Hi All

In May 2007 I sent the CCA template letter to Intrum Justitia regarding a debt with Bank One who were unable to supply and returned the account back to BankOne on 23/5/2007 and heard nothing until July 2008 when I received a welcome letter from Cabot.

I wrote back to Cabot advising the account was still in dispute because of the original non-conformance with my CCA request from 2007.

This week i received from 'Cabot' a pack of documents containing an original application form dated 30/11/1998, credit card repayment policy summary,(did not have insurance on the card), a blank 3 page credit card agreement unsigned by either party dated 03/08 relating to £12 charges and four statements dated Dec 2002, Jan, Feb, Mar 2003 on blank unheaded paper.

Can anyone look at what they sent to see if it complies with my CCA request and has the prescribed terms etc???

Many Thanks

Volvo

Not enforceable in my opinion as no prescribed terms on agreement.

There is a reference to terms and conditions on the reverse, which may or may not have complied, however as they have sent, 03 08 doc, they obviously haven't got it.

David

I agree not enforcable agreement also who the hell are Bank One?

Halifax took over bank one years ago.

The have a habit of not having proper agreements and photcopying terms and conditions that are nothing to do with the agreement n the back of the copy agreement.

They have sent a copy of recent T&Cs which would not be the ones you may have signed. These are from the Halifax. As far as I know Bank One was sold in or around 2001 or 2002 so highly unlikely that the original if it actually exists had any Prescribed Terms.

Time to send them this

Dear Sirs,

Account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

This account is in Dispute .

On xx/xx/2007 I wrote to xxxxxxxxx requesting that xxxxxxx supply me a true copy of the executed credit agreement for this account.

In response to this request I was supplied a mere application form which did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The document sent purporting to be a credit agreement does not contain any of the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) made under the authority of the “1974 Act” sets out what the prescribed terms are, I refer you to Schedule 6 Column 2 of SI 1983/1553 for the definition of what is required. Suffice to say none of the terms are present in the document

Since this document does not contain the required prescribed terms it is rendered unenforceable by s127 (3) consumer Credit Act 1974, which states

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.

In addition should you continue to pursue me for this debt you will be in breach of the OFT guidelines, I draw your attention to the Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on debt collection

The OFT guidance which was issued July 2003 (updated December 2006) relating to debt collections and what the OFT considers unfair, I have enclosed an excerpt from page 5 of the guidance which states

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

h. Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

I require you to produce a compliant copy of my credit agreement to confirm I am liable to you or any organisation, which you represent for this alleged debt, if you cannot do so I require written clarification that this is the case. Should you ignore this request I will report you to the Office of Fair Trading to consider your suitability to hold a credit licence in addition to a complaint to Trading Standards, as you will be in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40

Since the agreement is unenforceable and the default notice is non compliant, it would be in everyone’s interest to consider the matter closed and for your client to write the debt off. I suggest you give serious consideration to this as any attempt of litigation will be vigorously defended and I will counter claim for all quantifiable damages

I respectfully request a response to this letter in 14 days

I trust this out lines the situation

yours etc

Thanks ODC, HAK, Cashins and all.

Letter going tommorow.

Thanks for the help to all.

Volvo

Update

Had a call from Cabot tonight at 20.41 but they refused to identify other than Tom, despite repeated request for reference of call to enable complaint to Information Commissioners Office, I replied with i had sent letter requesting all communicatioin to be in writing ref Communications Act, which took until 20.51 tonight.

Not very helpful, but they will get my non-conformance reply to my CCA very soon!!!!

VOLVO

Sent this letter suggested by ODC to Cabot

VOLVO

Received this reply from Cabot today, Any ideas on how to go forward and respond?

Anyone got any ideas on the way forward and how to respond?

VOLVO

Personally I think Cabot are using a lot of smoke and mirrors in an effort to try to CONvince you that the piece of paper that they produvced is a properly executed agreement. The fact that it says on it that it is a Credit agreement under the CCA 1974 is meaningless as the application form does NOT contain ALL the prescribed term within the four corners of the agreement. Crapbot are making their own interpretation of the CCA 1974 without having any regard to case law. There have been more than enough cases won in court to completely blow their silly arguments out of the water.

Interesting to note that they made no response to your Statute Barred claim.

Thanks ODC

But this one is not statute barred, i was making token payments until May 2007 when i sent my CCA request.

How would you now respond to them?

