Findings so far

[elizabeth1]

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.

CCA - production of application form

 

This proves there is some paperwork, ironically the very first piece, are the chances of the actual CCA (a slightly later document) being there really nil? I guess it as a little to do with bank charges. Remember this request goes to trained monkeys with little understanding and via several people after, are these the ones who will make very convenient scapegoats later."

AKTIV

I don't know how I missed this thread - But I do have a question.

 

So if this company "really do" have all the "paperwork" CCA's DOA's etc. - then why are they wasting time and valuable resources in being struck out of court? There are cases where they were clearly asked to produce this stuff and didn't - it cost them money to do this obviously.

Surely if they are trying to bring cases to court - it's good housekeeping to have all the relevant docs to hand prior to starting procedings - this way if they get the "old rogue customer" who dares to question their legitimate papers - they could readily comply and push their claims through court with ease? I don't understand why if it's all running so "tickety boo" then are they wasting the time of the so claimed "Defendants", Solicitors and the Courts time within the court system?

Surely it's an abuse of the Court system to be trying to bring such cases to prior to having the relevant papers to support such cases?

Moreover, if this paperwork really existed - then why be "struck out of court" ? there are cases this company have tried to bring to court that were struck out because they never pre empted people would know their rights and ask questions etc.. So how did this happen?

I get the distinct feeling that there is an element of "winging it" going on - where they really take a chance that people will be scared rigid by the "Court Claim" when it drops through the letter box !!! Let's face it - we know this company are doing "Land Registry" searches on people to distinguish whether they be a "home owner" or tenant - from that sight of the LR - we can place an educated guess as to who has some Equity in their homes etc.. and who might be scared enough to go take a quicky loan or remortgage to pay off the Court Claim to avoid the CCJ ? This company are clearly "cherry picking" who they try pick on with their claims?

I am not convinced things are as "in order" as we are being fooled into believing at all - surely this company doesn't waste resources like this if they have the DOCS to come forward with !!!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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!!