Cabot/Kings Hill No.1/hodsons claimform - Barclaycard+Monument card debts

[JonCris]

As they are clearly linked you would name them ALL as defendents

[andrew1]

As they are clearly linked you would name them ALL as defendents

 

Thanks JonCris, could you expand upon that a little. Taking tbern's example of FarePak, creditors were told they would get 4p in the £ from it. That surely would only relate to FarePak as an individual company and not the group as a whole as I do not think the group are going bust are they?

 

I read what you are saying as that if we include all the companies in a claim, ie: in our particular case the Cabot Group ( for want of a collective title) then we would be covered one way or another whether or not one or the other companies has any funds or has individual liability for a breach of the DPA or CCA.

 

Does that make sense?

[JonCris]

It would depend on the circumstances but if 1 company tried to avoid it's liabilities by hiding behind another proven related company then it could be included in any action.

 

Matters involving Farepack. A lot of opinion have been expressed in the media much of which may have no bearing on the final outcome.

If it is found that the company transferred monies to keep another subsiduary afloat causing it to operate whilst insolvent then that money can be recalled &/or the officers of the company can be held personally liable for all of the losses incurred. This applies even though they are limited liabilty companies.

 

You could, dependent on their status & assuming there is such an entity, refer to them as so & so trading as Cabot Group or so & so a wholly owned subsiduary of Cabot Group

[tbern123]

I think that we still need some further legal clarification on the status of the relationship between these companies. In principle your are correct Jon, however in the cold light of day it is not that straight forward.

 

We can take the trading as scenario out of this, as each is a limited company in it's own right. This means that each company is a seperate legal entity. Limited also means that the level of responsibility of a share holder and director is very limited.

 

In this instance, effectly Cabot Holdings is a just a share holder in each company either directly or indirectly. If you owned shares in British Gas for example, your not legally responsible for that company.

 

It is totally different for say the Woolwich / Barclays scenario.

 

Woolwich is not a limited company, it is a trading name of Barclays so Barclays are legally responsible for it...

 

Like I say, we need clarification into the inter-relationship of these companies, I have contacted the ICO and I am waiting for a response about them sharing data.

[JonCris]

Obviously proving a financial relationship between these companies helps the cause but I suggest that anyone pursueing them should cross that bridge when they came to it. If they all use a simular trading name then I think it's reasonable to assume they are connected & subject to being named in any action. Whilst I agree we should be prudent we should at the same time stop fighting their case for them by placing self inflicted perceived problems in our way. Let them prove they ain't liable

[ivorbiggun]

I sent back the acknowledgement of service over a week ago (within the 14 days required).

 

Kings Hill No.1 received the CCA request on 21st November so their 12 days are up.

 

Ive received a reply from Barclaycard from my SAR and they're stalling with regard to the microfiche argument. A letter has been sent to them.

 

Nothing from Monument at the moment.

 

Given that I've only got another week to enter a defence - what do I say as a defence? Should I write to their solicitor requesting that they allow a stay until I get the required information?

[Donel261]

They stalled with me and gave the microfiche arguement etc, after about 3 months they did come up with the information requested, including an original of the credit agreement, statement of account and notice of assignment. Now in process of negotiating a full and final settlement.

[Rhia]

Christmas lights are on everywhere and it's a guessing game who is going to be No1 in the charts this year so I thought it was high time we had abit of Cabot/Kings Hill baiting and nominate our old chums Maynard, Crawford & Randall as no 1 in our own charts.

Having opened their Christmas card from Companies House I would like to share a few facts from their respective annual reports to dangle on your tree.

This is from Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd.

"Non performing loan portfolios are purchased from financial institutions at a substantial discount from their face amounts and are recorded at the Company's cost to acquire the portfolio." (You have it in black and white)

These lovely chaps netted £372,772 salaries & £35K in pension in the last financial year (although new accounts due soon as year ending is 31st October). Highest paid director (dunno which) received a handsome £186,611 plus pension contributions of £17,500. Still don't let's do the old Bah Humbug on them as they gave a generous (yeah, yeah) £1,678 to charidee (bet that made them feel better).

Still their 36 admin employees and 233 collections personnel helped them bring home the bacon to the tune of £16,376,577 (T/O) giving a post tax profit of £1,036,901.

However that's nothing compared to the glorious King's Hill No 1 who managed to bring in a post tax profit of £9,988,403 and all without any employees. Yup that's ZERO employees according to para 6 of their annual report which states: "There were no employees of the Company during the year ended 31 October 2005 (2004-none). The directors received no remuneration in the year (2004-£nil)" Ah bless!

