I know I said I was off, but I think I've time for one last rant. I don't suppose too many people will get to see it as it will likely be censored at the very least. But I just have to ask, bearing in mind that my "commercial" blog had ads that went against the ethos of CAG, WTF is THIS all about (from Dave's chat site)... To be totally frank, I am APPALLED at the double standards that seem to be at work here. Gizmo said that consolidation loans were not what CAG is all about, and here's Dave advocating Bad Credit Loands, with a link to an external commercial site in the post. By the way Dave, I'd get a book on Basic HTML if I were you. Just a hint. I'd hate folks to think the nonsense in the quote is MY work. Right, I'll leave you all to play nicely again.

Bye folks. I hope you find this thread informative, but apparently my signature, with its links to my Cabot Blog, offends. So, as my Blog is unwelcome, I must bid adieu to CAG. It's been fun, but all good things come to an end. Supposedly, my blog is "commercial". Although as I have yet to make enough money to get a payment out of Google, it doesn't even begin cover my costs. But, as I can't be bothered arguing with the mods, I'm off. NOBODY censors the Cabot Blog. Many have tried, ALL have failed. Good luck in your respective battles.

Ye feckin wee dancer.

HAHAHAH. No, it's more a case of, Complaint is at stage X, so press key Y, to produce template Z. You don't imagine for one moment that Cabot would dare let their employees think for themselves, do you?????

You'll have realised by now that Cabot are not the original creditor, and have bought the debt from someone else. For the assignment of that debt (whatever it is), Cabot are legally obliged to have issued you with a Notice of Assignment. Quite often you get a "goodbye" letter, supposedly from the original creditor. However, in every case I've seen, this "goodbye" letter is actually generated by Cabot themselves also. A small reminder: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited are the legal owner of the alleged debt. Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited are the company who do all the chasing. Confusing, yes? Well, even more confusing is this... Cabot ave been claiming recently that it is the Cabot GROUP who do the buying of debts. However, it will be whoever is named on the Notice of Assignment (IF one ever turns up) that owns the debt. A point to be aware of if court is ever a possibility. To summarize... Cabot have no right to chase you for this debt without a Notice of Assignment. In employing BC&W toattempt to enforce this alleged debt, both parties are being naughty. And as it is a card of some sort that is involved, they'll need a copy of the original agreement in order to ask a judge to enforce the alleged debt, even if you HAD been properly notified. A CCA request to Cabot will help p!ss a few more people off.

Tell you what FC.... YOU make that call. You know far more about it than us. Certainly, it's all way over MY head, so I don't think I'd sound too convincing.

If you were to SAR the original creditor, you'd likely be able to confirm that it is statute barred.

For some reason, when I try to open the doc, I get 3 blank pages. But perhaps the FOS might like to take a look at Sir Francis Bennion's website (he did after all draft the CCA 1974, so he should know what he's on about), and have a look at what he has to say about improperly executed agreements...

Don't expect miracles. Do expect little country pancakes.

This probably won't be too popular but... not too long ago, whenever someone posted a problem with a Cabot theme, I knew exactly where to go. Now, I have to do a search, and the posts are all over the shop. I'm sure I miss a few, as in some instances at least, there are variations on the name. Carboot, Caboot, or whatever. Not the posters fault, as we all hit the wrong keys at times. But if the thread was started in a sub forum that was obvious from the outset, the problem wouldn't arise, as they'd all be lumped together irrespective of spelling mistakes. Not really a complaint. More an observation.

If the debt collection industry get their way, it'll be a criminal offence to change addresses and not tell your creditors. Another question to ask when the elections come around, and we get MORE unwelcome callers at the door trying to drum up support.

If ever anyone was considering signing up to a No Win No Fee offer to reclaim their charges, the following story in the Mirror today should help make up your mind... No win, no fee ..up to no good - Mirror.co.uk Although quite WHY anyone would pay a deposit for a service in advance of the company getting a result, I have yet to figure out. But hey, these are pretty vulnerable people that have been conned. And if they could work out for themselves they were being scammed, I'd imagine they'd have had the gumption to fight their own corner in the first place. It's still sad though.

