Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In short you never communicate with a Debt Collector, they have no power here at all. The snotty letter is only used to respond to a properly worded Letter Before Claim. The only time you would be recommended to contact the PPC is to send the snotty letter. You do nothing but keep the tripe they send you unless you receive a letter before claim.
    • Probably to do with the Creditor accepting the reduced payments claim as part of the IVA. - Thats my guess anyway.  As for the mount outstanding... 60k is incredible and im pretty sure a DRO wouldnt cover that much even after the new legislation.    For you @Alfy - Please stay headstrong and stop worrying. My viewpoint on debt with debt collectors is simple. You are a figure on a spreadsheet loaded into a database for them to run a collection cycle through.  They dont care about emotions or your situation, they just care about paying off their shareholders and trying to turn a profit.  They use varying tactics to increase the pressure on you to the point where you will break. People then fall for this an either cave in to DCAs before doing their own due diligence on the debts that are purchased or turn to IVAs like you have.    They are better ways to handle this and Im glad you feel better after a good nights sleep - I hope you can keep it up. 
    • Good afternoon,    I am writing in reference to the retail dispute number ****, between myself and Newton Autos concerning the sale of a Toyota Avensis which has been found to have serious mechanical faults.    As explained previously the car was found to be faulty just six days after purchase. The car had numerous fault codes that appeared on the dash board and went into limp mode. This required assistance from the AA and this evidence has already been provided. The car continues to exhibit these faults and has been diagnosed as having faults with the fuel injectors which will require major mechanical investigation and repairs.    Newton Autos did not make me aware of any faults upon purchase of the vehicle and sold it as being in good condition.    Newton Autos have also refused to honour their responsibilities under The Consumer Rights Act 2015 which requires them to refund the customer if the goods are found to be faulty and not fit for purpose within 30 days of purchase.    Newton Autos also refused to accept my rejection of the vehicle and refused to refund the car and accept the return of the vehicle.    It is clear to me that the car is not fit for purpose as these mechanical faults occurred so soon after purchase and have been shown to be present by both the AA and an independent mechanic.   Kind regards
    • Commercial Landlords are legally allowed to sue for early cancellation of the lease. You can only surrender your lease if your landlord agrees to your doing so. They are under no obligation even to consider your request and are entitled to refuse. You cannot use this as an excuse not to pay your rent. Your landlord is most likely to agree to your surrendering the lease if they want the property back in order to redevelop it, or if they wants to rent it to what they regards as a better tenant or at a higher rent. There are two types of surrender: Express surrender in writing. This is a written document which sets out the terms of the surrender. Implied surrender by conduct. (applies to your position) You can move out of the property you leased, simply hand your keys back and the lease will come to an end, but only if the landlord agrees to accept your surrender. Many tenants have thought they can simply post the keys through the landlord's letter box and the lease is ended. This is not true and without a document from the landlord, not only do you not know if the landlord has accepted the surrender, you also do not know on what basis they have accepted and could find they sue you for rent arrears, service charge arrears, damage to the property and compensation for your attempt to leave the property without the landlord's agreement. Unless you are absolutely certain that the landlord is agreeable to your departure, you should not attempt to imply a surrender by relying on your and the landlord's conduct.  
    • I had to deal with these last year worst DCA I have ever dealt with. Just wait for the constant threats of CCJ and how you'll lose in court and how they won't do mediation and they want the judge to question you with a load of "BIG" words to boot with the letter. My case was struck out in the end, stupidity on their part as I admitted to owing the debt in the end going through the court process was just a formality as they wouldn't let it drop despite me admitting the debt regardless. They didn't send the last part of the court paper work in so it ended up being struck out     .
  • 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

General Cabot Chat


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6122 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

Now where shall we start?

 

Mr M or Mr C ?

Cabot UK or Cabot Europe?

CCA's or S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s?

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Hi Elizabeth

 

1) Need input lol - So Mr M is the head of CF then?

2) Who's Mr C?

3) How many different names have Cabot got?

 

Just my inquisitive nature;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Elizabeth

 

1) Need input lol - So Mr M is the head of CF then?

2) Who's Mr C?

3) How many different names have Cabot got?

 

Just my inquisitive nature;)

 

 

1) Mr M = Ken Maynard he is one of the Directors

2) Mr C = Glen Crawford is also one of the Directors - but he is the smart one with the motormouth calls us nice people "Rogues" (pot, kettle & black spring to mind) - he is also the Cabot solicitor = the man trying his best to wriggle this stuff = our clever friend.

3) Suppose that depends on who you ask in there and what day of week it is, Kings Hill Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, then Cabot UK, Europe, then of course if you want a Loan you can try Morley I'm sure they'd know a way :lol::lol:

 

There is loads of information amongst the various threads about this group of companies as to who they are and what they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they have right royally p1ssed me off no end.

 

As you know, the CFC had a website at cabotfinancial.eu. This domain name was available for one of several reasons. I would tend to pick it out of the following; lazy, incompetent, tight, or stupid. Maybe even more than one of those reasons.

 

Anyway, we effectively now do not own this domain name, because Cabot tgink that THEY own the intellectual property rights to the name cabotfinancial, and my registration of the name would in itself damage their "goodwill". As if Cabot and Goodwill were synonymous. Yeah, right!

 

However, I have a feeling that this may be disputed somewhat by the owner of cabotfinancial.net, who also happen to be a company active in the financial services industry.

