GDPR Cookie Consent by SimpleServe Privacy Script CABOT - AAD Consumer Forum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CABOT

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

  • The Tech Clerk
    replied
    gazer start your own thread it will not get mixed up on here then

    Leave a comment:


  • gazzer
    replied
    Hi,
    Last edited by gazzer; 19 August 2019, 13:08.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joanna Connolly Solicitors
    replied
    Originally posted by mike'y View Post
    a defence in february 2016. Mortimer Clarke wrote to me in february 2018 and I've heard nothing since. Di knows about this matter.

    Indeed I do

    Thank you for replying to my email.

    Jo will take a new look at the old papers.

    Di

    Leave a comment:


  • Joanna Connolly
    replied
    Hi Mike'y

    I have asked Di to contact you

    Jo

    Leave a comment:


  • mike'y
    replied
    Hi Jo, they issued proceedings against me and I entered a defence in february 2016. Mortimer Clarke wrote to me in february 2018 and I've heard nothing since. Di knows about this matter. It seems to be 'parked up'. I'd like to see the matter closed so that I can bin the file. :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Joanna Connolly
    started a topic CABOT

    CABOT

    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..
    Last edited by Joanna Connolly; 4 July 2019, 08:30.
Working...
X