Someone could be as polite as they like, the fact remains that, if they want proof that the person they have targeted is the person they are after, there are other ways to find out. It is NOT up to the "suspect" to prove their own identity. Some people might be more than happy to say, Yeah OK mate. Hang on and I'll get my passport. Personally, I'd rather they DIDN'T come knocking in the first place. I know they are only trying to earn a living. But so are the eejits who phone me up to ask if I'd like to buy a new bathroom despite the fact I've signed up to stop cold callers pestering me. And they get a less than polite response in return too. Hey, they know the risks. If they can't take a joke, they shouldn't have joined.

You mean, apart from a letter saying "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough." ???

Oh, dear. What Cabot only has a token employee in as Collector of the Year? I wouldn't read too much into it... Cabot were sh!te when they were winning awards, and it seems they are just as sh!te now. Credit Today has a rather spendid forum, incidentally. Although you lot would get CTbotted rather more on there than you do here, with all yer mud slinging and sweary words.

But let's just accept for the moment that there IS no agreement to produce. They obviously CAN'T supply one in that case, and so fail miserably to comply. In that case, Sir Francis Bennion is correct, and Cabot therefore win the "if any" argument. But this means they ALSO fail the "gimme your dosh" argument, since there being no agreement, they are stuffed as far as having any chance in court. Foolhardy as it might seem for Cabot to proceed to court on the basis of there being no agreement, it IS possible they will have a go. But you are safe in the knowledge that Sir Francis Bennion has this to say about the sort of tosh Cabot SAY is a properly executed agreement...

If someone turned up on my doorstep and demanded proof that I wasn't the person they thought I was, they'd get the door shut in their face. Problem gone.

Use the letter as evidence that they are threatening to break the law regarding telephone calls. It's in black and white, so they CANNOT refute it. And get them reported. DON'T tell them, just do it. You have made every effort to be reasonable, and they are so arrogant they think they are above the law. They've been warned, so you can just take the next step now. If the calls do resume, then just add them to your complaint as further evidence. Feckers!!!!

Section 10 notice I think. But at the very least, a letter to say that if they are convinced they will be able to enforce this alleged debt, they are more than welcome to chance their arm in court. Failing which, you expect them to inform you that they are ceasing all collection activity on this account, otherwise their activities will be reported to all and sundry.

If Cabot are confident the debt is enforcable based on what they have produced, then they will be happy to get you in court sharpish. Unfortunately for Cabot, were you to invite them to do so, they would simply demonstrate that they talk a good talk, but don't have the wherewithall to see it through. I think I'm saying that they don't have the balls to take this further. But if I'm wrong, at least you'll have the satisfaction of knowing they've got diddly squat.

It's a service I can do without. And since when was it compulsory to take a service?

Your request for info under disclosure rules should include a request for ALL info that they intend to rely on in order to bring the action. This will include the original agreement, if one exists. And although the CCA allows for a COPY of an agreement in order to satisfy their obligation to a CCA request, in court they will need THE agreement, or a TRUE copy. As their whole case will hinge on this, it is pure folly for them to try to proceed without it. Of course, part of your defence will be that without it, BC are fecked.

Obviously, you missed something along the way. But full marks for prserverance. When you strip out the Cabot baiting you are left with this... Barclaycard for a number of years applied unlawful interest and penalties that would have wiped the debt out. Barclaycard have "conveniently" lost all evidence of an original debt. Barclaycard have a cosy relationship with Cabot whereby they dump all their problems on a company who don't mind lying, bullying and ignoring industry guidelines in order to ensure they maximise the bottom line. So yes I DID once owe money to Barclaycard. But by my estimation, it is a debt that has long ago been repaid. Therefore, I owe Cabot FECK ALL. As for your comment that a judge would side with Cabot, I'm afraid I have to say that a judge cannot just make his or her mind up based on how he FEELS about the case. He HAS to base his decision on the law. And in this case, that would be the CCA 1974, Section 127 (3). Even if he or she has a personal objection to the inclusion of that section in the Act. Of course, if Cabot feels the way that you do, they are more than welcome to come and have a square go. But so far, they don't appear to have the courage of their convictions.

Internet agreements are a little less straightforward. Have a look at this... For even more confusion, have a look here... The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004 Explnation notes here... http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/em2004/uksiem_20043236_en.pdf Hopefully someone with more experience in distance regs will be able to help. In the meantime, there's some light bedtime reading.

Oh, and we'd be happy to see their direct line phone number too. I can never get an answer on the one they gave me.