The Cabot group of companies have issues with their assignment process and documentation, as was shown in our recent cases of MFS Portfolio V Phelan & West. We won this case at appeal, following days of argument and counter argument. Part of the judgment confirmed our position both on assignment and that personal account overdrafts are subject to the regulatory framework of the Consumer Credit Act, including S.78 CCA 1974.
The judgment, however, was not all in our favour. The Circuit Judge ruled in favour of MFS Portfolio on a point relating to the use of servicing agents to avoid authorisation by the Financial Conduct Authority under the para 55 FSMA 2000 servicing exemption which we believed to be wrong. However, as we had won the appeal for our client, we were unable to appeal this judgment to the Court of Appeal.
We did however 2 months later obtain another Circuit Judge decision in the Idem Capital Securities Limited case that debt purchasers who are not authorised cannot issue proceedings in the county court regardless of whether there is a para 55 FSMA 2000 servicing agreement in place. Idem did not appeal the judgment.
We currently have other cases going through the courts, which will hopefully obtain binding decisions both on lack of authorisation by the Financial Conduct Authority and other issues too.
f you are currently defending a claim with a Cabot company, whether stayed or ongoing, or Cabot have obtained a Default Judgment against you and you have any query please post any queries on this thread..
The judgment, however, was not all in our favour. The Circuit Judge ruled in favour of MFS Portfolio on a point relating to the use of servicing agents to avoid authorisation by the Financial Conduct Authority under the para 55 FSMA 2000 servicing exemption which we believed to be wrong. However, as we had won the appeal for our client, we were unable to appeal this judgment to the Court of Appeal.
We did however 2 months later obtain another Circuit Judge decision in the Idem Capital Securities Limited case that debt purchasers who are not authorised cannot issue proceedings in the county court regardless of whether there is a para 55 FSMA 2000 servicing agreement in place. Idem did not appeal the judgment.
We currently have other cases going through the courts, which will hopefully obtain binding decisions both on lack of authorisation by the Financial Conduct Authority and other issues too.
f you are currently defending a claim with a Cabot company, whether stayed or ongoing, or Cabot have obtained a Default Judgment against you and you have any query please post any queries on this thread..
Comment