Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Schipoo and thanks for the update. This is a brilliant result as rergards your fight with HMRC. If you can manage a Donation to the site, it would be greatly appreciated. Let us know how it goes as regards the fees being sought by Independant Tax.
    • A never ending torrent of **it Outrage as ‘tidal wave’ of sewage floods historic market town’s unique chalk river WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Exclusive: Water firm pumps sewage into river Misbourne, Amersham on 21 ‘dry days’ during nearly five month period  
    • Worth noting that all of these firms - either the alleged EIS investment, the rebate company themselves or the payee were all registered to the same address. Clavering House is 3 miles away from HMRC Benton Park view offices.   Wardrop - unfortunately unsuccessful due to late appeal - assessments opened by HMRC in March 2019. Scammed by Richard Hall (Capital allowances consultants ltd - Clavering House) investments into Cryoblast Limited 15/16 (Paul Huggins - Clavering House) and Eco Cooling solutions 16/17 (Anthony Fitches - Clavering House).    Mccuminsky - scammed by Capital Allowances after providing his details to Stefan Brown Alpha Tax Consultants (Clavering House) payment made to Eco Cooling Solutions.    Robson - scammed by Capital Allowances - 15/16 paid to Cryoblast 16/17 paid to Eco Cooling.    Myself - scammed by Allan Maxwell - MaxTax (other business Maxwell electronics) registered to Clavering House.   Cryoblast Solutions and Fast Tax - Alan O’Hara    Please note there are two Cryoblasts involved - Cryoblast limited (Paul Huggins and Clavering House) and Cryoblast Solutions Limited (Alan O’Hara also director of Fast Tax).    My return simply said “Cryoblast” another thing that should have been clarified as part of HMRC guidelines before paying out the claim.    Cryoblast limited was already suspected to be involved in fraudulent claims before my investment as Huntly had open assessments issued in November 2018.    Cryoblast Solutions, the same company director as Fast Tax where my money was sent was dissolved before my claims were submitted. 
    • On the d-day issue, * we know sunaks shameful self-interest preferring a hope at using lies for self-promotion over honoring our heroes, * we know Starmer demonstrated his statesmanship with other statesmen and women,  ** BUT where was Farage? Was he in a pub looking for self-promotion? .. Surely as a wannabe statesman - he should have spent a bit of his (someone elses?) cash attending the ceremonies? or wasn't he offered a seat near enough the front to interest him?   mind you .. "I said I wanted my county back. Well now I want my life back ... I am not a career politician... I won't be changing my mind again, I promise you" - Nigel Farage, stepping down from public life. 5 July 2016  
    • dont need them.   let the defendant play the terms game
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

1970 vc Cabot YES, THEY ARE TAKING ME TO COURT


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5759 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

CF (UK) Ltd doesn't have an associated company, KH (No1) Ltd.

 

Kings Hill was the name used prior to 15th January 2007, when they changed their name to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited. They are in essence, one and the same company: only the name has changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Seahorse,

 

I did some research on this.

 

CF UK Ltd became Kings Hill No1 Ltd and Kings Hill No1 Ltd became CF UK Ltd.

 

Basically there are two companies in existance and they both swapped names on the same day. Check companies house - very bizarre.

 

With the claim form I received, the claimant is CF UK Ltd and the statement of truth is signed by Kings Hil No1 Ltd.

 

Cheers,

 

1970.

It's going to be an interesting year...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bizarre indeed. Until you do some more research and discover that 15 January 2007 is significant for another reason. Although I wouldn't like you to infer anything from the coincidence in dates.

 

But Yes, they DID swap names. So now Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ARE the proud owners of anything bought under the name, Kings Hill (No 1) Limited.

 

What date did Kings Hill sign the statement of truth? I'm wondering if they have merely got themselves confused and used the wrong template. I'm not too sure that there would be anything in your favour if they have slipped up like this. But maybe I'm wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the claim form about 6 weeks ago. Not sure why they are quoting both companies. When I got a letter from the local court to say the case had been moved there, in the claimant box it had both companies listed against me the defendant.

It's going to be an interesting year...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Seahorse,

 

I did some research on this.

 

CF UK Ltd became Kings Hill No1 Ltd and Kings Hill No1 Ltd became CF UK Ltd.

 

Basically there are two companies in existance and they both swapped names on the same day. Check companies house - very bizarre.

 

With the claim form I received, the claimant is CF UK Ltd and the statement of truth is signed by Kings Hil No1 Ltd.

 

Cheers,

 

1970.

 

Sorry to but in...

 

Trust me, Seahorse has done more then his fair share of research.

 

Please do not let their delibrate attempts to confuse you work. Seahorse is 100% correct.

 

Kings Hill and Cabot (UK) are two different companies, they only exchanged names. That did not link them.

 

It would be like us exchanging names, it would not mean that you was me or vice versa and it would not even make us related.

Remember if you find anything I say helpful, please click the scales

 

 

tbern123 vs Cabot

  1. Cabot again !!! Urgent Help Needed
  2. Litigation - tbern123 V Cabot Financial (Uk) Limited
  3. No more calls from Cabot... lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree and I wish to get to the bottom of how they think they can talk to each other about me...

 

1970

It's going to be an interesting year...

Link to post
Share on other sites

What you SHOULD be asking is, hang on a minute. I've just had a thought. Bear with me a minute, while I type as I think.

 

OC sells account to Kings Hill (no 1) Ltd. KH owns account.

 

KH allows Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd to administer the account, and all data goes to them.

