Taking Cabot to court for failing to supply HSBC CCA + Distress etc

[andrew1]

... aint it a nice thought ... he must have you in his dreams :D

[elizabeth1]

lol, no comment.. I appreciate that he has at least bothered to respond to me in a civil manner, without trying to brush me aside. Saying that, I will wait and see what his letters say first. Can't imagine I am going to like what they say. But hay ho

 

 

Sure is nice that he took notice and will reply to you etc..

 

Andrew - 4.44 ?? LOL

[ODC]

tbern, I have dreams about 4.44 - used to wake up during the night digital clock always said 4.44, whenever I seem to look at a clock it said 4.44 - for years - spoooky, honest... hope our Deans not the darker side of life coming into the open

No that would be 666

[tbern123]

Nothing as yet from the Postman

[tbern123]

ok, Postie came today, bearing letters from Hodsons....

 

I have read the letters a couple of times and I now have a headache...

 

I will post the content and show the inconsistentcies.....

[ODC]

ok, Postie came today, bearing letters from Hodsons....

 

I have read the letters a couple of times and I now have a headache...

 

I will post the content and show the inconsistentcies.....

 

Inconsistencies from Shodsons. Surely you are mistaken. They are a professional outfit and you are a mere Rogue Debtor. They are always right:rolleyes:

 

Looking forward to you posting them I need a laugh

[tbern123]

Firstly, in relation to the infamous cheque 300063.

 

They say:

 

Paragraph 2

We are instructed that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited does not process customer data. As a result the payment forwarded to Kings Hill was paid to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited in order to process the subject access request for that account. Our clients deny that the cheque was cashed on 3rd April 2007 as alleged and we enclose a copy statement for your perusual. The answer may be a banking error.

 

I say:

 

This could be a possibility, as it is not unknown for a cheque to be lost then found in the clearing system. However, I am confused as I sent two cheques. One payable to Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd 300063 and one to Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd 300064. BOTH HAVE BEEN CASHED

 

They say:

 

Paragraph 6

This is incorrect. Mr Marsh was informed by Mr Wellinghoff that the cheque was not presented on the date alleged.

 

Mr Marsh said:

 

----- Original Message ----- From: removed email address

To: tbern123

Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:54 AM

Subject: RE: Cabot Financial Group

 

 

 

Dear Mr tbern123

Apologies for not getting back to you on this point. I have spoken to my contact at Cabot who states that they do not accept the cheque was presented by them.

I am aware that your dispute with Cabot has reached the courts and I would hope that this and other issues you have raised are dealt with. As I mentioned in my last email, most of those issues are outside our remit but I would appreciate if you could contact me with the outcome

Regards

Jeremy Marsh

I say:

So are they saying that Trading Standard lied to me then ??

They say:

1. Cheque was presented on 30th January 2007

They also say:

Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd changed its name to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd as you are aware this may account for the apparent confusion in relation to cheque 300063. That cheque was payable to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd, the cheque was accepted by Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd as the servicing company on behalf of Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd.

I say:

Mmmmmm not quite..

The cheque was payable to Kings HIll (No.1) Ltd and was crossed account payee only.

A seperate cheque 300064 was sent to Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd, so I have been charged twice for one Subject Access Request.

[ODC]

Oh dearie me more blatant untruths. Cant wait for the next instalment. Bet when they read this thread at Cabot Towers and see the picture of the cheque in question there will be underwear needing changed

[tbern123]

Now this is where I get really confused and I need someone to explain this to me.

 

Data Protection Act

 

They say:

We are instructed that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited does not process customer data.

 

They also say:

3. Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd has provided all data processed by it. Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd (formerly Kings Hill (No.1) Limited) is the assignee of the debt and as the purchaser of the debt has a duty to report or continue to report to the CRAs

4. Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd does not process any data relating to customers, only Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd does so.

 

I say:

 

What ????

 

As the purchaser of the debt has a duty to report or continue to report to the CRAs. But and this is the real kicker, in the same paragraph, I am told that they don't process data.

 

So if they don't process data, how exactly do they report anything to the CRAs ???? (yes I know in acutal fact it is Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd, that reports the data to the CRA's, because experian have written to me and told me)

 

They say:

7. Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd is the licensed Data Controller and registered with the Information Commissioner. It is not relevant that Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd is also a seperate data controller for the purposes of the act as it does not actually process data.

 

I say:

 

Oh really. As much as I hate to say it, I can understand the right being passed to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd as the assignee to process data, but no rights have been assigned to Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd to do anything. So I think this is very relevant.

 

And for the record so does the ICO:

 

ICO say:

 

It may be the case that Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd has simply misinterpreted their role as a data controller under the Act. After all, Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd and Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd are both registered with the Commissioner as separate data controllers under the Act.

