Deepthroat
-
Posts
32 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Posts posted by Deepthroat
-
-
Oh Pleesae tbern in both your last posts your stretching credulity to it's limit
Also Caveat emptor does not apply in the case of a dealer selling to a private buyer but Caveat venditor could
Well JC hate to burst the little bubble that you obviously live in. I have worked for 2xPeugeot, one Honda and a SAAB dealership. These were different companies but were all main dealers.
The main dealer I used to work for is one of the biggest in South East England and sells various makes of new cars (obviously used cars awell)
And contrary to what you think you know (and yes I know you are / were a solictor as stated on your profile)
This dealership did not refund deposits. On each occassion if legal action was commenced by the customer they would automatically make a counter claim. Unless the company lied to their staff they successfully defended all claims against them.
When a used car is for sale costs reduce the profit margin of that particular vehicle and due to the way this is recorded (same in each dealer ship I worked for) it is very easy to show any loss.
The sale price of the car does not need to be decreased for the company to loss money. There are numerous factors that effect the profit made be the dealer.
However, I doubt you will accept the above as your posts clearly demonstrate your total inability to accept anyone elses point of view.
God forbid that you could wrong JC, now that would never happen would it.......
-
They were actually closed in four groups. The first test branches were closed around easter 2007 and the last were closed in July 2007.
-
I have had a number of complaints dealt with by barclays Head office.. What is the name of the person dealing with your complaint at the moment ?
-
To correct any understandings, Barclays are not doing a U-Turn on Loan Pots. They are all in the process of being closed.
I can appreciate that this had caused some confusion, which I think has been caused by the poor way in which Barclays have handled the situation. Firstly they told us they were being closed, they they wrote to us to say they are considering their options then they write to us against to say they are being closed.
Anyway....
Are people actually aware of how a loan pot actually works. Forgive me if i am teaching anyone to suck eggs, but I think that a little more detail will resolve peoples concerns..
When you applied for your mortgage, you may have also applied for a reserve facility. This would have increase automatically as you repaid your mortgage.
Customers were offered the chance to have loan pots, Basically this allowed us to borrow a fixed amount over a fixed term. Now this is the bit people may not understand.
The amount of the loan pot was deducted from your reserve facility. For example if you had a reserve of £10k and applied for a reserve of £5K you would be left with a reserve of £5k
Now that the loan pots are being closed the outstanding balance of any and all loan pots are being transferred back to our currents accounts from where the money originally came from.
I can imagine that this has caused a great deal of worry and confusion. However, I think that we all have to remember that the amount we have borrowed has not actually changed. More importantly as the interest rate applied to both our loan pot and current account is the same, we are in fact paying the same in interest.
If your salary is paid into your current account, this could actually work in your favour, as the interest is calculated daily and could result in major savings. As for the negative balance of our accounts, the payments we previously made to our loan pots can instead be made to our current accounts.
So in summary, nothing has really changed. We still owe the same amount of money. We are still being charged the same rate of interest and if our salary is paid into the account we could actually save money.
I don't feel that the removal of the loan pot is really the end of the world. I would like to thank the Branch Customer Care Team at the Woolwich for the above explaination and for dealing with my complaint in a professional manor. Before they were involved, Barclays pretty much ignored my complaint. i received three holding letters from them, which just annoyed me.
Bring back the Woolwich PLEASE !!!!
-
Hi DM,
I did something similar to this and was told by the judge that I must produce the relavant piece of law??????? so that she can see what my argument is.
CCA 1974 nuff said
-
-
Indeed if their assignment is absolute they have no rights to process personal data for instance as that right (even if properly executed) will have ceased with the termination of the original contract.
Cabot states they have the rights but not the duties which under legal assignment is correct. So how can they keep registering defaults, sharing data, adding interest etc?
I have read elsewhere that they say the are required by law to report info to the credit reference agencies. Wouldn't this be classed a a obligation or a duty ?
-
YouTube - turning japanese the vapors
Sorry, had to be done!
(please don't spit your dummy for going off topic Tbern:grin: )
I personally feel that comments such as these are uncalled for. Especially when you consider all the hard work he has done and the help he has given us.
It seems epecially poor, when you consider that this is his thread. Instead of complaining about tbern123, may be people could be more constuctive with their posts and post some things to help..
-
This is going to make me sound like a right moany so and so...
But, if you are posting information in relation to other peoples situations can you please post it in their own threads.
By cross posting, it makes it very difficult for people to follow each persons story and just confuses events....
I am sorry if this puts anyones noses out of place.
But, I have never had any dealings with Robinson...
Ok moan over.....