 

KH changes name to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd.

 

Debtor SAR's Cabot (UK) and Cabot (Europe) Only Cabot (Europe) apparently have data; Cabot (UK) does not hold any data according to Europe. £10 SAR fee is returned. (Yes, we also wonder how UK can pass data to Europe if they don't process any.)

 

However. What If Kings Hill (No 1) Limited, as they stand now, were to be SAR'd? Yes, they are a dormant company. But I am wondering if it will open a whole new can of worms??????????

 

I think I need to check if they are still registered as Data Controllers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Checked it out and they are listed as Dormant??????? What is a legal definition of Dormant?

 

Answer to that question is here : Dormant Company & Non-Trading Company - Accounts of Dormant Company for Filing Purposes: Why Have a Dormant Company? What is the Difference Between a Non-Trading Company and a Dormant Company

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that pmhcfc. very informative. 05:18 you are an early bird!!

 

Well, what can I say -- I hadn't gotten tired so stayed up looking for ways to annoy Cabot...Sorry, I mean to check Cabot were doing things ethically, as they keep telling people they do -- think hell might freeze over before that happens.

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got a letter from the court this morning:

 

Upon reading the court file it is ordered that the claim be stayed as it makes no serious attempt to comply with CPR 16.4 (1) by setting out a concise statement of the facts. (Stylised particulars do not constitute compliance.) The claimant must amend or substitute its particulars of claim setting out the claimants case in plain English by 4pm on 2nd August 2007 and in default, the claim be struck out without further notice.

 

Cheers,

1970

It's going to be an interesting year...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got a letter from the court this morning:

 

Upon reading the court file it is ordered that the claim be stayed as it makes no serious attempt to comply with CPR 16.4 (1) by setting out a concise statement of the facts. (Stylised particulars to not constitute compliance.) The claimant must amend or substitute its particulars of claim setting out the claimants case in plain English by 4pm on 2nd August 2007 an in default, the claim be struck out without further notice.

 

Cheers,

1970

 

Gee... Bet Cabot are enjoying that order:)

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll have to find someone who can write properly pronto!:)

 

Do you think that they might come on here and ask for help!!!:o

 

 

Jeff.

 

 

I'll give it a try:

 

 

We feel that the dirty, evil rogue debtor should pay up, because we paid £300 for the debt and didn't agree to follow any of the terms of agreement, and we are above the relevant regulatory law.

 

The fact that the debt included horendous penalty charges, and that we can't supply any information on the debt, and haven't even checked if the defendant has commited any breach of the terms of the agreement, we feel, should have no bearing on the case.

 

Our complete disregard for the requirements of the pre-Action protocol also, should be ignored.

 

Since we are only the owners of the benefit of a contract we have never actually read, under an obscure statute that we haven't that expressly deals only with absolute assignment of all rights and benefits of a thing in action, we feel there is no burden on us to prove any of our claims. P.S. we didn't expect the bar steward to actually file a defence.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give it a try:

 

 

We feel that the dirty, evil rogue debtor should pay up, because we paid £300 for the debt and didn't agree to follow any of the terms of agreement, and we are above the relevant regulatory law.

 

The fact that the debt included horendous penalty charges, and that we can't supply any information on the debt, and haven't even checked if the defendant has commited any breach of the terms of the agreement, we feel, should have no bearing on the case.

 

Our complete disregard for the requirements of the pre-Action protocol also, should be ignored.

 

Since we are only the owners of the benefit of a contract we have never actually read, under an obscure statute that we haven't that expressly deals only with absolute assignment of all rights and benefits of a thing in action, we feel there is no burden on us to prove any of our claims. P.S. we didn't expect the bar steward to actually file a defence.

 

 

 

We'll have to start a template section for DCA's now.:D

 

That can be the first one to go in!

 

 

Jeff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subcribing, Good Luck 1970:D

LTSB court date 25/7/07

17/7/07 I WON I WON I WON!!!!:p :grin:

HSBC court date 11/9/07 (stayed)

CapOne lba 7/1/08-15/3/08 WON.

Citicards lba 14/1/08

 

Read Read and Read Some:razz: More

 

If I've been helpful in anyway please tip my scales:rolleyes:

 

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Seek the advice of an insured qualified professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's they don't reply and it gets slung out.

 

Do I have a counterclaim? Both creditors have failed to produce a credit agreement so far. One has not responded to the sar and the other has partially responded and sent me about 50 pages of screen prints that say the same thing on every page - a single line just showing a total balance.

 

It seems also that none of them have my consent to share data or report the defaults to the CRA's.

 

1970.

It's going to be an interesting year...

Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's they don't reply and it gets slung out.

 

Do I have a counterclaim? Both creditors have failed to produce a credit agreement so far. One has not responded to the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and the other has partially responded and sent me about 50 pages of screen prints that say the same thing on every page - a single line just showing a total balance.

 

It seems also that none of them have my consent to share data or report the defaults to the CRA's.

 

1970.

 

 

If you intend to bring a counter claim, it is important to do it before the case is slung out. You may very well have a counter claim hanging on improperly recording default, unfortunatly, from experience CABOT are likely to claim it was the O.C. which recorded it.

 

In which case it is between you and the O.C.

 

You would need to issue a section 10 notice before a data protection claim anyway:(

 

I wouldn't get you hopes up too much; as yet, ti's just a waiting game.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.

 

What right does the OC have if they do not have an agreement with my signature on or my consent to process data?

 

1970

It's going to be an interesting year...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...