Cabot Financial – Dealing with Cabot Financial

[BeauBrummie]

BeauBrummie, can you please post a link to your thread so people can easily find it, as I think there is a lot going on there which is highly significant. As we can see, Cabot is going to court in cases where they could not possibly succeed if the law was applied properly - s127(3) of the CCA 1974 and the supporting High Court precedents are binding on the lower courts. They are obviously relying on judges not applying the law, and, as we all know, that is happening far too often.

 

Sorry Scabhunter The link was posted in my first post on page 1, but here it is :

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/144167-bb-cabot.html

 

I'd post it on every page if it needs to get noticed!!

 

Do you know if PT2537 can get involved here-----like Brent London I think perhaps his legal mind could be of use.

 

Beau

[ScabHunter]

Sorry Scabhunter The link was posted in my first post on page 1, but here it is :

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/144167-bb-cabot.html

 

I'd post it on every page if it needs to get noticed!!

 

Do you know if PT2537 can get involved here-----like Brent London I think perhaps his legal mind could be of use.

 

Beau

 

GRRRR sorry about that - I don't know how on Earth I didn't see it. I will have a full read through that because I think it is an important thread.

 

As for pt2537, I know his time is extremely valuable and much sought after. If he puts in an appearance it will be an honour, but I won't be expecting it.

 

We certainly need to be getting our defences as strong as possible as they are being challenged - even to the point of trying to get Summary Judgment when they've got nothing but an appo form with no prescribed terms.

 

I will be making quite a few posts about defences in the coming weeks.

 

SH

[ScabHunter]

"Prejudice" and "Embody" smokescreens

 

In the threat letters which Cabot Financial is sending out to alleged debtors, we are seeing repeated deception based on these two factors.

 

Firstly, the word "embody" is being misused to try to deceive the alleged debtor into believing that the prescribed terms do NOT have to be within the four corners of the document, but can be referred to in another document.

 

What Cabot do is quote a PART of Section 61 -

 

A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms

and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed

manner both by the debtor....

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms....

 

and then completely misquote Section 189(4) in supposed support -

 

"A document embodies a provision if the provision is set out either in the document itself or in another document referred to in it."

The REALITY is that Section 61(1) states -

 

A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms

and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed

manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner,

and

(b)the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms,

and

© the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in

such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

 

Note the subtle difference. Have a look at part a), and you will see that Cabot have craftily omitted the end, specifically the word "and". Such a simple little word, but so significant. Note the REAL Section 61(1) states a) AND b) AND c).

 

I don't know if you are familiar with Boolean mathematics, but the operand AND requires ALL conditions to be true before returning a value of 1. So, 1 AND 1 AND 0 would return 0 because not all conditions have been met. The use of the word "and" in language has the same meaning.

 

In other words, for a regulated agreement to be properly executed, ALL THREE CONDITIONS must be met. Condition a), which must be met, could scarcely be more explicit - "a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms"

 

If you read the entire Section 61(1) as I have quoted it above, it is impossible to understand how anyone could consider that the prescribed terms can be in another document. The word "embody" clearly has no such meaning.

 

We need to be questioning Cabot every time we get one of these silly letters.

[ScabHunter]

Even more blatant is the claim based on Section 127(3) that "You shall note from this section of the Act, that the Court take into account if the debtor has suffered any prejudice by the contravention in question. Therefore, if this credit agreement had been improperly executed, we would argue that you have suffered no prejudice as a result of its execution."

 

You will notice that Cabot refrain from quoting directly from the Act here. I wonder why.....

 

Here is what Section 127 REALLY says -

 

127.—(1) In the case of an application for an enforcement order under—

(a)

section 65(1) (improperly executed agreements), or

(b)

section 105(7)(a) or (b) (improperly executed security instruments), or

©

section 111(2) (failure to serve copy of notice on surety), or

(d)

section 124(1) or (2) (taking of negotiable instrument in contravention

of section 123),

the court shall dismiss the application if, but (subject to subsections (3) and (4)) only

if, it considers it just to do so having regard to—

(i)

prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question, and

the degree of culpability for it; and

(ii) the powers conferred on the court by subsection (2) and sections 135

and 136.

(2) If it appears to the court just to do so, it may in an enforcement order reduce or

discharge any sum payable by the debtor or hirer, or any surety, so as to compensate

him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention in question.

