Cabot Financial UK Ltd

[nemesis45]

Re: Cabot Financial UK Ltd

Why would you not put the claimant to proof of something doubtful, particularly when it can be a win ?

M1

Certainly but one must be " reasonably" sure of the foundation
for making a claim such as this and at present my feeling more
proof is needed.
nem

[mystery1]

Re: Cabot Financial UK Ltd

Certainly but one must be " reasonably" sure of the foundation
for making a claim such as this and at present my feeling more
proof is needed.
nem

Well even you are proven correct in your doubts, on the face of it the available information from the REGULATORY AUTHORITY says the license lapsed on 28/02/15 and i would submit that "reasonably sure" test that you seem to want to apply would certainly be passed. How expensive can it be in costs to ask them to prove a valid license in any event ?

M1

[nemesis45]

Re: Cabot Financial UK Ltd

Well even you are proven correct in your doubts, on the face of it the available information from the REGULATORY AUTHORITY says the license lapsed on 28/02/15 and i would submit that "reasonably sure" test that you seem to want to apply would certainly be passed. How expensive can it be in costs to ask them to prove a valid license in any event ?

M1

On the present status I would address this as soon as a claim is received IF Cabot Financial UK is specified as the claimant.

There are Interim Permissions for, Cabot and Cabot Financial trading styles showing on the Interim Register which may
confuse matters.

nem

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Cabot Financial UK Ltd

I am delighted that MMF have got their comeuppance however it took a very very long time for it to happen. If memory serves me you were dealing with that in 2012 . It is good to hear that the people who told me the complaint was not going forward had got it wrong.
I know I made two complaints to the Fos and OFT in that time about these people.
Interestingly I was not informed by them of any changes but i suspect they closed my accounts

[nemesis45]

Re: Cabot Financial UK Ltd

I am delighted that MMF have got their comeuppance however it took a very very long time for it to happen. If memory serves me you were dealing with that in 2012 . It is good to hear that the people who told me the complaint was not going forward had got it wrong.
I know I made two complaints to the Fos and OFT in that time about these people.
Interestingly I was not informed by them of any changes but i suspect they closed my accounts

It totalled over 150 complaints 2012/2013 collated and offered as " reports and information on the conduct of............."
It was the OFT that placed the "requirements" on MMF which are continued by the FCA.

nem

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Cabot Financial UK Ltd

It totalled over 150 complaints 2012/2013 collated and offered as " reports and information on the conduct of............."
It was the OFT that placed the "requirements" on MMF which are continued by the FCA.

nem

I know you were collating complaints but I was told that nothing had happened with them and certainly not pre Nov 2014
When my complaint was dealt with in June 2014 onwards (so FCA time) there were no requirements on their licence . During the course of my complaint they actually changed their home page to make it more compliant . As I say I was in touch with the FOS and the FCA .
Also if you check the register the requirements have only been since Feb 2015 so certainly no OFT involvment

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Cabot Financial UK Ltd

No offence intended just seen to many things like this go before the courts with a LIP and be totally ignored so I would like somebody make the case stick. We are all aware that the FCA aren't interested or have differing interests yet I read a lot of these rules the same way you are interpreting them but it falling on deaf ears. That's where the importance of people like PT plays out because the courts will listen more to the legal profession than they will a LIP.

So far everyone's been submitting the usual defence of not having received any documents, lack of compliance with s.77/78 of the CCA, etc. and not restricting themselves to the authorisation argument, just using it as one more weapon in their arsenal.

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Cabot Financial UK Ltd

I think only a fool would rely on the one aspect of a defence when they have others . Thats why so often a defence will start saying for example it is SB then go on to list no CCA, defective default etc . Start with the strongest and work down

[meellis]

Re: Cabot Financial UK Ltd

It has been said before that it only takes one well aimed bullet to kill but I don't truly believe in that statement especially in these things. The danger is always that people rely on a fact that seems to be completely correct without understanding what arguments could be placed against it so when challenged they have no answers and go to pieces and become un-believable. Any good Barrister will steer the conversation away from you being able to apply the killer blow so various back up plans are needed.You are always fighting a hard battle when you are trying to convince a court, which isn't totally conversant with the issues you are trying to present, that you know more than the "expert" you are up against. I see the issues regarding licensing and agree that it looks like they haven't got the right licences in place, the hard part is convincing the right people especially when they don't want to listen. As for the well aimed bullet I believe you don't just fire it and let it do it's job you fire it and then help it hit its target without placing to many other arguments in its way.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Cabot Financial UK Ltd

It has been said before that it only takes one well aimed bullet to kill but I don't truly believe in that statement especially in these things. The danger is always that people rely on a fact that seems to be completely correct without understanding what arguments could be placed against it so when challenged they have no answers and go to pieces and become un-believable. Any good Barrister will steer the conversation away from you being able to apply the killer blow so various back up plans are needed.

Absolutely! You always need a PlanB and sometimes a PlanC as well! :thumb:

[meellis]

Re: Cabot Financial UK Ltd

You need a back up plan but you don't want to weaken your strongest hand by bringing in too many arguments just have them in reserve. More importantly though is if you have a strong winning hand you don't want to convince yourself that it is so strong that it will not be questioned. Anybody you are up against is either going to stop you from using it by steering all the facts away to another argument so the time is spent away from your points or they will just discredit it as hard as they can to at least present some doubt in peoples minds.

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Cabot Financial UK Ltd

Don't we need to remember that generally well certainly in the small claim track,.there will be witness statements and the like. It's not going to be like Rumpole. There is also the possibility of mediation. Again unlike Rumpole witness statements and documents will have been exchanged.

[nemesis45]

Re: Cabot Financial UK Ltd

It is I think going to take a while to establish IF there is any illegality in Cabot's status and getting a response
from the regulators.
It's my feeling that it could be unwise to totally rely on the lapsed TP's for a defence.

nem

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Cabot Financial UK Ltd

I think it is generally agreed that the only time you would have that as your only defence is if it was your only defence . If you have non compliance with a CCA request, SB, 127(3) or anything else that could be used it would be silly not to include it

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Cabot Financial UK Ltd

It is I think going to take a while to establish IF there is any illegality in Cabot's status and getting a response
from the regulators.
It's my feeling that it could be unwise to totally rely on the lapsed TP's for a defence.

nem

Nobody is relying purely on their unlicensed status in their defence, this is just being mentioned as an additional point and/or at the preliminary stage before a defence is submitted. PT seems to agree in principle, surely if anyone here knows about consumer credit, that would be him. :yo:

After all, if you got out driving without being in possession of a valid license at the time you'd be committing an offence, even if your husband/wife/mum/dad/brother/sister had a valid licence. Why shouldn't the same principle apply to creditors? :confused2: