Cabot uk restons

[Beendone]

Hi there I am seeking a little advise on debt that is currently being paid to Restons solicitors enforced by a county court judgment.The debit was originally with the Halifax bank and sold or as it says assigned to Cabot financial (uk) limited on the 18/5/2015.The judgment amount was for 2811 with additional costs,a arrangement was made and monthly payments have been made to the sum of roughly half the total amount.After doing a little research on the company Cabot financial uk ltd I see from fsa register that on the date of the assignment they held no licence ,can anyone please advise me further and help me assertian whether or not there actions of buying and proceeding through the courts are just and legally binding .

many thanks

[Amethyst]

You already have a judgment on this debt and have paid over 1400 since the judgment was obtained. Not sure when you got the judgment but seems likely you've long since passed the time to argue against it - Cabot are fca authorised through their parent company. Reston's just act as their solicitors in some court claims. Are you looking into it to try and get the ccj removed from your credit file ? Unless you settle the judgment amount ( when it can be marked as satisfied ) it will stay on your credit file and the judgment register for six years from the date of judgment

[Beendone]

Hi there I am trying to assertain whether or not at the time the debt was sold to Cabot finance uk they held a licence to carry on there business as debt purchasers and the rest of there debt perusing activities ,I believe if there licence had expired not only would this have been my first line of defending the case but it would be fraudulent act on there behalf and also there solicitors. Ok half the debt has been paid and it is a whilst since the judgment was entered it has only just come to my knowledge that at the time sale they held no licence ,I am considering going through the financial ombudsman if I can assertain the information I require and then considering reporting there findings to the county court ,as I believe the sale of the debt and the subsequent persuing and court action of the debt to be a criminal offence and contempt of court to sign a statement of truth which they would of signed.

[Amethyst]

Okay.

In the recent case of MFS Portfolio Limited v Phelan and West, District Judge Chaudhuri confirmed that a debt purchaser could obtain a judgment even though it did not hold permission from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to carry out the regulated activity of debt collection. The debt purchaser was able to rely on the FCA authorisation held by its parent company, Cabot Credit Management Group Limited. Within most debt purchaser groups it is the Special Purchase Vehicle (SPV) which acquires the debt whilst other companies within the group fulfil the authorised representative role.When an SPV acquires a portfolio of debt it becomes the creditor of any agreement which was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act. In the event Court proceedings are issued for recovery of the debt only the SPV can be the Claimant. Under the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) the starting point is that any firm carrying out a regulated activity (which includes debt collection) requires permission to do so from the FCA unless it can rely on one of the specific exemptions contained within FSMA. Most SPVs initially did, but no longer do, hold permission from the FCA. Specialist debt challenger lawyers often allege the Claimant (i.e. the SPV) has committed a criminal offence by issuing the recovery claim. They argue the Court proceedings are a regulated activity (debt collection) and provide the Court with a copy extract from the FCA website confirming the SPV’s permission has lapsed.Faced with the undeniable fact that the SPV did not hold FCA permission and perhaps daunted by the prospect of trying to unravel the detailed provisions of FSMA many Courts would either stay or prolong what ought to be straightforward debt recovery claims. However, SPVs are able to rely on paragraph 55 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001, provided that they have entered into a servicing agreement with another member of the Group, that the other member is authorised by the FCA and that the servicing agreement complies with various requirements of FSMA.In MFS Portfolio Limited v Phelan and West, District Judge Chaudhuri confirmed this exemption applied so that MFS could obtain a judgment by relying on the authorisation held by Cabot Credit Management Group Limited. Whilst the Defendants have applied for permission to appeal it is to be hoped the clear reasoning of the Judge will not be overturned.

MFS Portfolio Ltd v Phelan: first instance judgment at [2018] GCCR 16027: four day appeal before HHJ Walden Smith on the applicability of the exemption in paragraph 55 of the Schedule to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001. This exemption from the need for FCA authorisation is commonly relied upon by debt purchasers who enter servicing arrangements with authorised servicers, who are often within the same corporate group. The borrowers argue that debt purchasers are not entitled to rely on this exemption when issuing proceedings: issuing is an activity that cannot be delegated to the servicer, but has to be undertaken by the purchaser, who has title to the debt;

I'm not certain what's happening with the appeal at the moment.


update April 2019

The appeal was unsuccessful on the lack of FCA Authorisation

[Bufalo bill]

Okay.





I'm not certain what's happening with the appeal at the moment.


update April 2019

The appeal was unsuccessful on the lack of FCA Authorisation

Hi Amethyst. Dont want to hijack this thread. However would like to ask a question please . If an alleged debt is Sold and fully assigned. to cabot financial uk ltd. Not to cabot management group. where do we stand on that?

[Amethyst]

Nowhere - the Cabot group credit licence covers all their various entities - ie. "The debt purchaser was able to rely on the FCA authorisation held by its parent company, Cabot Credit Management Group Limited".... so the debt was purchased by ( in this case ) MFS Portfolio and it was MFS that took the debtor to court .....the court deemed that they were covered under Cabot MGs licence ......

The Phelan case above did win but on different issues ( Credit agreement issues rather than the FCA Authorisation ) I haven't seen the judgment so I can't give any more details I'm afraid.