(3)

The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section

61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether

or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1))

itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or

hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

(4) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) in the case of a

cancellable agreement if—

(a) a provision of section 62 or 63 was not complied with, and the creditor or

owner did not give a copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document

referred to in it, to the debtor or hirer before the commencement of the proceedings

in which the order is sought. or

(b) section 64(1) was not complied with.

(5) Where an enforcement order is made in a case to which subsection (3) applies, the

order may direct that the regulated agreement is to have effect as if it did not include a

term omitted from the document signed by the debtor or hirer.

As you can see, any references to prejudice are contained in Section 127(1) where the Court has discretionary powers. There is no mention whatsoever of prejudice in Section 127(3), which is mandatory on the Court, and not permissive.

 

This amounts to nothing more than a blatant lie by Cabot. They are not quoting from the Act because they are fully aware that the drivel they are quoting belongs to a different section from the relevant one.

 

The truth is simple enough. If an agreement is regulated under the CCA 1974, and it does not contain the prescribed terms within the four corners of the agreement, it IS unenforceable. The problem is that the truth is being concealed within a Cabot smokescreen, and lay people and judges alike are being conned and misled by Cabot's rather crude use of smoke and mirrors.

 

I would suggest that every time someone gets one of these letters, they write to Cabot outlining the truth. Quote the relevant sections of the Act in their entirety - something Cabot would not have the guts to do. If they did, the smoke cloud would lift, and everyone, including a judge, could see the obvious truth very clearly indeed. One day, it may indeed be a judge who gets to see these letters.

 

SH

[Stephan56]

The "selective quotes" from Cabot in these letters, as pointed out by Scabhunter, surely must breach the OFT guidelines or other regulations.

 

While I appreciate teh OFT does not look at individiual complaints, what about the FSA or the DOJ? Where there is a "patter of behaviour" by these firms, surely there must be a way to FORMALLY bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities - and then, when people are in Court, they can argue (i) Cabot is wrong and (ii) the regulators are in fact investigating their misleading behaviour.

 

Section 127(3) is, I have always thought, a COMPLETE BAR to enforcement. No if, ands or buts about it. Even if the OC or DCA can produce statements and/or I have made payments or indeed even if I have admitted a debt, a judge SHALL NOT make an order unless there is an agreement, signed by both parties, and containing all the terms within its four corners. They either have it or they don't. And no dodgy "reconstructions", application forms or other "nonsense" allowed.

 

Cabot have clearly tried to go on the "offensive" and get back the initiative and then, if they are successful, others will follow.

 

I suggest we need:

 

(i) revised, Cabot specific, template letters

(ii) sample complaint letters to OFT, DOJ and FSA,MPs, other

(iii) step by step guide to dealing with Cabot

 

We need to be vigilant for their changing tactics. Also, is there some mechanism for making formal complaints" about judges NOT following the law? Who keeps the judges in check? Can they just blatently ignore the law without sanction - or the ability to make complaints?

 

I think we need to ensure someone updates this threat at least DAILY to keep it fresh and maybe a second,related thread, with the actual TEMPLATE of how to deal with Cabot on a step by step basis.

[BeauBrummie]

Just bumping up as I think Scabhunter may be onto something here the more that read this the better.

 

Beau

[ScabHunter]

Cabot LIES pretending that the prescribed terms do NOT have to be in the SIGNATURE document

 

Here are examples of letters sent by Cabot which illustrate perfectly how they use deception to make unenforceable agreements "enforceable", even to the extent of hoodwinking judges and getting judgments they have no right to be getting.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/216994-help-cabot.html#post2392219

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/216994-help-cabot.html#post2436408

 

The first letter contains the same deception that I mentioned in Post #28 above - they have quoted a PART of Section 61, conveniently leaving out the parts which don't happen to suit them.

 

They are then referring to the irrelevant 189(4) again in support, without even bothering to say what 189(4) says.

 

This is a very clever piece of deception, because they then go on to quote the one section of the CCA 1974 which is most damaging to them, Section 127(3), in its entirety. The reason they can do this is simple - they have already conned the victim into thinking that the prescribed terms can be set out in another document referred to by the signature document, when of course this is not the case.

