Unsatisfactory Service under CCA claim it back from Cabot?

[debt_mountain]

Right, I have a question.

 

I took out a loan (CCA regulated) and 2 cheques were used to pay off 2 accounts to Cabot (this was before I knew about the law). I am currently sueing them under Data Protection stuff and want to let that run its course befopre my next claim.

 

So, as I paid for their service with my new regulated agreement and the service was unsatisfactory I feel I may be able to claim it back from either Cabot or the lender who paid them off for me.

 

I know there is the unsatisfactory good/service clause in the CCA.

 

anyone got any advice they can give me? Anyone seen any similar threads?

 

Thanks. I will post anything I foind out ion this thread as I go.

 

I plan on talking to the FSA today and also the lender to see what the "unsatifactory service claim" process would be.

 

Just in time to send Cabot a christmas letter, may even include a chrissie card.

[debt_mountain]

So s11, s12 & s75 of the CCA are maybe related of it. (highlight in red where I feel it is related)

 

11 Restricted-use credit and unrestricted-use credit

 

(1) A restricted-use credit agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement—

 

(a) to finance a transaction between the debtor and the creditor, whether forming part of that agreement or not, or

 

(b) to finance a transaction between the debtor and a person (the “supplier”) other than the creditor, or

© to refinance any existing indebtedness of the debtor’s, whether to the creditor or another person,

 

 

12 Debtor-creditor-supplier agreements

 

A debtor-creditor-supplier agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement being—

 

(a) a restricted-use credit agreement which falls within section 11(1)(a), or

 

(b) a restricted-use credit agreement which falls within section 11(1)(b) and is made by the creditor under pre-existing arrangements, or in contemplation of future arrangements, between himself and the supplier, or

 

© an unrestricted-use credit agreement which is made by the creditor under pre-existing arrangements between himself and a person (the “supplier”) other than the debtor in the knowledge that the credit is to be used to finance a transaction between the debtor and the supplier.

 

75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier

 

(1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or © has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

 

(2) Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under subsection (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.

 

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a claim—

 

(a) under a non-commercial agreement, or

 

(b) so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £100 or more than £30,000.

 

(4) This section applies notwithstanding that the debtor, in entering into the transaction, exceeded the credit limit or otherwise contravened any term of the agreement.

 

(5) In an action brought against the creditor under subsection (1) he shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party to the proceedings.

[Curlyben]

As Cabot doesn't supply a service to us mere mortals I don't really think this line of reasoning will fly.

 

Now admittedly, if it can be proved that Cabott "forced" you to take out this loan to pay the debts the the OFT need to be involved as this is seriously against their Collection guidelines and very underhand.

[debt_mountain]

So my thinking on this claim would be that Cabot have provided an unsatisfactory service because.

 

1 - The assignment was not properly executed

2 - The credit agreements are not properly executed or do not exists, or are illegible.

3 - no terms and conditions have been provided

4 - Misleading use of different company names within their structure to obtain funds from me

5 - Payment made to a company who does not own the debt or aledge to own the debt

6- I am sure there are more, they will come to me over time......

[debt_mountain]

Curleyben

 

Whilst I agree we do not see the actions of Cabot as a service to us debtors, in the eyes of busines I think they do.

 

a service is surely an action provided by a supplier to a person for cash.

 

They have purchased (alegedly) a debt from the OC who was provideing a service, Cabot bought the full thing and are just being less helpful and harrassing/threatening (alegedly) in the collection of the outstanding funds on the purchased service.

[Curlyben]

The point I was trying to make is that Cabott are supplying a service to the OC and not us at all.

 

Check the CCA concerning Debt collectors.

[pt2537]

Not wanting to put a dampener on this but im in agreement with Ben, i feel its gonna fly as well as a DODO

 

Cabot have not supplied you with any service

in my opinion, you will not be able to recover monies paid ,even if by mistake , to a dca because of the Wilson-v- FCT judgment

 

i would strongly suggest you seek legal advice from a qualified and insured lawyer as i feel if you take this course of action you could leave yourself open for major cost implications

 

 

 

regards

paul

[debt_mountain]

Cabot do refer to us as "customers" the OC is the Client (but that is shakey as they have actually sold the debt to Cabot so should realy be a supplier.

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying but I am not giving up until I have found the CCA proof....so I guess at the moment I an saying that I disagree with you:) but wouldn't the world be boring if we all just agreed. For a start Cabot would have a lot more settled debts on their books.

 

Do you have info.section number about CCA concerning Debt collectors?

 

i am just starting on this new line so any info would help.

 

thanks

[debt_mountain]

The point I was trying to make is that Cabott are supplying a service to the OC and not us at all.

 

Check the CCA concerning Debt collectors.

 

I am treading carefully with this and until I have a full understanding am just playing with the idea but cabot refer to us as customers.

 

see this page Cabot Financial

[pt2537]

Hi DM,

 

i have a full Law Library behind me at my work station plus full access to every legal database available

 

i have the full Halsburys series too so im sure i have something which would answer your questions, it would probably come under Consumer Credit or Choses in action so ill have a look in the PDFs i have on the pc as they are more easily searchable

[debt_mountain]

Hi DM,

 

i have a full Law Library behind me at my work station plus full access to every legal database available

 

i have the full Halsburys series too so im sure i have something which would answer your questions, it would probably come under Consumer Credit or Choses in action so ill have a look in the PDFs i have on the pc as they are more easily searchable

 

Thanks Paul, I would like any info on the subject but I would not jump into something like this without the correct legal backing and advice.

 

It is a double sided sword as I can hassle both the poor service provider and also the lender, both of which made my life a misery and flaunt the law as far as possible, I just want to exersice the law and throw it back at them.

 

some may see this a sport.

 

Ta DM

[sansho]

I believe you can sue Cabot only if they were strictly the legal owners in accordance with s136 LPA 1925 for both accounts at the time you paid them off. Remember it depends to a large extent on what remedy or damages you are after... data protection, bank charges, extortionate bargain etc

 

However, I believe 95% of debt assignments are equitable, as many obligations/duties cannot be transferred without the consent or permission of the borrower.

 

If the assignments were equitable then you can sue Cabot as the lone party if your primary cause of action is based on data protection and injury to credit reputation.

 

Otherwise for any other causes you will have to sue both Cabot and the OC, as Cabot will and can present valid and cogent defences regarding its reliance on the OC, and on the flip side the OC can say it was no longer the legal owner following assignment. You may be left scratching your head.. Remember if you are forcing the issue, you really don't want to blackhole your campaign.

 

In short sue both Cabot and the OC you cannot go wrong. As which ever way the gun barrel points both will be treated as valid targets. It will then be down to them (Cabot & OC) to choose who takes the bullet.

 

[Seahorse]

Oh, dear. So my argument that Barclaycard should never have sold my account and data on because the only document I ever signed expressley forbade them from sharing my data, holds true. HAHA. I think I'll be seeing them BOTH in court in the near future then.

 

Unfortunately, Cabot cannot claim in my case that they were reliant on BC, because they have been fully aware for some months now that this is exactly the scanario they are facing, and yet are bleating to the CSA that I should still have to pay up, and they are right to continue to proces my data.

 

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH