Cabot refuses to provide debt details returns PO

[ODC]

OP you may want to point out to CABOT their LEGAL OBLIGATIONS under S175 of the CCA 1974.

 

This is a LEGAL OBLIGATION not a suggestion.

[Seahorse]

Agreed, JC. But this will never have been because they have managed to win the Right but ot the Duties arguement.

 

If anyone is ever faced with court action, the agreement will be part of the documentation required under disclosure rules. Without it, the defendant merely needs to defend on the basis of section 127 (3). The judge is precluded from enforcing the debt if the agreement is missing, or does not contain all the prescribed terms. Cabot couldn't at that stage say, yeah but, he never disagreed with us when we said we didn't have to, m'lud! Cabot will effectively scupper themselves trying it on with no agreement.

 

This dosn't mean that I disagree with you about letting Cabot know that they are talking bollix. It just means that I don't think we should get all fixated on this one point.

 

And despite Cabot's assertion that those sections of the CCA don't apply to them, they WILL do their best to find an agreement, if for no other reason than it's to their benefit if one exists. If something turns up, they usually insist that is IS an agreement as laid out in the Act. And that they have complied fully with the obligations of the Act by producing what usually turns out to be nonsense. But by stating that they HAVE fullfilled the obligations (it never says THEIR obligations), it is my belief that they have admitted that they are bound by the act.

 

Let's see if they are reading this, and change their template accordingly.

[kel123]

Seahorse, I here what your saying but it's about control and the moral high ground. OK i'm a pernickaty sarcastic bugger who likes to antisipate eventualities. why give someone amunition when you can close that door. and yes their solicitor will say what ever it takes to win, thats what they're paid for! They will say the letter dated .......... was not contested by Mr Bloggs and therefore by defaul superseeded Mr Blogg's initial request, This was the case in may 1763 jones v smith when the judge ruled.......................... Sorry to say this but solicitor are/have written the scripts that DCA's use and are atleast one level lower than DCA's and banks (thats if you can get any lower) It's a game, poker if you like bluff, double bluff and counter bluff.

[JonCris]

Precisely Kel

We can go on about what's right & what's wrong until the cows come home, about they should or should not have done but at the end of the day it's about winning & we must not get hung on our own petard simply by allowing them to play the system

 

Close the stable door before the horse bolts not after... as they say

 

I don't agree with your opinion of solicitors though........there are many who take the side of the hard pressed consumer & want to see justice done

[tbern123]

Removed as I cannot be asked