 

Having effected this deception, they can then quote Section 127(3) with impunity, as the reader already believes the LIE that the Terms and Conditions form a legitimate part of the agreement.

 

These letters are not being written by a moron, or the usual negative-IQ DCA threat monkey. They are a very cleverly written piece of deception and deceit. Unless you are a trained litigator, these specious arguments are not easy to refute, especially before a judge with no training in Consumer Law.

 

Sections 61(1) and 127(3) are quoted in full in Post #28 above, and their meaning is crystal clear.

 

In support, we have the High Court precedent of Wilson v Hurstanger -

"33. In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1."

 

Also, Wilson v First County Trust -

"29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and 63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order."

 

A quote from Francis Bennion, the draftsman of the CCA 1974 -

"As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97. Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn't be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I'm glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody's human rights were infringed."

 

From Professor Goode -

 

"It is clear that s61(1)(a) is referring to the prospective regulated agreement, so that its requirements must be fulfilled by that document and not just by another document to which it refers”: Goode, Consumer Credit Law and Practice, paras 30.102-30.103.

 

The situation is clear enough until it is clouded by the Cabot smokescreen. I would suggest that if anyone receives letters of the type linked to here, they should be complaining to someone in authority at Cabot, pointing out EXACTLY why the letters they have been sent are misleading, and also pointing out the weight of evidence in favour of the truth as seen above. After all, these are the very same truths of which you will probably one day have to convince a judge.

 

Of course, a complaint should also go to the Office of Fair Trading, whose Debt Collection Guidance states -

 

2.1 It is unfair to communicate, in whatever form, with consumers in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner.

 

If you compare the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the High Court precedents which reinforce it, and the opinions of the two most highly regarded authorities on the subject, with the Cabot lies, I don't think it is difficult to work out where Cabot have been INACCURATE and MISLEADING.

 

Let's see these complaints mounting up.

 

SH

[BeauBrummie]

Scabhunter, do you think the bits you have found are strong enough for me to use in court by putting the above into a skeleton type argument to counteract their claim.

 

Im thinking here that I ask the judge to look in more detail at Cabot's Claim and also the detail of their correspondence and the fact that they have refuted every line of my defence, I may be a LIP but I can learn the relevant parts of the CCA enough to point out Cabots attempted deceit.

 

Am I clutching at straws??

 

Beau

[pmhcfc]

This tread takes me back to the days when we (the Cabot Fan Club) managed to get a Cabot sub-forum on here. Sadly the powers that be

decided (after months of helping people) that perhaps it wasn't such a good idea - but they left all the cabot threads as a sticky...Sadly, that has gone too and all of those who were as committed and as passionate (re gunning for Cabot) as Scabhunter is were lost from these boards.

 

Despite this being a fantastic thread, I'm sure all of the hard work being done by ScabHunter has been done before (not suggesting he's copied it) and it lurks, lost, in these forums somewhere.

 

Having said all that- I have the upmost admiration for SH - a man after our own (the CFC) hearts.

[BeauBrummie]

This tread takes me back to the days when we (the Cabot Fan Club) managed to get a Cabot sub-forum on here. Sadly the powers that be

decided (after months of helping people) that perhaps it wasn't such a good idea - but they left all the cabot threads as a sticky...Sadly, that has gone too and all of those who were as committed and as passionate (re gunning for Cabot) as Scabhunter is were lost from these boards.

 

Despite this being a fantastic thread, I'm sure all of the hard work being done by ScabHunter has been done before (not suggesting he's copied it) and it lurks, lost, in these forums somewhere.

 

Having said all that- I have the upmost admiration for SH - a man after our own (the CFC) hearts.

 

So---- is the CAG commited to fighting the aggresive stance by Cabot?

 

It is interesting that none of the site team or more legally knowledgable people have made any comments on this thread despite over 500 viewings by others (I think)

 

Ive have obviously got my own agenda here being taken to court by Cabot, but there are many more threads than just mine who I am aware are following my thread because they are looking for help.

 

So come you legal caggers give us some back up.

 

Thanks

 

Now to be Cagbotted

 

Beau

[Huff&Puff]

Excellent thread

 

I have not had the displeasure of dealing with Cabot, and IANAL and all that, but it seems to me that all those court cases could be considered "Vexatious Litigation", at least as far as I understand the term. Perhaps that is a useful avenue of attack?

 

Vexatious litigation - encyclopedia article about Vexatious litigation.

[ScabHunter]

Cabot now threatening doorstep harassment

 

I have now seen a letter from Cabot threatening doorstep harassment, which I must admit is the first of its type that I have seen.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/216994-help-cabot.html#post2486911

 

What we need to know now is whether these threats are just hot air, or whether Cabot really is going to stoop to this level of behaviour.

 

If they are, I will take it as a certain sign of desperation. Not only is it necessary to spent employee time on such harassment, it is also necessary to use fuel, and that is not cheap. Given that there are so many people who are simply not in a position to pay anything towards any alleged debt anyway, it is hardly likely to be a profitable exercise for them.

 

Of course, there is always the possibility of "employing" desperate people on a commission-only basis. I have read of one case where another debt collection agency engaged an old age pensioner desperate to top up his meagre pension on commission-only. I can't quite believe that this is Cabot's style - it just isn't threatening enough and would make them look silly.

 

Or, is it just bluff? Are the Cabot "External Agents" as fictitious as the Lowell "Licensed Field Agents"? Certainly, deception IS their style!

 

One way or another, we need to know. If anybody comes across an incident of a genuine "visit" by a Cabot "External Agent", would they please alert me to it just in case I don't see it?

 

Anyone who gets one of these obnoxious threat letters should immediately send this -

 

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/590-letter-used-when-a-dca-threatens-a-doorstep-visit-.html

 

Amend it to suit if the first part isn't true.

 

Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance 2.12(f) -

 

visiting or threatening to visit debtors without prior agreement when the

debt is deadlocked or disputed

 

Therefore, Cabot is in violation of this guidance JUST BY THREATENING a visit - it doesn't actually have to happen.

 

More fuel for the OFT complaints.

 

If I DO find that Cabot is now harassing people at their own doorstep, I will post again with some further suggestions.

 

SH

[martin g]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned section 2 of the 2006 fraud Act which specifically deals with fraud by misrepresentation

The act is small as it contains only 16 sections plus 3 schedules.

 

All Theft Act deception offences are abolished to be replaced by 3 new fraud offences: fraud by misrepresentation.......f raud by failing to disclose information and fraud by abuse of position..

 

Under section 1 a person is guilty of fraud if they are in breach of any offences in sections 2,3,4.

 

Under Section 2 representation must be made dishonestly which is established under the two-stage test as set out in Rv Gosh (1982) QB 1053, 75 Cr App R 154 in which the defendant was dishonest by the standards of ordinary people

 

 

Subsection (1) (b) requires that the representation is made with the intention of making a gain for himself or causing a loss or risk of loss to another. Loss and gain are defined in section 5 as being money or property

 

This section is very wide ranging & could criminalise a lie. e.g; if the bank refused a loan whilst suggesting a reason that was not true then that could be an offence as the victim would have suffered a loss or gain based on the lie of the defendant. Furthermore there is no need to show that the victim was even aware of the lie for there to have been a crime committed. The victimless crime

 

Merely an email setting out the true reasons for refusal even though not sent would constitute the crime. It would not matter to whom, if anyone the representation was addressed nor the eventual effect, if any.

 

Fraud by failing to disclose information

 

Section 3 provides that where a person dishonestly fails to disclose to another information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, & intends to make a gain or cause a loss or the risk of a loss an offence has been committed.

 

Fraud by abuse of position

 

Section 4 makes it an offence for a person who occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not act against the financial interest of another person, to abuse that position dishonestly and intend, by means of the abuse, to make gain or cause a loss or risk of a loss to another. This creates a very broad offence which may catch the banks.

feel that re-writing Acts of Parliament to create a false representation of the real thrust of the legislation ( for gain) must be a offence under the Fraud act section 2 , for which the potential penalty on conviction is a length prison sentence.

 

Google the fraud Act and you will see it is a very cleanly drafted bit of law and there are no exclusions for Directors of companies who are deemed to be aware of the things that staff get up to in their name.

 

How about a few complains to Kent Police?

 

Martin g.

[ScabHunter]

Thanks everybody for replying - much appreciated.

 

I will need to read through your thread again BeauBrummie, but if enforceability is an issue in your case then Section 61(1)(a), Section 127(3) and the supporting High Court precedents are the very essence of what you must get the judge to see. If the prescribed terms are not within the four corners of the document, that is a complete defence - IF the judge follows the law and the High Court precedents which are binding.

 

pmhcfc,

 

I have only been on this site since September 2008, so I only know of the Cabot Fan Club from reading old posts. I had read before of threads being taken down by the Site Team, but obviously I am completely unaware of the circumstances.

 

If dedicated people have been lost to the boards, that is very regrettable. This is one enemy which is going to need all the strength we can muster.

 

I certainly haven't copied anything, except the case law which is in quotes. The thread was entirely my own idea.

 

Maybe there are some lost threads which would provide useful information, but I do feel we are seeing a different Cabot now. The economic depression and the losses they have endured seem to have made them more aggressive, and yet they are using deception too effectively, and gaining court judgments in outrageous circumstances. I think we need an evolving thread which allow us to keep up to date with the current threats and current deceptions, and allow us to be more effective in the way we deal with these threats and deceptions. If anyone has any input from the past which is still relevant, I would appreciate it being posted here.

 

Certainly, from my point of view, I would have thought the aims of this thread are totally in alignment with the aims of CAG as a whole. All I am trying to do here is raise the standard of the way we deal with recurring situations, by having people share information which can be useful to everyone. If anyone, Site Team or otherwise, sees a negative consequence, they are more than welcome to PM me.

 

Huff&Puff,

 

Thanks for that link - I'll have a look at it tomorrow. I had certainly been thinking along similar lines.

 

martin g,

 

Thanks for your post. You have certainly introduced material I had not considered or seen before. I don't expect this to be an avenue we can go down with misrepresentation of points of law, but it would be nice if I was wrong.

 

Oh, Hi guests! A bit late to be up reading forums, isn't it?

 

SH

[mercyblue]

Some excellent posts scabhunter and martin_g an interesting addition. I have two NoA off cabot which have clearly just been knocked up.

[ScabHunter]

Defending against Cabot litigation

 

OK, so now we come to the big one. Cabot Financial is launching court claim after court claim, often with absolutely no paperwork to back these claims up. Yet, they are getting judgments. I would go as far as to say that Cabot would lose every single case they bring to court, IF judges would only apply the law that they are paid to uphold.

 

The reasons I would say this are -

 

1) Every single Cabot claim form I have ever seen is insufficiently particularised and does not comply with CPR 16.4. They should all be struck out under CPR 3.4. But, of course, none of them ever are.

 

2) Every single alleged debt which has been given absolute assignment to Cabot has been accompanied by FORGED Notices of Assignment, on notepaper which is obviously not from the original creditor. All of these cases should be being thrown out as there is no compliance with the Law of Property Act 1925 s136(1) "Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor....." Of course, none of them ever are.

 

This is before we even come on to the consideration of the CCA 1974. Of course, the vast majority of Cabot claims should fall down under s127(3) and/or the need for a compliant default notice.

 

The need for a base defence

 

If no-one learns from anyone else, we are all pioneers. This will put every one of as at a disadvantage when litigation starts. Although every person's case is individual, there are many common themes which occur time and again in these cases. It is vital that we learn from experience and submit as effective a defence as we possibly can.

 

Of course, submitting a defence is only one part of the battle. It then has to be backed up by an effective performance in court which is another matter entirely.

 

Nevertheless, let's stick for now with the subject of the defence. It seems to me that we should be able to construct a "base" defence, which will need relatively little changing for the vast majority of individual cases.

 

SH

[jetbags]

Defending against Cabot litigation

 

OK, so now we come to the big one. Cabot Financial is launching court claim after court claim, often with absolutely no paperwork to back these claims up. Yet, they are getting judgments. I would go as far as to say that Cabot would lose every single case they bring to court, IF judges would only apply the law that they are paid to uphold.

 

The reasons I would say this are -

 

1) Every single Cabot claim form I have ever seen is insufficiently particularised and does not comply with CPR 16.4. They should all be struck out under CPR 3.4. But, of course, none of them ever are.

 

2) Every single alleged debt which has been given absolute assignment to Cabot has been accompanied by FORGED Notices of Assignment, on notepaper which is obviously not from the original creditor. All of these cases should be being thrown out as there is no compliance with the Law of Property Act 1925 s136(1) "Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor....." Of course, none of them ever are.

