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

[sansho]

Rhia in response to your question you cannot chase the assignee for the debts/monies owed by the OC, as the assignee's entitlement to benefits following assignment is not dependent on any pre-condition or obligation on the part of the assignee to pay monies owed by the assignor and this is supported by Common Law - "the burden of a contract cannot be assigned, liability remains with the Lender".

 

However the CCA being an instrument of law provides an exception to this notion in protecting vulnerable consumers and makes it a pre-condition for the assignee to produce the consumer credit agreement (containing the prescribed terms) before it can exercise rights to title and sue the non-assigning party for the benefits (aka debts) arising under the credit agreement regulated by the CCA.

 

Any DCA that flouts this simple rule afforded consumers by the CCA will not receive 1 penny in any court of law, and will instead become an instant debtor.

[pmhcfc]

Rhia in response to your question you cannot chase the assignee for the debts/monies owed by the OC, as the assignee's entitlement to benefits following assignment is not dependent on any pre-condition or obligation on the part of the assignee to pay monies owed by the assignor and this is supported by Common Law - "the burden of a contract cannot be assigned, liability remains with the Lender".

 

However the CCA being an instrument of law provides an exception to this notion in protecting vulnerable consumers and makes it a pre-condition for the assignee to produce the consumer credit agreement (containing the prescribed terms) before it can exercise rights to title and sue the non-assigning party for the benefits (aka debts) arising under the credit agreement regulated by the CCA.

 

Any DCA that flouts this simple rule afforded consumers by the CCA will not receive 1 penny in any court of law, and will instead become an instant debtor.

 

Me already thinking that we like sansho on these boards

[sansho]

Ignore the phrase "provides an exception to this notion" bit in the above post. Got carried away with the keyboard...

[ODC]

So what byou are saying Sansho is that they are talking BS when they try to Rely on the Law of Property Act

[elizabeth1]

Sansho this is very onteresting stuff - Good work by the way!! - so in a position where lets say

 

Lender = A sells account/debt to the DCA = B

there is no CCA in place just an application form/ reply card and T&C's that represent another time period (do not represent date account would have opened originally)

 

DCA = B then tries take the customer/account holder to court

 

What then ? customer asks for CCA but is told "don't be stupid this application form is the CCA" as in the whole Cabot argument (and I am sure argued by many Banks and CC companies etc..)

 

In many cases Cabots refuse to answer questions as to what laws they are trying to claim money under, processing data under and still adding interest to defaulted accounts under - it's a vicious circle trying to get information from them other than to file a court claim against them to try force answers through court.

 

So what laws/sections should a person in this type of position be showing a court judge to stack up their arguments with? (speaking hypathetically of course ha ha)

 

Because would I be wrong in thinking that unless the DCA is able to get past the CCA bits in having a "real enforceable agreement" in place at the time they purchased the debt/account - then the whole "rights & duties" argument is invalid anyway? My thoughts are that unless a DCA has proof there is a real agreement - they shouldn't be taking action against any account holder or writing to the CRA's ?

 

I do understand what you are saying and I will research this tommorrow when my eyes aren't tired - but I seem to think the whole thing comes back to the CCA - and if the CC Companies are selling on unenforceable accounts (lemons) then the whole thing is voided from that from a DCA's stance cause they can't enforce the debt?

 

Does that make sense? or am I just tired ?

[Jeff2000]

Hi Liz,

 

 

It makes sense to me.

 

 

But then I'm always tired!!!

 

 

Jeff.

[sansho]

Just to recap. Cabot are trying to hoodwink consumers with the LPA. Any obligation that has to be performed by the OC by way of law (before becoming entitled to sue regarding a debt) is automatically transferred following assignment. The implication here is that the obligation is transitive even where the Deed of Assignment specifies rights, benefits or interest without including the duties.

 

**However Note - Do not make a case around this with other contracts falling outside the remit of the CCA. As this is very arguable in those circumstances and you need to get other legal materials and facts to support.

 

The obligations imposed on the OC under the CCA is not a burden that can be avoided. This obligation is transferred with assignment. There is no differentiation between an OC or assignee (DCA) under the CCA 1974.

 

If a DCA is high strung about this and out-of-pocket as a consequence, that is short straw it has drawn. DCA's know that a debt bought is akin to the roll of the dice, they may get lucky with some and others may yield zilch. That is why debts are bought so cheap! Nevertheless the bounty is good that is why they persist despite the risk.

[Seahorse]

The bounty is good, because their "customers" are, in general, unaware of their rights. Not so very long ago, I was one of the millions who would sell their granny to pay off a debt collector just to get them off my back.

 

Now the boot is on the other foot. And I feel like it needs to be used to give someone a right good kicking.

