You'll have to exhaust Cabot's complaints procedure first, so now you've had a stupid answer back from them, follow their own timescale for complaints. AT the first breach of their own procedures, or at the end of 8 weeks, complain to the FOS. You can see their complaints procedure here... Complain at Cabot Financial Blog

Certainly send CAP1 a complaint, and make them explain themselves. Then I'd complain about them to the OFT, FOS (ESPECIALLY the FOS), and TS. Clearly they are guilty of wrongdoing, and need to be held to account over this. In the meantime, start the ball rolling and CCA Cabot as CB says in any event. It may turn out that one of the regulatory bodies mentioned will make CAP1 behave, and they'll play ball and start to take you seriously, so you'll be able to forget about Cabot. But just in case, it won't hurt to start in on Cabot at an early stage, even if it does turn out you don't need to bother about them after that.

Pop your complaint in the post to the address on the form. Mark it FAO the lovely Claire Aynsley ([email protected]) You won't get a complaint form from Cabot, but you can ensure they are sticking to their own complaints procedures by perusing their literature. What, you don't havea copy? Oh, OK. You'll find it in my blog here... Complain at Cabot Financial Blog

Sounds like they've slightly amended their template to me.

Experiencing a delay = we don't have the information you have requested.

I would firstly write to the CRAs and politely point out that there are two entries for the same account, and could they please ask Vanquis to amend and show only as settled. You may be pleasantly surprised.

Need a CSA complaint form? Never fear, I just happen to have one here... Complaints-Form-New.pdf

Send a postal order too. This is certainly one thing you must get sorted. It's all very well being honest and paying what you an afford because it's the right thing to do. The problem with that, as you have found, is you'll be paying them until your dying day, because they seem to just gobble up everything in fairy story interest that they quite simply have not proved they can charge. I'll just bet any interest that HAS been charged bears absolutely no resemblance to any rate mentioned in any agreement that you MIGHT have signed. They've played you for a sucker long enough. Time to fight back. Deffo SAR as well as CCA them.

Complain about both then. It's Cabot who are continuing the reporting of the default... without any proof they are entitled to do so. I often think that even when it has been shown that there is no reason to do so, Cabot take a perverse delight in continuing to feck up your life. In a somewhat spoilt-child kind of way. Of course, that is only my own opinion, and I have no proof that this is the case. Touche, Cabot.

You'll need to exhaust their complaints timeline before involving the FOS. Be patient. But you'd really need to complain to the ICO about the default. Assuming you have grounds to complain of course. What am I saying? This is Cabot, who won't be able to prove there was ever a legitimate default in the first place. Of COURSE you'll have cause.

I can only say from personal experience. But that experience tells me they try to ignore you and hope you'll be happy with that. Which isn't to say that some muppet won't dig out an old file in a few years time and try to come back for another go. Which is why I think it's worth while making their lives as miserable as possible by complaining to everybody you can think of.

And also write and tell them that proof that an account once existed in no way consitutes proof of a debt, enforcable or otherwise. And let them know that you consider their poo ridden communication to be as worthy of comment as would be the excretions of a ruminant's rectum. Therefore you see no point in continuing any form of dialogue, due to their nonsensical gainsaying of everything you have written to date.

Yup Simon, the LoP is only the vehicle used to assign the debts... CCA still the Act that applies if they want to try their luck in court. I've long said this LoP nonsense is a bit of a red herring, and nobody should get too caught up in it. As has been proved, the ONLY thing that matters is the CCA. Irrespective of whether or not they think they need to produce one to satisfy a CCA request, nevertheless, they would need to dig one out to prove their case in court. And as you have said, these debts tend to be getting bought WITHOUT there ever having been a valid agreement in the first place. A fact which really needs to be shouted from the rooftops. If EVERYONE was aware of this fact, and EVERYONE challenged these companies, I really do believe their whole industry would collapse almost overnight. The stockmarkets might take a bit of a tumble. But hey! Perhaps certain people should have done their homework right at the very start. If the OC's had done their job properly in the first place, none of this would be coming back to bite them on the bum.

Sign nothing, send no original docs. If you DO have to sign anything, use a squiggle.

WTF has MBNA got to do with my thread?

I know this is going to sound as if I'm picking on you Mister Twister, but I have to say this on someones thread and it might as well be yours. So try not to take this the wrong way: It has become increasingly apparent that exactly the same questions are being asked over and over again, until it gets to the point where folks would be just as well having a standard Cabot-like template handy to copy and paste in reply. So can I just ask, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take the time to have a read of at least a few of the existing threads, where the self same questions are being answered repeatedly, and almost daily. This isn't meant to be a rant even if it comes across as one. But I surely can't be the only one getting just slightly annoyed about this trend.

Pffft. Pocket change for auld Ken, I think. But better out of his pocket than in.

Maybe they just don't have the staff to cope? After all, they are holding weekly recruitment events in a bid to bolster their ranks.

Up to you. If it isn't on your credit file, and causing you problems other than their whiny scribblings getting on your nerves, I'd tend to ignore them until something rather more concrete turns up. Such as an indication that court action is imminent. In which case, we'll help you put them firmly in their place. Don't forget to neatly file away all correspondence in case you need it for future use. Such as complaining to the ICO, FOS et all when it becomes self evident they are on a hiding to nothing.

Puts paid to their claim that they have bought everything lock, stock and barrel. If t'were so, surely they would have ALL the data pertaining to your account. But as we all know, that's an impractical proposition in light of how many debts they buy. But that's hardly OUR concern, is it? As an aside, I see Citgroup have announced even more redundancies in light of the sub-prime fiasco (on top of the 17,000 globally already announced). And dividends will be down in an effort to save some $5 billion. Shame, innit?

Smashing. I'll add to their pile of documentary bummf then. I do see where you are going with your question. And it is quite clear that a company employing a 3rd party of whatever ilk, is as culpable as that company for any misdeeds perpetrated in their name. When I have a moment, I'll dig out the bit of legislation that says so.

Unfortunately, my edited out advice contained elements of loud whistles and a 3 second warning. On reflection, not perhaps the best advice I have ever considered, hence the removal of said incitement to injure.

Hmm. If you let me know the gentleman's name and contact details at the OFT, perhaps I could assist in reinforcing your contention that Cabot are not fit to tie their own shoelaces, never mind hold a consumer credit licence.

{edit}

And look what's happened to Citigroup in recent times. Suddenly, lending to people who have no way to pay back their borrowing doesn't seem such an attractive proposition, does it?