 

This is before we even come on to the consideration of the CCA 1974. Of course, the vast majority of Cabot claims should fall down under s127(3) and/or the need for a compliant default notice.

 

The need for a base defence

 

If no-one learns from anyone else, we are all pioneers. This will put every one of as at a disadvantage when litigation starts. Although every person's case is individual, there are many common themes which occur time and again in these cases. It is vital that we learn from experience and submit as effective a defence as we possibly can.

 

Of course, submitting a defence is only one part of the battle. It then has to be backed up by an effective performance in court which is another matter entirely.

 

Nevertheless, let's stick for now with the subject of the defence. It seems to me that we should be able to construct a "base" defence, which will need relatively little changing for the vast majority of individual cases.

 

SH

 

 

 

It can only be guessed that because of excellent advice sites such as this one, companies such as Cabot are finding it increasingly difficult to hit their margins each month.

A well informed and clued up public are quickly getting wise to the tricks of this desperate trade, we can only hope that the regulators of this industry grow some balls soon and start taking firm action to protect the consumers.

Overall, this site is invaluable, informative and gives clear defined advice which more importantly reduces the stress levels.

It would be good to see this site develop further into an actall organisation, physical body which could take on these companies in the full glare of publicity and show them for what they are.

So many CAG's are professional law qualified individuals that it would not take much to organise, even the few retired "lords" we have on here could contribute from the backbenches....

 

The public do hold the ultimate power, the bully boy tactics do there best to hold them down but we will win in the end..... lets hope that the fight becomes a fair one one day !!

 

J

[pmhcfc]

Thanks everybody for replying - much appreciated.

 

 

pmhcfc,

 

If dedicated people have been lost to the boards, that is very regrettable. This is one enemy which is going to need all the strength we can muster.

 

I certainly haven't copied anything, except the case law which is in quotes. The thread was entirely my own idea.

 

Maybe there are some lost threads which would provide useful information, but I do feel we are seeing a different Cabot now. The economic depression and the losses they have endured seem to have made them more aggressive, and yet they are using deception too effectively, and gaining court judgments in outrageous circumstances. I think we need an evolving thread which allow us to keep up to date with the current threats and current deceptions, and allow us to be more effective in the way we deal with these threats and deceptions. SH

 

I have nothing but admiration for you SH - and yes it is very regrettable that some very knowledgable people are gone from these boards (as well as threads) - however, I can assure you they are still very active re the Cabot fight.

 

I agree with your opinion that the fight needs to be continued - the losses Cabot have endured will have something to do with the economic downturn but it has as much to do with the Cabot Fan Club and many others fighting back. They suffered those losses on the back of our first year biting back at them - just think of the staff needed just to cope with the amount of CCA request etc etc they now get...I bet there wasn't one before 2006/7.

 

Cabot's new tactics are all to do with the fact that their old ones no longer work. Me (and others) can probably access some of the really useful older threads - if the need ever arises.

 

It may be worth looking into the way Cabot obtain their debt portfolios. Law of Property Act 1927, offshore accounting, Irish Agreements (MNBA), to name but three- and there's more.

 

In summary; please carry on with what you're doing - which is a really fantastic job.

 

The real Ken Maynard (cowboy actor) died penniless after a successful career - let's hope lightning strikes twice eh

[pmhcfc]

Defending against Cabot litigation

 

OK, so now we come to the big one. Cabot Financial is launching court claim after court claim, often with absolutely no paperwork to back these claims up. Yet, they are getting judgments. I would go as far as to say that Cabot would lose every single case they bring to court, IF judges would only apply the law that they are paid to uphold.

 

The reasons I would say this are -

 

1) Every single Cabot claim form I have ever seen is insufficiently particularised and does not comply with CPR 16.4. They should all be struck out under CPR 3.4. But, of course, none of them ever are.

 

2) Every single alleged debt which has been given absolute assignment to Cabot has been accompanied by FORGED Notices of Assignment, on notepaper which is obviously not from the original creditor. All of these cases should be being thrown out as there is no compliance with the Law of Property Act 1925 s136(1) "Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor....." Of course, none of them ever are.

 

This is before we even come on to the consideration of the CCA 1974. Of course, the vast majority of Cabot claims should fall down under s127(3) and/or the need for a compliant default notice.

 

The need for a base defence

 

If no-one learns from anyone else, we are all pioneers. This will put every one of as at a disadvantage when litigation starts. Although every person's case is individual, there are many common themes which occur time and again in these cases. It is vital that we learn from experience and submit as effective a defence as we possibly can.

 

Of course, submitting a defence is only one part of the battle. It then has to be backed up by an effective performance in court which is another matter entirely.

 

Nevertheless, let's stick for now with the subject of the defence. It seems to me that we should be able to construct a "base" defence, which will need relatively little changing for the vast majority of individual cases.

 

SH

 

This used to be a sticky - not sure if it still is (if it isn't it should be) re A Cabot loss in court.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/115280-useful-information.html

[ScabHunter]

Thanks jetbags and pmhcfc.

 

I shall only be looking in briefly over this weekend as I've got a pretty heavy workload, but don't think I've gone away for good - I haven't.

 

There will definitely be more to come.

 

SH

[mercyblue]

scabhunter you are exactly right I went for a strike out on the basis of cpr 16.4 which was of course ignored now all they have sent with their aq is some forged NOA's one of which doesn't even have a date on. They have put in handwriting representative of letter sent ha.

Well will wait for directions from the AQ but if they want to take now all the way to court on some clearly made up noa'a fine - I just worry if I get one of those in-transient judges.

[dave354uk]

Excellent work guys,

 

Scabhunter, I will try and send you Cabot's idea of an NoA sometime this weekend, feel free to use it as you see fit.

[mysticpols06]

Morning everyone & SH "We're not worthy" You are SOOOOO getting a crimbo card!! x

Am in total support with this thread & the ideas submitted so far spesh the 'group fund' of £5 each etc - personally i have stalled with (many) dca's not just CABOT due to a lack of £75 but £5 i would be willing to invest!

Have just updated my thread - Am at a standoff.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/166869-cabot-aarghhhh.html

Would also be willing to have any of my letters used if they can be edited or help anyone in similar situ - there are some i have not posted on my thread re complaints etc but think we could defo organise a thread full of CABOT templates in particuarlar?

Also agree we need to 'mass' complain or to the authorities - Have often wondered if it would be possible to get as many CABOT 'victims' together with their paperwork in good order etc & request a meeting with OFT in their offices where we can ALL go in & lay the evidence in front of them -

They would be forced to reconsider the fitness to hold license. (in an ideal world of course )

Will look in as much as poss

Best wishes, Take care, Mpolsx

[Stephan56]

Is there an evidence as to WHICH courts Cabot are getting their judgements from? Is it a "one off" (i.e restricted to one judge or to one jurisdiction) or is it more "widespread"?

 

My reason for asking is that it could be (i) Cabot have identified one or more "creditor friendly" judges and have somehow ensured they get all cases in front of those judges and/or (ii) there has been some kind of "judicial training" or seminar where the judges have been "educated" and then take the side of Cabot. Surely judges go to seminars etc where they receive "unbiased education" on certain aspectof the law.

 

If, on the other hand, Cabot are getting similar (positive for them) results on a nationwide basis, then it shows that their tactics/arguments (despite the flaws we see as so blatent) are managing to persuade judges. Hat is almost the more worrying scenario.

 

Is there anyone on here who has actually gone to court ith Cabot, heard Cabot's arguments (preferably oral) and can give some guidance. Is it just that defendant's have failed to argue effectively themselves?

 

Is there anyway we can gather instances where judges have failed to apply the law and make a complaint? Is appeal the only way to challenge a judge's decision?

 

IF CAbots pleadings are so flawed HOW are they managing to get judgements? Is it that no one is challenging them? Is it that judges somehow think s127(3) no longer applies? Are they ust ignoring it? If so, why?

 

Even the most creditor friendly judge, I would think, would want to have at least some legally justifiable basis for his decision. What are they using?

 

Apologies if this post just raises questions. We know WHAT CAbot are doing, but we lack the HOW? We need more information on the HOW (how they are MANAGING to get judements despite the "dodgy papaerwork") so we can come up with a proper response - both strategically and tactically - that will be useful generally.

[saddler10]

Hi all, very useful thread. My Egg account was sold to Cabot while in dispute. On the subject of forged notice of assignments, I have one on 'Egg' headed paper but 'signed' by someone from Cahoot/Abbey National PLC.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/102154-saddler10-dlc-egg-3.html