Findings so far

[CabotFG]

 

Obviously the Wilson case is easy to find. How many of these court cases are also held independently and accessible to the public eg BAILII or CAB? Do you personally know the person who gave you that information? Is the information being intentionally fed from within the industry? What are the full reasons for the case being struck out (not necessarily the same as reported)? Are Cabot (or whoever) testing to find a “friendly” court (there are allegations on this site about another DCA and a certain part of the country)? Following on from the latter question, are they targeting areas where their potential caseload is high? I agree your winging it theory is another option.

 

Thought some of the readers of this thread, may find this case interesting. This is the one, that DCA's really hate..

Dimond v Lovell [1999] EWCA Civ 1311 (29 April 1999)

[CabotFG]

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?

 

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 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.

 

I am off to McDonald's to "purchase" a Big Mac. I will tell them that I will pay them next week.

 

Sarcastic example I know, but it clearly demonstrates the flaws in your argument.

 

[CabotFG]

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.

 

 

To quote Mr Maynard:

 

"Most purchasers are flexible in their approach to buying debt and will construct a transaction to suit the exact requirements of the seller, based upon one of two types of purchasing model. The first is outright debt purchase, where the client is seeking immediate value and therefore the agreed purchase price is paid up front at the point of sale."

He also said:

 

"The fundamental benefits of debt sale for lenders are that they can substantially reduce the number of accounts they need to actively manage and they gain the certainty and confidence of receiving an up-front cash payment."

In summary, Ken has freely admitted that payment is made to purchase, UPFRONT at the POINT of SALE.

This means that the assignment must be absolute.

[CabotFG]

FG, why do you not post the proof yourself. My only posting was to discover why Cabot state "rights but not the duties"and "we are not the creditor"

 

Being as you know all the answers, perhaps you would like to enlighten everyone else......

 

Mig Mac is a poor example.

 

Sorry, I have no proof

 

I said Big Mac was a poor example but you have to agree, I made my point

[CabotFG]

 

Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Mr Gerry Sutcliffe

 

 

He continues (boy do I like this quote):

"Under clause 23, a debt purchaser who became a creditor or owner when he purchased the loan would require a licence.

 

I have no proof, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Tade and Industry, knows what he is talking about.

[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.

[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 ?

[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.

[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."

[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 ?

[CabotFG]

My mistake sorry Rhia...

 

See what happens when you have had 1 WKD to many

[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.

[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