I know what you mean, especially the fun and games of the other night.This has been posted before, but in reponse to tbern's comments and taking into account that this is his thread after all, please find below a list of all the other Cabot threads:
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/54029-seahorse-cabot.html?highlight=cabot
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/67053-information-cabot.html?highlight=cabot
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/53926-citi-cards-cabot.html?highlight=cabot
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/51034-lowell-cabot.html?highlight=cabot
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-our-forum/53144-help-cabot.html?highlight=cabot
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/52928-scotcall-cabot.html?highlight=cabot
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/36684-cabot-again.html?highlight=cabot
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/51163-cabot-financial.html?highlight=cabot
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/47216-cabot.html?highlight=cabot
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/19026-cabot.html?highlight=cabot
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-our-forum/31204-cabot-idiots.html?highlight=cabot
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/19823-cabot.html?highlight=cabot
-
added
in error
-
It is & as I have seen a number of default notices which clearly state WILL be terminated............& frankly I don't care what the OFT guidlines state...........if the creditors & the DCA's complied with the OFT guidelines then many consumers would not be having the problems they are.............As for your offensive remarks about it not being a competition..........who the hell are you to make such a comment about me........Your not a mod so I suggest you butt out
Excuse me...
No offence intended, I was just making an observation. It just appeared that you took the dispute about your assumption personally. I will edit my previous post
-
So tbern, what is the next part of your plan ? Or is that a secret...
I hope I never get on the wrong side of you man....
-
Another point which has previously been raised..........if your default is a result in total or in part of unlawful charges then the agreement has been breached........by the creditor..........so much so that the debtor can then consider the agreement/contract as terminated
What point are you now trying to make Jonchris ???
You have made a leap from Default notices, terminating credit agreements to unfair bank charges ?
The point of this thread was:
Collection Agencies search credit searches without your permission??
tbern123, was able to correct your assumption that a default notice means that the credit agreement is terminated. As he/she said, DCA's can process your data if the agreement is not terminated..
*It is not a competition to determine who knows the most...
Sorry Joncris, I did not intead to cause any offence by my post.
-
I may be wrong, Tbern, but I think what loiuboy was indicating was that by exchanging companies, Cabot and Kingshill are able to a produce an argument as to how each company is able to process your data. They have muddied the waters. You have given information and maybe permissions to both companies in the past. Now that they have exchanged company names they will claim that they have the right to have access to your data as Cabot before and as Kingshill now, or as Kingshill before and Cabot now..
From what I have read, they have only changed names, not companies.
The transfer of names, does not mean that their rights to process your data has also been transfered.
And if you continue to correspond with Cabot, that was Kingshill, then that act of yours is confirmation that they have the right to access your data from whichever company because you have accepted the change in status of both companies.Even if, due to the change of names, you corresponded with the wrong company, it would not be possible for them to accept this as your authority for them to process your data
I accept that these matters are not retrospective, but the whole situation of who owns who, and who is who, has become so complicated that they may feel that we and the Courts will be unable to work it out. And thus, they hope, they may be able to extricate themselves without as much censure from the Courts.If that is the case, tbern has blown that idea a part by showing the new and previous names of each company. Oh I hope they wasted alot of money thinking that one up.
I have said it before and I'll say it again. Well done tbern.... You have given people like me hope.
-
I think the problem is that they can easily prove that they have been financially disadvantaged.
As explained above by zooman and myself they don't have to prove this.
For example, ERC's are only payable if you have an interest rate lower then their standard rate (excluding most trackers)
Not true - a sub prime lender will charge higher rates to reflect the risk they are taking by lending to someone with adverse credit and still include an ERC in the contract.
So by agreeing to stay with them for 2, 5 or 10 years, they give you a lower interest rate.
Say for sake of arguement 1.5% discount. Effectively, they are losing 1.5% interest on your mortgage each year, when you could have been paying their standard rate.
I am no expert, but I think this will allow them to show in court that they have made a financial loss.
As we have said they don't have to prove financial loss.
I am not saying that they are righ, just trying to put a possible argument into perspective.
Sorry, the point I was making is that the banks do consider that in this instance they have made a financial loss.
My knowledge of sub prime is very limited, but my knowledge of high street banking is in depth and extensive....
-
from what I can see both were lost for different reasons surley this can only strengthan any arguments how much time before the next one is in court if they cannot justify their losses then we might be in with a chance
Bona
I think the problem is that they can easily prove that they have been financially disadvantaged.
For example, ERC's are only payable if you have an interest rate lower then their standard rate (excluding most trackers)
So by agreeing to stay with them for 2, 5 or 10 years, they give you a lower interest rate.
Say for sake of arguement 1.5% discount. Effectively, they are losing 1.5% interest on your mortgage each year, when you could have been paying their standard rate.
I am no expert, but I think this will allow them to show in court that they have made a financial loss.
I am not saying that they are righ, just trying to put a possible argument into perspective.