 

But what it boils down to is, they can afford to slap an injunction on me to stop using the name, and drag me through the high court to get control of the name. I can't even begin to defend myself against that. So I basically don't have sufficient funds to defend myself, and yet again it's a case of justice belongs to those with money, in my opinion.

 

Quick question.... Hands up all those who think Cabot took this step because they genuinely believe that folks would be confused, and think that I was the real Cabot Financial, and would have lured customers away from them?

 

And who thinks the real reason was because Cabot wanted to stop me publishing their activities on t'internet?

 

I rest my case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seahorse, I think you are an undercover Debt collector at heart through and through and your 2 weeks occasional trips 'undersea' are actually you 'undercover' - Passing Off in it's full capacity :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, my cover is blown. I've been stealing the kids milk money from the creatures of the deep. And they all have internet access. So there you go.

 

Although I'd just like to point out that I'm not stupid enough to actually get in the water myself. That's what machines are for. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

why not just buy the name www.threrealcabot.co.uk, www.bewareofcabot.co.uk, or something similar?

post office WON 12/11/06

 

abbey.LBA sent 30/10/06.MCOL claim submitted 8/11/06.allocation questionnaire sent 16/12/06.schedule of charges sent 16/12/06.WON

 

2nd abbey claim SAR sent 3/1/07.WON.complaint letter sent 18/1/08

 

alliance and Leicester.WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

We may disagree on one subject, but I have to say I did like your website.

I agree that it is down to who can afford to follow the legal process, grossly unfair. Did you try to get the press involved? Did they send you proof of “ownership” or is that just to follow with your CCA?

Without having “cabotfinancial” as a registered trademark they would have to rely on the common law of “passing off”. They would have to satisfy 3 conditions

1) the mark is theirs (bit difficult with the.net website not being theirs)

2) they have built up a reputation in the mark (well is does not say type of reputation so that one may be easy for them to avoid counter-arguments)

3) they have been harmed in some way by your use of the mark (how can they possibly show that you have influenced other consumers when there are so many websites around explaining consumers rights?)

Of course there is added complications for them

1) yours is a .eu not .uk address

2) their letters will contain only their website address, if they choose to phone people before writing then whose fault is if consumers can find so many different websites?

3) The Competition Act is for the consumers benefit so your website is clearly far more in consumers interests.

4) Web searches for “Cabotfinancial” or even “Cabot financial” will display any page containing those words irrespective of the domain name itself.

5) A trademark registered in UK does not apply to Europe automatically.

In a way you won - just think how many domain names they (and their cronies) will have suddenly been buying, how many urgent meetings, those new lawyer costs, race to trademark etc.

Finally if their reputation was so good they would have been able to discredit every point on your site, the fact that they ran to close it down implies that they did not want too many facts readily available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally if their reputation was so good they would have been able to discredit every point on your site, the fact that they ran to close it down implies that they did not want too many facts readily available.

 

Aktiv, I'm delighted to see you back in the Cabot fray and have learned a thing or two en-route.

 

Cabot NEVER want too many facts readily available because they have had their little empire, which they built up out of the people they dwell upons ignorance, blown wide apart, investigated and exposed. They think they have won on this .eu bit, but do you think Seahorse would have just given it back without a reason, so simply and so easily? ( Oh he buckled under the pressure of those incy wincy big guns solicitors didn't he ? - HA HA Think again my friends down there in the Towers - We had one or two strings attached to a deal which they ignored and it will be something they live to regret because one of those strings offered them an alternative to improve their image with our help. All deals are now off so exposure is something they better get used to cos they ain't seen nothing yet. There was always a plan 'B' .

 

I'd suggest Ken and his mates had better employ a few more staff to cope with what's coming next :D

 

As a matter of interest Mr Maynard, had you accepted the offer you could have saved many of the companies in your boys club at the CSA from exposure too, no doubt the Cabot Fan Club will be coming into the conversations a little more at your meetings and they of course will be looking for your leadership - or your P45......Such a shame, it could have been so different :-D

 

 

Sarah

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Aktiv, I hear what you are saying, and I agree that their claim was without substance. And much as I would have loved to fight it out, the reality is, I am in absolutely no position to take any risks with the high court against a company with almost unlimited funds.

 

So I'll let them have their little tantrum. They had their chance to stop me in my tracks completely, but blew it. And yes, the press is an option, once the matter is finalised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see harbor12 lurking at the bottom of the thread.

 

Coincidentally, there's only me and him viewing at the moment.

 

And also coincidentally, there is a guest reading my blog. Who has been referred to the site from this thread. And the IP address of that guest points to mailgate.cabotfinancial.com (IP address 194.73.117.114)

 

Therefore, I can only conclude....

 

...that Colonel Mustard did it, in the library, with the lead pipe.

 

Or something. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, well they are a bit premature. I'm busy trying to collate everything into a timeline, so visitors can follow the story as it unfolds. Or rather, as it unfolded from January onwards.

 

You know what I mean. I think I will be at it a while. But I'm on page 5 of my thread already, so I'll get there eventually. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see harbor12 lurking at the bottom of the thread.

 

Coincidentally, there's only me and him viewing at the moment.

 

And also coincidentally, there is a guest reading my blog. Who has been referred to the site from this thread. And the IP address of that guest points to mailgate.cabotfinancial.com (IP address 194.73.117.114)

 

Therefore, I can only conclude....

 

...that Colonel Mustard did it, in the library, with the lead pipe.

 

Or something. :D

 

Personally I see a Study, a Mr M and some rope ;-)

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...