Kings Hill - Final charging order

[elizabeth1]

I have just returned trom court and the judge, faced with the final charge application from Kings Hill on one hand and the Cabot payment agreement on the other said that it looks like a left hand and right hand situation and ordered an adjornment so that we / hodsons can proove / disproove that the two debts are the same. Their solicitor left in a hell of a hurry before the judge had properly finished!!!!!

 

I welcome any sggestions and would add that I am prepared to pay the £2800 of the original debt but dont see that we should pay the almost £1000 costs.

 

 

Can you please tell me which Cabot company is the payment plan for - is it for Cabot Financial UK Ltd OR Cabot Financial Europe Ltd ??

[Sailor21]

Cabot Financial (Europe) ltd. Why?

[elizabeth1]

Cabot Financial (Europe) ltd. Why?

 

 

I will PM you

[Sailor21]

Well, I have just received the reply to my CCA. They have returned my cheque saying they do not accept this statutory fee.

They also say that there will be a delay whilst they obtain the relevant documentation from the CCC.

They also enclosed a copy of the notice of assignment on CCC headed notepaper, dated this month but supposedly effective from 2005 and unsigned - Is this kosher?

They say that this letter "constitutes written notice of the assignment under section 25 of the Law of Property Act and therefore we have no need to provide a copy of the assignment deed itself" Advice please!!!

[Rhia]

You need the original copy of the letter of assignment as they will have to produce it in court. If they have not assigned the account correctly you can apply to have this action struck out or overturned. They have to prove that they sent and that you received the letter of assignment and if they brought the court hearing BEFORE it was correctly assigned the action is invalid.

However there are a couple of things here.

1. If they cannot produce a true copy of the original properly executed agreement with all terms and conditions as laid down in the CCA1974 they cannot proceed with the case and I would be inclined to ask for a stay and show the court the letter they have sent. They don't even know they have an enforceable agreement that's how shoddy these people are.

I would also look at the court protocols which allow you to ask the court to instruct Cabot to give you any information you may need. It's part 18 I think.

Once you have that you can ask the court to stay until all the evidence is amassed. But it comes down to two things, the first being no agreement the debt cannot be enforced and if it has been assigned incorrectly you can get it struck out.

[sequenci]

are you sure it was s25 of the LOP act?

 

that was repealed over a decade ago.

[Rhia]

Sequenci I have read before that S25 of the Law of Property Act was repealed but cannot find confirmation of this fact. Can you point us to it?

[Jeff2000]

Sequenci I have read before that S25 of the Law of Property Act was repealed but cannot find confirmation of this fact. Can you point us to it?

 

 

Hi,

 

 

I have also heard this. It would be nice to get some solid confirmation!

 

Cabot often refer to s25 of LOP! I wonder why!!!?:idea:

 

 

Jeff.

[sequenci]

S. 25 repealed (1.1.1997) by 1996 c. 47, s. 25(2), Sch.4 (with ss. 24(2), 25(4)); S.I. 1996/2974, art. 2

 

(taken from the statute law database)

 

Home - Statute Law Database

[Jeff2000]

S. 25 repealed (1.1.1997) by 1996 c. 47, s. 25(2), Sch.4 (with ss. 24(2), 25(4)); S.I. 1996/2974, art. 2

 

(taken from the statute law database)

 

Home - Statute Law Database

 

 

 

 

Good stuff!

[andrew1]

S. 25 repealed (1.1.1997) by 1996 c. 47, s. 25(2), Sch.4 (with ss. 24(2), 25(4)); S.I. 1996/2974, art. 2

 

(taken from the statute law database)

 

Home - Statute Law Database

 

well done, but in laymans terms for everyone out here, can you say exactly what that means in relation to the fact that Cabots are quoting s.25 in this instance to sailor.

 

It's strange, because they site LOP in their 'purchasing' accounts from the banks then go on to use it in relation to getting out of their CCA responsibilities to the debtor.

[sequenci]

Well guys,

 

I'm trying my hardest to find out excactly what s25 actually states. Since it has been repealed my texts have had the wording removed.