-
Hiya Guys and Girls,
Nice to see the same people willing to help others ie tbern and elizabeth, debt mountain and the rest.
Just to say that I won my money back from halifax but only with all your help.
But thats not why I have jumped in here, today I recieved these 2 letters after sending a s.a.r request from Cabot and was wondering wether some is taking the pi&&** or what, their time is nearly up timescale wise. They have had their 12 days, and on the 16th they will have had their full calender month and I have stuck to the rules according to the C.A.G. guidelines and letters.
The letters read as follows first from Monument.
From Monument
23 January 2007
Dear Mr Scouser9
We hereby give notice of the assignment of the debt to us from you in respect of the balance £XXXXXX outstanding on your Providian National Bank Credit Card account,
On the 20th September 2005 your account was sold to Kings Hill (No1) Ltd, part of the
Cabot Financial Group.
Any further communication and payments must therefore be addressed to Cabot financial directly at the address below
Cabot
PO Box No 241
West Malling
Kent
ME19 4NA
Freephone: 0800 328 8338
Yours truly,
Mr Graham Taylor
Once again its sold to Kingshill and Cabot get involved, and secondly the letter I recieved from Cabot on the sameday.
From Cabot
30 January 2007
Dear Mr Scouser9
Further to your letter of 15th January 2007.
Unfortunately as we are not the originators of the above account we do not hold copy agreements or statements. This is why, as we advised you, the paperwork had to be ordered from Monument.
As assignee we deny that we are the creditor and as such, have not breached Section 189(1) or 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This company has at all times acted properly, appropriately and in accordance with all relevant laws and requlations.
We can confirm that as soon as the copy agreement and statements are received they will be forwarded to you.
We can also confirm that your telephone number has been removed from our dialler system and all future contact will be in writing.
Yours truly,
Emma Robertson
Customer Relations Deptmanet
Cabot
PO Box No 241
West Malling
Kent
ME19 4NA
Their time runs out on the 16th of Febuary and then they will in breach of the rules laid down for them.
I have a couple of questions guys.
1. If it has took Monument this long ( 20th September 2005) to now to send this letter does it mean that they cannot supply the documents requested with my S.A.R.
2. If my account was sold to Kings Hill what is Cabot doing handling my data. It seems by reading everyones argument with Cabot its the same as mine.
3, Last but not least what and where do now.
Sorry for butting in, I will also post the letter that I recieved from member of parliament as he complianed on my behalf to the OFT and the FSA, I have complained as well.
I have recieved a fob off letter from the FSA but nothing from the OFT except a cut and paste couple of pages from their website, ****e,
Anyway my member of parliament insists he going to chase everything up, and was very dissapointed that the OFT had not answered his letter and promise's to get back to me.
Anyway must go now as sleep beckons will post tomorrow
Keep on claiming the right and don't forget donate donate donate.
Mikey
CAN PEOPLE PLEASE STOP TRYING TO HIJACK THIS THREAD !!!!!! PLEASE START YOUR OWN AND POST A LINK... IT IS VERY HARD TO FOLLOW WHEN PEOPLE KEEP INTERUPTING THE STORY... ok moan over
-
What a great thread..
Nearly 500 posts and nearly 8,500 views..
Keep going tbern123... We are all behind you on this one...
-
Not yet........
-
Very interesting, have seen some people claim back erc's.
Sorry, I know what you mean but the exit fee is different to an ERC
-
When you redeem a mortgage there are two possible fees to pay.
1) ERC
This is an Early Repayment Charge. Basically, when you sign up to either a discount or fixed interest rate, in return for a lower rate you agree that if you redeem your mortgage whilst this interest rate is applied to your mortgage, you will pay the Mortgage company upto 6 months interest.
In worst cases this can be several thousands of pounds
2) Final Redemption Charge / Exit Fee / Deeds Fee
This charge is incurred if you redeem your mortgage before the end of it's natural term. This charge is usually a maximum of £295.00
-
-
I have just done a bit of research on them and they apparently are a Barclays In House Service. All the details i have are as follows:
Central Debt Collection Services
PO Box 49
Manchester
M60 3EG
Tel - 0870 154 6091
I can confirm that this is Barclays Collections. They also have another department in Leeds
-
Wow what a thread..... takes some reading but well worth it..
tbern123, never let me upset you... I would hate to get on the wrong side of you.... Talk about taking no prisoners
I will keep an eye on this, very entertaining..... Good Luck....
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Is this a April fools wind up?? Car dealership and my deposit.
in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers
Posted
Exactly and there is also the matter or right downs. One of the peugeot dealers I worked for also had a time limit of how long a car would be on the forecourt. After 90 days it would be exhanged with another dealer within the group to rotate the stock.
Obviously the transportation of these vehicles is another cost...