So what does this company with no staff whatsoever actually do? Yes you've guessed it :

"Non performing loan portfolios are purchased from financial institutions at a substantial discount from their face amounts and are recorded at the Company's cost to acquire the portfolio." How any of these non-existant staff purchase anything from anybody and manage to start court proceedings is somewhat of a mystery - perhaps they are aliens?

Not that it's all good news for them as they are indebted to Barclays to the tune of, oh £71 million or thereabouts and it has to be repaid by 1 March 2008.

So there's my little warming seasonal tale. Whilst you're struggling to pay your debts or living in fear of the phone ringing or the bailff dropping by, rest assured that at three s****y addresses across Kent - all is joy to the world. Now if you can top these boys for No 1 in the DCA charts this year I'd be pleased to hear from you.

[andrew1]

Now we know where Santa comes from - perhaps they'll do a St. Nicholas and leave all the poor a parcel.

 

Another nail in the preverbrial....... Well done Rhia. Most useful.

 

Perhaps that's the reason they NEVER answer a letter - there's no one there !!

[ivorbiggun]

Help!

 

I've been at work most of the last week running up against deadlines. I also have a deadline here! I sent back the acknowledgement of service and the additional 14 days to come up with a defence is nearly up so I need to send something to the court. What do I write?

 

Kings Hill No.1 have so far not replied to my CCA requests and the 12 days are up. Barclaycard are stalling and nothing received from Monument so I can't even begin to compile a list of charges etc.

 

Should I just write back and request a stay subject to Hodsons/Cabot/KingsHill/Barclaycard/Monument giving me the required information?

[Rhia]

Yes it can't proceed without the paperwork. Unless they have supplied letter of assignation, signed true copy of the agreement and statements you can tell the court you do not want to waste their time and respectfully request a stay. They should not have brought proceedings without the papers. I'm in the same boat and just found this out with a response to another thread. No papers - no case.

[ivorbiggun]

Thank you Rhia. Looks like I'll be burning the midnight oil typing some letters.

[JonCris]

If they are the claimants you can apply to have it struck out. If not you can also apply to the court to order their compliance with your statutory demand

[Rhia]

Is there any form of wording needed to have it struck out? Or do you just write and ask nicely?

[Rhia]

Also if an action is struck out does it mean it can't be revived at some future date? I can't find anything about this anywhere.

[JonCris]

N244

 

It can be reinstated at any time but would fail again if without merit. Such as the defendants continuing default.

 

The court might make an order that they produce the statutory documents/agreements. But if they don't have them prehearing they have no case & should you apply for it they could be ordered to cancel the debt & refund any monies you have already paid.

[ivorbiggun]

Evening Folks,

 

*Waves to all the fellow Caboteers*

 

Well I have been around viewing the site and tberns and seahorses massive threads. I just couldn't post from work.

 

Update on the situation here is long overdue.

 

I submitted a defence to the Court and had ticked the box on jurisdiction to get the case transferred darn sarf.

 

Rugby Court ordered that the case be stayed until KH/Cabot supplied the SAR info and that the case be struck out at the end of March 07 if they didn't do so.

 

Then at the end of March, Hodsons made an application for a 28 day extension because they had all the statements but only one of the two credit agreements. This was granted to them.

 

Hodsons have applied for another hearing date but I've sent back an application to the Court to contest jurisdiction.

 

And....... I've even sent a claim to Halifax to repay my bank charges!!

[andrew1]

That deserves a 'well done' good to see you back on their trail.

[ivorbiggun]

Hi Mods,

 

Can this be moved to the Cabot Forum please?

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[ivorbiggun]

I've read quite a few threads on here but I can't still get my head around Cabot registering another default.

 

So if I owe Shark Credit Card Company £10,000 and default, then Cabot being the bottom feeders, buy this debt for x% of it's face value and then immediately place another default on my credit record. So now there are 2 defaults for the same debt! How can this be?

 

Can someone enlighten me on this?

 

Thanks.

[ivorbiggun]

Thanks for the info Richard.

 

Well update on this. The case has been transferred to my aunts local court but no hearing date yet.

[ivorbiggun]

We've had a case management conference date set in July. Can someone tell me what I may need to send to the Court or to Hodsons?

[ivorbiggun]

Hello fellow Caboteers.

 

We've got a Case Management Conference coming up in a couple of weeks at the local Court.

 

Can someone tell me what happens and what I need to bring. I have the statements, unenforceable agreement and a copy of the Wilson(?) case. Anything else I need?