[andrew1]

By the time we've finished with them they won't have to sell granny's anymore, there'll be an office suite, Directors Table and 3 chairs, 200 people without jobs, an office block and couple of Towers for sale instead

[pmhcfc]

By the time we've finished with them they won't have to sell granny's anymore, there'll be an office suite, Directors Table and 3 chairs, 200 people without jobs, an office block and couple of Towers for sale instead

 

LoL . KM isn't that daft - daren't pay all that money out buying an office block - they have a new 20 year lease (I think it's 20 years) at the new building by that statue of those four blokes all pushing a ball in different directions - which, to me, kinda sums Cabot up hehee

[andrew1]

LoL . KM isn't that daft - daren't pay all that money out buying an office block - they have a new 20 year lease (I think it's 20 years) at the new building by that statue of those four blokes all pushing a ball in different directions - which, to me, kinda sums Cabot up hehee

 

Hey, if they own it maybe all those people with claims can slap on a CHARGING ORDER on it

[tbern123]

Wow look at the size of the Cabot Fan Club

[Seahorse]

Growing by the day, tBern me old china.

[ODC]

Wow look at the size of the Cabot Fan Club

Its nearly as big as Uncle Ken's EGO:D

[elizabeth1]

Its nearly as big as Uncle Ken's EGO:D

 

 

Now that is what you call BIG

[andrew1]

Wow look at the size of the Cabot Fan Club

 

Just following in some worthy footsteps tbern

[Chrisjbc]

I sent cabot the CCA letter in August this year, they replied in reasonable time with, some stements of account, a photocopy of my application for the Monument card with only my sig on it.

They state that "We will arrange for a copy of the notice of assignment to be sent to you. This letter constitutes written notice of the assignment under section 25 of the Law of property Act and therefore we have no need to provide a copy of the assignment deed itself"

 

They also state that they Cabot UK have purchased the account and they are the legal owner

 

Now, I am firstly curious about this ref to Law of Property Act and also as their first letter responding to my original request of 10th June was the 18th June (contents above) and the other paperwork dated 16th August.

 

I have been a bit slow on this as I was in Hospital, but I have not heard anything else from them.

Should I just wait and tell them they are out of tiime and in an offence situation or just say nuffin.

At no time have I received a notice of assignment, the original credit card photocopy was the application only, and a few assorted statements

 

Thanks for any info

[ODC]

They always throw in the Law of Property act as a feeble excuse not to produce the CCA. Not only are they now in default but have committed a summary offence. Any further demands from them should be reported to TS

[Seahorse]

Start your own thread though Chris. I'm sure you'll have more to tell us as the saga unfolds.

[Edz11]

The EU Consumer Credit Directive 87/102 (Article 9) says;

 

"Where the creditor's rights under a credit agreement are assigned to a third person, the consumer shall be entitled to plead against that third person any defence which was available to him under the original creditor, including..."

 

Now that means that Cabot's very weak position on "rights but not duties" is and always has been "buggered". The Directive applies to Governments, not to individuals. But it impacts individuals. The Directive tells national governments what should be in their consumer credit laws. If Cabots say that Article 9 was not implemented in the UK (and that is what they ARE saying) then they are saying that the UK Government is in breach of the EU directive.

 

Would they really like to get involved with a complaint to the Commission from a Consumer in the UK that alleges failure by the UK Government to implement 87/102 as evidenced by one of their "rights but not duties" letters? The OFT will jump all over them...

[make them aktiv runners]

The EU Consumer Credit Directive 87/102 (Article 9) says;

 

"Where the creditor's rights under a credit agreement are assigned to a third person, the consumer shall be entitled to plead against that third person any defence which was available to him under the original creditor, including..."

 

Now that means that Cabot's very weak position on "rights but not duties" is and always has been "buggered". The Directive applies to Governments, not to individuals. But it impacts individuals. The Directive tells national governments what should be in their consumer credit laws. If Cabots say that Article 9 was not implemented in the UK (and that is what they ARE saying) then they are saying that the UK Government is in breach of the EU directive.

 

 

 

Would they really like to get involved with a complaint to the Commission from a Consumer in the UK that alleges failure by the UK Government to implement 87/102 as evidenced by one of their "rights but not duties" letters? The OFT will jump all over them...

 

The above is to be repealed and replaced. Parliament will have a second reading on the new directive on 12.12.07. It will say:

 

Article 17

Assignment of rights

1. In the event of assignment to a third party of the creditor's rights under a credit agreement

or the agreement itself, the consumer shall be entitled to plead against the assignee any

defence which was available to him against the original creditor, including set-off where

the latter is permitted in the Member State concerned.

2. The consumer shall be informed of the assignment referred to in paragraph 1 except where

the original creditor, by agreement with the assignee, continues to service the credit vis-àvis

the consumer.

 

Here is a link, where you can read the article in full

PLC - Council adopts common position on consumer credit directive

[Edz11]

There are likely to be a few minor changes to the final directive but this bit will survive and won't alter the position.

 

I don't know who was on the EP committee but there seems to have been a bit of lobbying by the credit industry (read business) which seems to have been partially effective.

[TideTurner]

Just following in some worthy footsteps tbern

 

With great power comes great responsibility Andrew1

[make them aktiv runners]

Any updates Tbern?

[tbern123]

Yep all done and dusted.

I am not permitted to reveal the details of the agreed settlement, but I can say this has been resolved to my satisfaction.

 

 

Can a mod please now close this thread and if possible set up a Cabot Won section and transfer this thread into it as I am sure there will be many more;)