• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

** DISCONTINUED **Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

    Originally posted by paulfloor View Post
    Just been having a read up on a few other threads as I like to have an idea of what I should be doing next prior to anything happening one way or the other, from what I can research on the board I can see these scenarios:



    [a] if cabot/wh fail to come up with an adequate reply to my defence within the 28 days (by 11/4/16) then I can apply to the court to get the ccj stayed, which would put the ccj on hold until they can come up with the cca information or a certain time period has passed and I can then get the ccj set aside? The Court will stay the claim automatically if the claim fails to respond to a defence the claimant will have to pay a fee to lift the stay. You are not informed if the claim is stayed hence the need to check with the court after the 28 days runs out. If the stay is prolonged you can apply for strike out
    fee payable.

    n
    [b] they do come back with the cca by the 11/4/16 which gives me the required information so I can make a firm decision on how to proceed ie: admit and pay or continue to defend claim You would need to carefully check any documents produced to ensure that they do satisfy the CCA request.

    [c] they write again to aknowledge that they cannot get hold of any cca information from the original creditor about the account in question and the debt is then rendered unenforceable and no further action will be taken going forward at all If the agreement not available then no court action is allowed, But the debt still exists and will still be collectable and reported to Credit Reference Agencies for the
    balance if the 6 year " life " of the default after which it will be removed paid or not.

    nem



    Im working on the probable basis that they will get hold of cca information eventually as I took out the credit card post april 2007 according to noddle, so is probably unlikely that the information is lost/unobtainable so will be enforceable at some point along the line, (its always better to err on the side of caution too in regards to getting hopes up), so my question is what would be my best course of action in regards to paying the debt off assuming they can provide the cca? could I negotiate with them to pay a % off as settlement or will it be a case of the whole amount on the ccj claim will be what they would want paying regardless now.

    as they say forewarned is forearmed, many thanks
    Keep an eye on the post!

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

      Originally posted by Kati View Post
      the claim would be automatically stayed if they don't respond, you don't have to apply for that. You do have to apply for a set-aside tho'

      yup :nod:

      If they say this, then the court case would still go forward UNLESS they discontinue it. You would still have to keep to the court timescales or risk getting a judgement in default They may write to you saying the account's "on hold" ... it means nothing without a proper Notice of Discontinuation.


      If they did come back with an acceptable CCA reply, you could request a "Full and Final" settlement (a % of the debt) which you could pay off monthly etc... under a Tomlin Order (sometimes known as a Consent Order). @Amethyst would be able to advise on these nearer the time (if it comes to that).

      Thank you the informative reply, now I have an idea in my head on how I can proceed depending on a few variables which is good as I like to have an idea of what to do in all the circumstances, the tomlin order was something that I have read about that I thought might be an option potentially.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

        Ok quick update, heard nothing back from cabot or wright hassell since defence went in, the 28 days passed on monday and also if allowed 2 days service for them to receive defence from the court service then they as far as im aware have not responded in time, im checking mcol daily to check for updates to the progress to see if it has been stayed.

        Ive noticed after reading various other threads that cabot are not or were not on the fca register and wonder what anyones opinion on what I have found would be:

        after a bit of further research on other threads I noticed a few people were under the impression that cabot are using a company umbrella type scheme to use different trading names but only having one company on the fca register, thus a bit of a work round for them so they don't need to have multiple firms registered (due to cost I guess) so after searching the register I seem to have narrowed it down to 4 active and recently licensed names which I couldn't see on there previously:

        my claimant is cabot financial (uk) ltd as reference

        cabot financial (europe) limited: ref:743525 - has the same address/postcode as my claimant and is on the fca register as an appointed representative of the principal cabot credit management group limited effective date from 8/4/16, the name cabot financial (uk) ltd does not appear on the list of trading/brand names.

        cabot financial (marlin) limited: ref:743357 - has a different address/postcode to my claimant and is on the fca register as an appointed representative of the principal cabot credit management group limited effective date from 7/4/16, the name cabot financial (uk) ltd does not appear on the list of trading/brand names.

        midland credit management india private limited: ref:743548 - has a different address/postcode to my claimant (india based I think?) and is on the fca register as an appointed representative of the principal cabot credit management group limited effective date from 8/4/16, the name cabot financial (uk) ltd does not appear on the list of trading/brand names.

        cabot credit management group limited: ref:677910
        - same address/postcode as my claimant and is on the fca register as fully authorised and is the principal which I believe means the main company which the above ones are derived from, effective date on register was 11/3/16, the name cabot financial (uk) ltd does not appear on the list of trading/brand names.