VOLVO

Correction

What we really need to do is to dissect all their arguments. I will seek some help from the Legal experts here. Cabot are having a last fling of the dice as they twist all laws to suit their own view of it. As I said we dont have to rely on Cabots interpretation of it as their is sufficient Case Law to wipe the floor with them. Dont forget Cabot are the shysters who try to CON people that the Stat Barred clock doesnt start until a creditor issues a default notice so I think you get the idea of the mentality of those unfortunates at Cabot Towers. Uncle Ken obviously needs the money to keep up the payments on his new pile.

What i meant to post:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5940&stc=1&d=1234009335

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5941&stc=1&d=1234009355

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5942&stc=1&d=1234009355

VOLVO

'Similar' kind of responses from Cabot on a CPR 31.16 request Volvo for your interest.

Obviously Mr Perring has a couple of Law books on his desk with some bookmarks in them and is keen to quote lots of rules and regs to try to bamboozle people with but is not taking the time to get his facts right:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/57846-debt-written-off-due-49.html#post1962489

hmm now thats interesting, you know, i could have sworn that Professor Goode told me that the Prescribed terms cannot be contained in some other documents

Wait a minute

Dear Paul,

You are quite right. Section 61(1) makes it very clear

that prescribed terms must be in the agreement itself,

not in some other document. This point is emphasized

in Consumer Credit Law and Practice. It is not sufficient

that the terms are in some other document referred to

in the agreement.

The effect of non-compliance is that the agreement is

improperly executed and cannot be enforced without

leave of the court. For agreements executed before

6th April 2007 the court has no power to allow

enforcement. That is not the position for agreements

executed on or after 6th April 2007, since section 15 of

the Consumer Credit Act 2006 removed the restriction

on the court's powers.

I hope this is of some help.

oh look he did,

Croutons they really are

As for the agreement Regulations not dealing with the form and content of a regulated agreement

Form and content of agreements.60. —

 

 

(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations as to the form and content of documents embodying regulated agreements, and the regulations shall contain such provisions as appear to him appropriate with a view to ensuring that the debtor or hirer is made aware of—

 

(a)

the rights and duties conferred or imposed on him by the agreement,

 

 

 

(b)

the amount and rate of the total charge for credit (in the case of a consumer credit agreement),

 

 

 

©

the protection and remedies available to him under this Act, and

 

 

 

(d)

any other matters which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it is desirable for him to know about in connection with the agreement.

 

now then i quote from the regulations themselves, you know the one cabsnot say sont deal with the form and content of an agreement

 

The secretary of State, in exercise of the powers confered upon him by sectiions, 60,61(1)(a), 105(9),127(3) 182(2) and 189(1) of the consumer credit act 1974 and all other powers enabling him in that behalf , hereby makes the following regulations -

 

 

well i never fcuk-a-doodle-doo no mention of s189(4) anywhere there is there eh?

and lets look at the explanatory note at the end of the Regulations

 

These Regulations prescribe the FORM AND CONTENT of documents embodying regulated Consumer Credit Agreements................

do i need to say any more????????????????????????

Received this reply from Cabot today, Any ideas on how to go forward and respond?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone got any ideas on the way forward and how to respond?

 

VOLVO

Ok,

Firstly the T&Cs do NOT RELATE to this application, firstly the £12 late payment charges are applicable after 2006 not before so clearly the T&Cs are not those of your account and not the T&Cs which would ( if they even did) accompanied this application form

Also the Key Fact s leaflet is new

it is an attempt to mislead in my view, the FSA changed the rules to make PPI supplier provide these fact sheets, but they were definatley NOT in use in 1998

Check with the FSA and they will tell you the date that firms needed to use these sheets

deleted post

Well there you have it from Paul whose opinion I would respect far in front of Steve Perring of Crapbot.

Reply received today from Cabot (Been having an awful time getting my scanner to work properly, keeps posting wrong docs

Here goes:

Not sure if ODC/PT2537 saw this or not?

VOLVO

Ok, Thanks ODC and PT2537

What exactly should i throw back at them then?

Unsure what to say

VOLVO

Hi Volvo

Did you see my reply?

It was directly aimed at that cabot response

Hi Paul

Sorry getting very confused with my scanner all morning, it is really playing up!!

Thanks for your reply so are you saying that really all i need to say to Cabot is that the Terms and Conditions supplied do not refer to this account, and the agreement does not have the prescribed terms within the document as required.

VOLVO

HI PT2537

Who is this Professor Goode, unfamiliar territory for me, i am lost after template letters have been sent?

VOLVO