 

It seems to be something to do with having the power to postpone the sale of land, but I'm none the wiser. Regardless, if they are using that section of the LOP 1925 they clearly are mistaken to do so.

 

25 ...

 

. . .

 

NOTES

Amendment

 

Repealed by the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, s 25(2), Sch 4; for savings see ss 3, 18(3), 25(5) thereof.

 

i'll try and do more investigating

[sequenci]

well done, but in laymans terms for everyone out here, can you say exactly what that means in relation to the fact that Cabots are quoting s.25 in this instance to sailor.

 

It's strange, because they site LOP in their 'purchasing' accounts from the banks then go on to use it in relation to getting out of their CCA responsibilities to the debtor.

 

I'm keen to see this challenged. I'm sure their interpretation of s189 of the CCA is way off the mark. At the end of the day, a regulated agreement is a regulated agreement regardless of who is the "owner" of the debt.

[andrew1]

I'm keen to see this challenged. I'm sure their interpretation of s189 of the CCA is way off the mark. At the end of the day, a regulated agreement is a regulated agreement regardless of who is the "owner" of the debt.

 

Yes, regulated under the Consumer Credit Act !

[sequenci]

Yes, regulated under the Consumer Credit Act !

 

yup, that's what i mean

[Sailor21]

Wow - Thanks for all that input guys!

 

Those who have read the full thread will know that Cabot/Kings Hill have already obtained a CCJ against my wife and are trying to get a Final Charge against our house which I have no doubt will end up with them trying to force a sale of the house. I have managed to obtain an adjournment as the judge was not sure if the case of Mercantile Credit v Ellis applied here. CCA from Cabot definatly cites Section 25 of the LOP as in my post above.

 

I did find a copy of the LOP after a Google yesterday and it refers to delaying the sale of a property if there are trustees involved. Most sites do not list a section 25 probably because as sequenci says, it has been repealed. Can't find the site today!

 

I am now preparing papers for delivery to court tomorrow.

 

All help and comments are most welcome

[Rhia]

Are there trustees involved?

[Sailor21]

No. Just me and the wife!

[sequenci]

Mercantile Credit v Ellis applied

 

have you an instalment order with your ccj?

[Sailor21]

No! This is part of the problem. A payment plan was agreed with Cabot after the CCJ and is being paid. This gave the judge cause for concern as she did not know if the Final charging order could still go ahead so she called a halt whilst she checked it out. She also commented that this seemed like a classic left hand / right hand situation on the part of cabot

[Rhia]

Not entirely sure about Charging orders but I would have thought if you were paying as agreed they cannot apply for one. I thought it was only if you failed to keep up payments after CCJ.

An aside but also making an unsecured debt into a secured debt by way of a charging order could be argued against as an unfair practise or unfair relationship - not sure of the actual case law for this but it's worth reseraching and adding to the pot.

[andrew1]

Take a read through this OFT Debt Collection Guidance Sailor - it lists unfair practices - one of which is to encourage further lending to pay off debt. Getting a charging Order is one step nearer that http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/84273-oft-debt-collection-guidance.html

 

I've not the time just now to scan through but there's certainly something in here you can use.. Good luck matey.

 

Sarah

[Sailor21]

Thanks for that andrew1. I have included references to that and I am now of to put the papers into the court.

[sequenci]

1. The OFT debt collection guidance is just a guidance and MANY dcas don't give a damn about it (sadly)

 

2. If the instalment order wasn't arranged through the court I would imagine Mercantile Credit v Ellis wouldn't stand as the instalments are informal and the judgment may still be in default (i'm hoping the judge sides with you, however)

 

3. Did you submit any objections to the CO being made final?

 

4. Have they tried to get interest on the judgment?

[Sailor21]

sequenci

 

1) Yes I understand this but it is another thing to bring up to show Cabot in a bad light.

 

2) That was my understanding as well

 

3) There are few grounds for objection so I have relied on pointing out the mistakes in their paperwork and the fact that they are using Kings Hill who they say bought the debt in 2005 so are now called Cabot UK

 

4) Can you explain this please. There have been no further approaches from Cabot