[tbern123]

I wonder who the guest is that is reading my thread ???

 

Anyway in summary, I have been charged by both companies for one Subject Access Request.

 

They say (UK) does not process data, but reports to data to CRA's (nice trick, worthy of Paul Daniels)

 

They think that it is not relevant that (UK) is registered as a Data Controller (begs the question, why are they registered then?)

[tbern123]

Sorry this is a balant additional post to reach 1000 posts..

 

Just for the record, the statement they refer me to in relation to cheque 300063 is not a bank statement, but a Cabot internal statement. Clearly showing they receive this cheque on 30 January 2007

[tbern123]

I wonder who the guest is that is reading my thread ???

 

Guest gone now, just me and ODC

[Rhia]

Tbern this sorry saga just gets sorrier.

As you are involved in court proceedings it might be useful to request further information under Part18 of the CPR. Using this request you can ask Cabot whoever to explain just how the account is assigned to UK. Once assigned to UK just how does it hop from UK to Europe for data processing (as you say a trick worthy of Paul Daniels).

Also ask them to explain how, if they have the rights (to the money and to sue) but not the duties (to process data), they are managing to actually execute these rights if they don't have them in the first place.

The Court would have to order disclosure but there shouldn't be any grounds why they shouldn't.

Of course you can also ask for disclosure on any other troubling topics including the cheque at the same time.

They really cannot keep playing fast and loose with consumer rights in this way.

[ODC]

Guest gone now, just me and ODC

No doubt the 'Guest' is reporting to his masters. When it gets to court subpoena the person who made up the bank lodgement and the person who actually lodged it along with their supervisors. They should have realised a L o n g time ago how serious you are. But with each pathetic letter they send they give you more and more ammunition in your quest.

 

As my OH says it takes a liar to have a good memory

[louiboy]

Guest gone now, just me and ODC

 

It could have been me. Had a quick look, don't always loggon.

 

Interesting that they still deny cashing the cheque when it's obviously been cashed by somebody.

[Jeff2000]

Hi,

 

 

This really is completely beyond belief!!!

 

You couldn't write this stuff!

 

 

Jeff.

[lookinforinfo]

The Cheques Act of 1992 was specifically designed to clarify the position

with "A/C Payee Only" cheques, as banks had been abusing the instruction.

 

So I am surprised that their bank is paying cheques from one limited companies

account into anothers-something that is illegal, regardless as to

the a/c payee wording. However I am not sure what you can do about it.

Nor does it appear an Information Commissioners Office problem, nor even one for the OFT.

 

Perhaps the Banking Ombudsman is the guy to go digging as I imagine that it

is not only your cheques that are being converted.

[ODC]

You can rest assured that if you or I lodged a cheque marked A/C Payee into and account other than our own the Old Bill would be at your door quicker than you could say Williem Wellinhof (crazy guy, crazy name)

[elizabeth1]

So they think they can do as they like??????????

[TideTurner]

Of course they can, they run the gaff from their Ivory Towers.

 

They are in control of which cheques should be paid. They are also in control of which building projects, business funding, pension investments, insurance claims, stock markets, estate agents, private investigators, debt collection agencies, bailiffs, consumer credit, mortgages, loans, overdrafts, clearance payments, credit cards, direct debits, client income, client payment via branch or ATM, savings, and the average day to day running of Joe Blogg's financial life.

 

Wow

 

Tide

[tbern123]

The point, both Hodsons and Cabot seem to have missed, is that they have charged me twice for ONE SAR.

 

They have now confirmed they recieved ny chq 300063 on 30 Jan 2007 and due to a bank error, it did not debit my account until March.

 

However, the whole point is that they should never have banked it anyway, as I had also sent a chq for (europe).

 

So I will go back to them with two questions.

 

1) Why did they charge me twice ?

2) As the chq was payable to Kings Hill, how did they manage to bank it, as at that time Kings Hill was a dormant company.

 

I will also remind them that if they don't refund me, I will be taking them to court for a refund of the fee (and report them to the ICO again !!!)

[elizabeth1]

Tbern - this company seriously need to shape up their admin Depts as this isn't the only Kings Hill Payee cheque that has been cashed since Kings Hill became dormant.

 

Seems far more diligence is required ?

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[Seahorse]

Well, I think I'm just going to have to set the cat amongst the pigeons and get Cabot and Barclaycard to fight it out amongst themselves. When I get home from this trip, I'm just going to write to both of them and tell them if anybody wants any cash, they'll have to convince me who owns what. And if they won't play ball, we'll let a judge decide. And I'll drag both of them into court if I have to, to sort this out once and for all.

 

This has gone on way too long.