG]

I think you may get peoples backs up as a lot and I do mean a lot of time and effort has been put in, my many members researching Cabot. There is a lot going on behind the scenes that we can't post about.

 

I do not intend to. Whenever I mention a certain subject you immediately jump in, in what I can only describe as a bully boy way

 

tbern, I do not feel that you have acted as a bully. Your posts have been factual and very informative, keep up the good work

[snlc]

Sorry, are my views totally out of kilter then?

[elizabeth1]

Sorry, are my views totally out of kilter then?

 

NOT AT ALL - seems you had the ability to see through the smoke screens!! excellent post by the way!!

[Rhia]

Any true “assignment” in the contract will only be of an Equitable nature. The “rights & duties” in their true meaning are and always have been with the creditor, and the creditor is the party who signed the CCA

 

I've been away for a week but wanted to pick this argument up again and ask ACtiv about his above comment.

I think you are saying really that the DCA has a letter of assignment i.e. a simple contract rather than a deed (which I suspect is more relevant to property). So this means the OC remains the OC under this agreement and the DCA gets 90% of any money repaid under their actions. So it is definitely an equitable agreement.

Just one query that's going around my head in connection with this. How is it that a DCA like Cabot can bring a court case in their own name. Doesn't it have to be with the OC?

Also in many cases the OC states they have written off the debt. If it's written of, then it is truly written off and should not be assigned for any reason.

This is getting very interesting. Activ I would appreciate your comments.

[andrew1]

Rhia, take a look at this:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/82992-deed-assignment-7.html

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[andrew1]

Quote from above:

 

"In the end I have decided that the bank must be sorting the debts out before passing on".

 

 

 

Aktiv Runner - would you feel there is a right or some kind of process that would ensure the Debtor was made aware of which 'package' the DCA actually bought the debt under from the bank? or should I say 'had the debt assigned' under and if so, in which format do feel the information could be obtained by the debtor?

 

I ask this because it seems a little unclear from the debtors point of view how these agreements/debts are defined and the consumer protected under both the CCA and the Data Protection Act. 'Transparency' does not appear to be a word one could associate these transactions with and as you can see from all our threads and postings there are a lot of 'laymans' views being banded about. Clarification would be most helpful.

 

sncl mentioned in his/her post above that a copy of an agreement between the banks and dca would be useful to see, I think he/she has a point.

 

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

 

 

Sarah.