        The only place I can find information on cabot financial (uk) ltd ref:472690 is on the interim permissions register, which had all permissions lapse on 28/2/15 which was nearly a whole year before they put in a claim against me, so im leaning towards (although not getting my hopes up) they may have made a fatal clerical error on their paperwork, as my take on the situation is that the company they are using to make a claim against me does not have permission to carry out any consumer credit related tasks as their interim permissions have lapsed and because the name cabot financial (uk) ltd is not on any of the appointed representatives t/a names nor id imagine more importantly on the holding company cabot credit management group limited t/a names and not to mention the companies that are actually registered on the fca consumer credit register had effective dates that started after they had filed a claim against me!

        So am I right in thinking they are in breach ofsection 19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA)?

        So abit long winded post and could well be absolutely nothing but I thought id mention it as nothing ventured nothing gained and if they are playing silly buggers than they should be held to account for it, and if it is something that can be used/referred to than it could potentially help out a number of people in a similar position which would be nice

        :beagle:
        Last edited by paulfloor; 17th April 2016, 22:10:PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

          Originally posted by paulfloor View Post
          Ok quick update, heard nothing back from cabot or wright hassell since defence went in, the 28 days passed on monday and also if allowed 2 days service for them to receive defence from the court service then they as far as im aware have not responded in time, im checking mcol daily to check for updates to the progress to see if it has been stayed.

          Ive noticed after reading various other threads that cabot are not or were not on the fca register and wonder what anyones opinion on what I have found would be:

          after a bit of further research on other threads I noticed a few people were under the impression that cabot are using a company umbrella type scheme to use different trading names but only having one company on the fca register, thus a bit of a work round for them so they don't need to have multiple firms registered (due to cost I guess) so after searching the register I seem to have narrowed it down to 4 active and recently licensed names which I couldn't see on there previously:

          my claimant is cabot financial (uk) ltd as reference

          cabot financial (europe) limited: ref:743525 - has the same address/postcode as my claimant and is on the fca register as an appointed representative of the principal cabot credit management group limited effective date from 8/4/16, the name cabot financial (uk) ltd does not appear on the list of trading/brand names.

          cabot financial (marlin) limited: ref:743357 - has a different address/postcode to my claimant and is on the fca register as an appointed representative of the principal cabot credit management group limited effective date from 7/4/16, the name cabot financial (uk) ltd does not appear on the list of trading/brand names.

          midland credit management india private limited: ref:743548 - has a different address/postcode to my claimant (india based I think?) and is on the fca register as an appointed representative of the principal cabot credit management group limited effective date from 8/4/16, the name cabot financial (uk) ltd does not appear on the list of trading/brand names.

          cabot credit management group limited: ref:677910
          - same address/postcode as my claimant and is on the fca register as fully authorised and is the principal which I believe means the main company which the above ones are derived from, effective date on register was 11/3/16, the name cabot financial (uk) ltd does not appear on the list of trading/brand names.


          The only place I can find information on cabot financial (uk) ltd ref:472690 is on the interim permissions register, which had all permissions lapse on 28/2/15 which was nearly a whole year before they put in a claim against me, so im leaning towards (although not getting my hopes up) they may have made a fatal clerical error on their paperwork, as my take on the situation is that the company they are using to make a claim against me does not have permission to carry out any consumer credit related tasks as their interim permissions have lapsed and because the name cabot financial (uk) ltd is not on any of the appointed representatives t/a names nor id imagine more importantly on the holding company cabot credit management group limited t/a names and not to mention the companies that are actually registered on the fca consumer credit register had effective dates that started after they had filed a claim against me!

          So am I right in thinking they are in breach ofsection 19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA)?

          So abit long winded post and could well be absolutely nothing but I thought id mention it as nothing ventured nothing gained and if they are playing silly buggers than they should be held to account for it, and if it is something that can be used/referred to than it could potentially help out a number of people in a similar position which would be nice

          :beagle:
          As far as we can establish, (The FCA not having commented otherwise) the is no problem with the way the Cabot is trading.

          nem

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

            Think we have had extensive arguments on this before, they would need to have entered into a servicing agreement to be exempt. You could write to Wright Hassall and confirm, who is their client that they have been instructed by. If they say it is CF UK then they are committing a criminal offence, if they say another CF entity which is authorised then they are not.
            If you have a question about the voluntary termination process, please read this guide first, as it should have all the answers you need. Please do not hijack another person's thread as I will not respond to you
            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            LEGAL DISCLAIMER
            Please be aware that this is a public forum and is therefore accessible to anyone. The content I post on this forum is not intended to be legal advice nor does it establish any client-lawyer type relationship between you and me. Therefore any use of my content is at your own risk and I cannot be held responsible in any way. It is always recommended that you seek independent legal advice.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

              Originally posted by R0b View Post
              Think we have had extensive arguments on this before, they would need to have entered into a servicing agreement to be exempt. You could write to Wright Hassall and confirm, who is their client that they have been instructed by. If they say it is CF UK then they are committing a criminal offence, if they say another CF entity which is authorised then they are not.
              Originally posted by nemesis45 View Post
              As far as we can establish, (The FCA not having commented otherwise) the is no problem with the way the Cabot is trading.

              nem
              Originally posted by paulfloor View Post
              Ok quick update, heard nothing back from cabot or wright hassell since defence went in, the 28 days passed on monday and also if allowed 2 days service for them to receive defence from the court service then they as far as im aware have not responded in time, im checking mcol daily to check for updates to the progress to see if it has been stayed.

              Ive noticed after reading various other threads that cabot are not or were not on the fca register and wonder what anyones opinion on what I have found would be:

              after a bit of further research on other threads I noticed a few people were under the impression that cabot are using a company umbrella type scheme to use different trading names but only having one company on the fca register, thus a bit of a work round for them so they don't need to have multiple firms registered (due to cost I guess) so after searching the register I seem to have narrowed it down to 4 active and recently licensed names which I couldn't see on there previously:

              my claimant is cabot financial (uk) ltd as reference

              cabot financial (europe) limited: ref:743525 - has the same address/postcode as my claimant and is on the fca register as an appointed representative of the principal cabot credit management group limited effective date from 8/4/16, the name cabot financial (uk) ltd does not appear on the list of trading/brand names.

              cabot financial (marlin) limited: ref:743357 - has a different address/postcode to my claimant and is on the fca register as an appointed representative of the principal cabot credit management group limited effective date from 7/4/16, the name cabot financial (uk) ltd does not appear on the list of trading/brand names.

              midland credit management india private limited: ref:743548 - has a different address/postcode to my claimant (india based I think?) and is on the fca register as an appointed representative of the principal cabot credit management group limited effective date from 8/4/16, the name cabot financial (uk) ltd does not appear on the list of trading/brand names.

              cabot credit management group limited: ref:677910
              - same address/postcode as my claimant and is on the fca register as fully authorised and is the principal which I believe means the main company which the above ones are derived from, effective date on register was 11/3/16, the name cabot financial (uk) ltd does not appear on the list of trading/brand names.


              The only place I can find information on cabot financial (uk) ltd ref:472690 is on the interim permissions register, which had all permissions lapse on 28/2/15 which was nearly a whole year before they put in a claim against me, so im leaning towards (although not getting my hopes up) they may have made a fatal clerical error on their paperwork, as my take on the situation is that the company they are using to make a claim against me does not have permission to carry out any consumer credit related tasks as their interim permissions have lapsed and because the name cabot financial (uk) ltd is not on any of the appointed representatives t/a names nor id imagine more importantly on the holding company cabot credit management group limited t/a names and not to mention the companies that are actually registered on the fca consumer credit register had effective dates that started after they had filed a claim against me!

              So am I right in thinking they are in breach ofsection 19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA)?

              So abit long winded post and could well be absolutely nothing but I thought id mention it as nothing ventured nothing gained and if they are playing silly buggers than they should be held to account for it, and if it is something that can be used/referred to than it could potentially help out a number of people in a similar position which would be nice

              :beagle:
              IMHO

              Cabot are a £multi-billion firm with legal representation; they must know the rules re authorisation.
              I reckon they (CF9UK)Ltd) have made a commercial decision to 'wing it', hoping that most people will cave in & pay when faced with a court claim.
              If they lose a few cases, they will still be quids-in, & only the FCA have the power to really hurt them financially, but for some reason seem reluctant to do so. :noidea:
              CAVEAT LECTOR

              This is only my opinion - "Opinions are made to be changed --or how is truth to be got at?" (Byron)

              You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
              Cohen, Herb


              There is danger when a man throws his tongue into high gear before he
              gets his brain a-going.
              Phelps, C. C.


              "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
              The last words of John Sedgwick

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

                Originally posted by charitynjw View Post
                IMHO

                Cabot are a £multi-billion firm with legal representation; they must know the rules re authorisation.
                I reckon they (CF9UK)Ltd) have made a commercial decision to 'wing it', hoping that most people will cave in & pay when faced with a court claim.
                If they lose a few cases, they will still be quids-in, & only the FCA have the power to really hurt them financially, but for some reason seem reluctant to do so. :noidea:
                If CF(UK) is the beneficial owner of the debt in simple terms then a claim is possible it seems to me perhaps the FCA views it the same way,

                nem

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

                  Originally posted by charitynjw View Post
                  IMHO

                  Cabot are a £multi-billion firm with legal representation; they must know the rules re authorisation.
                  I reckon they (CF9UK)Ltd) have made a commercial decision to 'wing it', hoping that most people will cave in & pay when faced with a court claim.
                  If they lose a few cases, they will still be quids-in, & only the FCA have the power to really hurt them financially, but for some reason seem reluctant to do so. :noidea:
                  Who knows, but there must be a servicing agreement between the parties i.e. CFUK is the 'owner' and CFXX is the 'servicer' and WH will be instructed by CFXX. So within the Servicing Agreement there will probably be a list or a schedule of services that the servicer will do on behalf of the owner.



                  WH are legally obliged to confirm who they are taking instructions from and if they confirm CFUK then they would too be committing a criminal offence along with CFUK/CFXX. If CFUK has a beneficial interest then they would not be able to legally bring a claim against the debtor, it would have to be the legal owner i.e. the previous creditor and CFUK would be added as an interested party.
                  If you have a question about the voluntary termination process, please read this guide first, as it should have all the answers you need. Please do not hijack another person's thread as I will not respond to you
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  LEGAL DISCLAIMER
                  Please be aware that this is a public forum and is therefore accessible to anyone. The content I post on this forum is not intended to be legal advice nor does it establish any client-lawyer type relationship between you and me. Therefore any use of my content is at your own risk and I cannot be held responsible in any way. It is always recommended that you seek independent legal advice.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

                    Would the servicer not be the same thing as an appointed representitive as far as fca are concerned? I was thinking that they have made a clerical error as it seems they have moved their trading on from the uk name to the Europe name, but on the register they both have separate ref numbers and to my mind are seperate entities, and if that is the case then the uk named one which has made the claim against is not authorised to do so, id imagine that Cabot credit management is the overall owner of all debts purchased and then has the smaller arms (other 3 I mentioned in other post) do all the legwork.

                    I thought it was a clerical error that they have used an old non authorised trading entity to make the claim which could be used to my/others advantage, as to me it seems simply they are bringing claims with the wrong entity instead of the new ones which are now authorised as appointed representitives and not simply misspelt the name which wouldn't hinder them.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

                      PERG 2.8.14ZA
                      A person who is not an authorised person and exercises, or has the right to exercise, the lender's rights and duties under a regulated credit agreement does not require authorisation to do so where he:
                      1. (1) arranges for another person to do so and the other person is an authorised person with permission to carry on that regulated activity;
                      2. (2) does so for up to one month after an arrangement of the kind in (1) comes to an end; or
                      3. (3) does so under an agreement with an authorised person who has permission to carry on that regulated activity.
                      (1) would be AR or a solicitor's firm

                      (2) is self explanatory

                      (3) is a servicing agreement as an example.

                      Either way in (1) and (3) there must be a written agreement documenting the fact that either the AR is an agent and acting as an agent on behalf of the principal firm or that a service agreement is entered into to manage the administration of the reuglated activities.

                      The FCA's website gives an explanation of an AR:

                      There must be a written contract between the principal and the AR documenting the arrangement. The principal takes full responsibility for ensuring that the AR complies with our rules.
                      Last edited by R0b; 18th April 2016, 13:14:PM.
                      If you have a question about the voluntary termination process, please read this guide first, as it should have all the answers you need. Please do not hijack another person's thread as I will not respond to you
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      LEGAL DISCLAIMER
                      Please be aware that this is a public forum and is therefore accessible to anyone. The content I post on this forum is not intended to be legal advice nor does it establish any client-lawyer type relationship between you and me. Therefore any use of my content is at your own risk and I cannot be held responsible in any way. It is always recommended that you seek independent legal advice.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

                        Ah ok so basically they can make a claim by using the solicitors they use as their regulated representitive.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

                          Ok just logged in to mcol to check and they have updated to say that they have sent out a Directions Questionnaire to me dated today, heard nothing from wright hassell or cabot.


                          - - - Updated - - -

                          Originally posted by R0b View Post
                          PERG 2.8.14ZA


                          (1) would be AR or a solicitor's firm

                          (2) is self explanatory

                          (3) is a servicing agreement as an example.

                          Either way in (1) and (3) there must be a written agreement documenting the fact that either the AR is an agent and acting as an agent on behalf of the principal firm or that a service agreement is entered into to manage the administration of the reuglated activities.

                          The FCA's website gives an explanation of an AR:
                          I cant see wright hassell solicitors on either the consumer credit register or the financial services register when I search, should they be on it if they are acting as (1)? if so does that now mean that cabot are in breach of the rules regarding authorisation for collecting debt? as neither cabot financial uk ltd nor wright hassell solicitors are on either register or interim with active permissions.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

                            Solicitors would be exempt if they are conducting litigation and issuing proceedings against you which from the thread sounds like proceedings have commenced. If their client is CFUK, then Cabot would be committing a criminal offence as per FSMA. As I said, all you need to do is query who WH have been instructed by, once you know that information then you can work out whether or not CFUK are in breach. WH should really point out in their letter before action that they have been instructed by CFXX on behalf of CFUK. if it says we are instructed by our client above and it says CFUK then arguably they are comitting a criminal offence too.
                            If you have a question about the voluntary termination process, please read this guide first, as it should have all the answers you need. Please do not hijack another person's thread as I will not respond to you
                            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                            LEGAL DISCLAIMER
                            Please be aware that this is a public forum and is therefore accessible to anyone. The content I post on this forum is not intended to be legal advice nor does it establish any client-lawyer type relationship between you and me. Therefore any use of my content is at your own risk and I cannot be held responsible in any way. It is always recommended that you seek independent legal advice.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

                              I will draft a letter to send to wright hassell (solicitors) and ask exactly who they are representing, I will post up before sending in case I dont word it as well as I should, as far as I can tell all my correspondence with them refers to cabot as CFUK, at every opportunity they refer to them as such, they call them their client and that they purchased the debt (both CFUK)

                              I will attach the last letter I received from the solicitors, unless im missing something it seems pretty clear to me (unless im missing something) that its CFUK who is being represented by them


                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Cabot Financial/wright hassell solictors v paulfloor

                                hypothetically speaking, if my debt was purchased by cabot credit management group (the main company) but they as it looks like to me have issued the claim under cabot financial uk limited company, would they be in breach as cbuk ltd are not authorised to act as a representative of the main group (ccmg) either on full or interim permissions as permissions have lapsed? as id assume the debt would of been bought by the main company with one of the offshoots doing the leg work for them.

                                My letter draft is below to be sent to wright hassell:


                                Dear Sir/Madam

                                Ref: 'claim no.'

                                I am writing to seek clarification from you as to who your client is which has instructed you to bring the claim referenced above against me, I am aware that you are obliged to provide this information to me and await your reply.

                                Yours Sincerely


                                Would that be sufficient to ask for their clients details? or should I be putting more in there and does it make a difference if they realise why im asking for that information?

                                Comment

                                View our Terms and Conditions

                                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.

                                Announcement

                                Collapse

                                Support LegalBeagles


                                Donate with PayPal button

                                LegalBeagles is a free forum, founded in May 2007, providing legal guidance and support to consumers and SME's across a range of legal areas.

                                See more
                                See less

                                Court Claim ?

                                Guides and Letters
                                Loading...



                                Search and Compare fixed fee legal services and find a solicitor near you.

                                Find a Law Firm


                                Working...
                                X