Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. Hi Ben, Thanks for your response and for confirming what I thought. I guess they are going to try their best to confuse and intimidate people with legal information which we won't understand. Can you point me in the direction of some threads that I can use to draft a response to them, maybe some which contain information on s123(3)? Many thanks.
  2. Yeah I was hoping for someone with experience to give their opinion on the best course of action. I am fairly certain that Cabot are wrong (especially with the application form they have sent us), and if this was to make it to a court which could set a precedent then they would rule in favour of the consumer. However that is a long way off, and could potentially end up costing a lot of money in legal fees to get there, and we are not sure we want to take the risk of going that far.
  3. I would really like some advice on what people think of the letter Cabot have sent to us, and probably many more people now. My thought is that they are talking a load of bull (wont be the first time) because the application form they have provided does not refer to another document anywhere on it. The part that states "This is a Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Sign it only if you want to be legally bound by its terms" surely refers to the terms of the CCA and not the terms of the actual agreement, which would be different and separate. I am going to write another letter to Cabot but would like some thoughts on what people think, or whether it is worth waiting and taking this through the courts. Thanks
  4. Really? Thats a big concern, I guess it comes to down which court deals with the case if it gets that far, but I would like it sorted before it gets to court. Do you think its worth complaining to FOS and the OFT?
  5. We aren't the only ones who have received this letter then!
  6. Ok so I sent the letter as per Havinastella's post and have now had a response from Cabot. Dear xxx, I refer to your letter received on 24th of June 2008 and our previous correspondence. As previously advised under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 78(1), there is no obligation to provide a true and complete copy of the credit agreement if there is no longer a true and complete copy of the credit agreement in existence. Nor is there an obligation upon us to provide a full statement of account, copy of a deed of assignment and or a copy of a default notice. As a result the information we have provided to you, clearly complies with section 78 of the CCA 1974. With regards to the requirements of the agreement regulations 1983/1553 concerning the form and content of the agreement, these regulations do not deal with this matter, as it is the CCA that deals with this matter as primary legislation. Section 189(4) of the CCA states: "A document embodies a provision if the provision is set out either in the document itself or in another document referred to in it." Section 61 of the CCA , which deal with the "signing of documents", states: "A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless (a) A document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to the regulations (Consumer Credit (Agreement) Regulations 1983) under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor... (b) The document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than the implied terms..." The word "embodies" does not mean "contain" as you have stated. The word "embody" (in contrast to "contain" which is set out in subsection (a) of section 61) means that the document need not set out all the terms itself, but may refer to another document setting out the terms under section 189(4). In this instance on the application form it is clear that the Terms and Conditions are mentioned and therefore you are incorrect in stating that the agreement cannot be set out in difference documents. As to prescribed terms, this is covered in section 61(a), above, where it mentions "contains". The terms and conditions have set out all the prescribed terms as required under the Consumer Credit (Agreement) Regulations 1983 and therefore there can be no argument as to the validity of the form and content of the agreement. Please be advised that Section 127(3) of the CCA has now been repealed due to the CCA 2006, however, this is not retrospective to agreements commencing 6 April 2007. The section deals with Enforcement orders in cases of infringement and subsection (3) states: "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 debotr or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner)." As above mentioned, all the provisions have been complied with and therefore there is no consideration to be given by the Court as to whether the agreement is unenforceable or not. All proper legal and regulatory provision, including prescribed terms, are stated in the agreement. In conclusion, we are perfectly within our rights to enforce the debt against you as your arguments are clearly unfounded and you have no basis for your dispute or claim for failing to pay the outstanding balance under the credit agreement. Therefore I would recommend you contact our collections department, within the next 14 days, to discuss the options available to you in order to settle this account. If we do not hear from you within this time frame we shall consider taking further action against you for the recovery of the outstanding balance. Ok now my first reaction is that they are trying to throw lots of legal information at me in an attempt to confuse me, which they have partly done! I dont have the knowledge to know if some of what they have said is true, but I do know they seem to have confirmed that the original agreement does not exist (if it ever did). Now they seem to be basing their latest argument on their insistence that the application form they have sent clearly states that the Terms and Conditions are mentioned. I have been over the form and the only thing I can make out, because the text is so illegible (I have even looked through a magnifying lense!), is the part which states "This is a Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Sign it only if you want to be legally bound by its terms". If this is the statement they are referring to then surely this doesnt constitute referring to a separate document, because it doesnt? If they are referring to another part of the form then how am I supposed to know if they are correct if the copy is so illegible? I would really like some thoughts on what to do next because this is starting to really annoy us but we are also worried about any legal action they may take.
  7. Cheers I will keep on eye on it as well
  8. What are you doing about your credit file if you havent heard from them?
  9. Thanks Havinastella thats brilliant. I will write to them and see what they come back with. If they are still trying to fob me off I will look into to starting legal action against them.
  10. What are the options now then? I could write to them but I know they will just try to fob me off with some more bull. How do I go about starting action against them?
  11. Well its difficult to make anything out on the application form but it doesnt refer to another document in the parts I can read.
  12. Miss Muppet - Sorry I may be being really stupid but were should I search? Curlyben - thanks for the info. Can you advise what SI 1983/1553 is? Is it an act? Also do you think we should write to Cabot again correcting them on their error?
  13. Hello everyone, The problem we are having with Cabot dates back to last year when they wrote to my girlfirend regarding an outstanding Barclaycard credit card debt. I have a little bit of experience of the Consumer Credit Act so wrote to them requesting a copy of the agreement and they responded by sending the application form for the Barclaycard (which was also for her student bank account). I then wrote back to them stating the application form was not the credit agreement as it doesnt contain the prescribed terms, it is also completely illegible. Just about the only part you can make out is the bit that states "This Credit Agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Sign it only if you want to be legally bound by the terms". They then sent some Barclaycard terms and conditions and said that these show the interest rate etc and my girlfriend agreed to these terms when she signed the credit agreement. I wrote back saying the T&C's do not contain a signature and are therefore irrelevant, and that they have still not provided a properly executed credit agreement. We have now received a letter from stating the following; In response to your letter Cabot provided the relevant terms and conditions and statements pertaining to your account. However you are claiming that as these documents do not contain your signature, they are irrelevant in this matter. I would with respect refer you to Section 61(1)(b) of the CCA 1974, which states: 61 Singing of agreement (1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless: (b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreements, other than implied terms. Section 189(4) of the CCA 1974 states: 189 Definitions (4) A document embodies a provision if the provision is set out either in the document itself or in another document referred to in it. You will note it clearly states that the prescribed terms may be set out in a document other than the credit agreement as long as reference is made to the document. They then supply another copy of the application form and refer to statement regarding the agreement being regulated by the CCA and say that she has agreed to all terms by signing the application form. Now I am almost certain that they are wrong and the application form is not a valid credit agreement as it doesnt contain the interest rate, credit limit and repayment information, but I am fed up of banging my head against a wall with them. I would like some thoughts on whether anyone believes the application form is valid and also some advice on what to do next. I want to start legal action against Cabot to get this matter resolved and get the default removed from my girlfriend's credit file but not sure how to go about this. Any advice is welcome. Thanks in advance.
  • Create New...