Sosumi vs Cabot!!!

[tifo]

wonder if it applies to OCs though, after they have sold the debt to a DCA as some of their actions have been UNFAIR, like selling it when i have claimed charges and put my claim on hold, yet the DCA starts chasing the whole amount.

 

i've started my own thread here to discuss options. Don't want to take this one over.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/148571-dcas-using-new-unfair.html

[penny_foolish]

i'm talking about me, taking action against the creditor under the Unfair Relationship legislation, under s.140A and s.140B of the CCA 1974. This was added in the CCA 2006 and is retrospective from April 2008, so now applies to the agreement. All actions that DCAs take fall foul of this legislation and the court can order all payments to be refunded to the debtor, or vary any term of the agreement, or void it entirely.

 

then i' asking about the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and if they are retrospective or not, if they are not, then they only apply to actions done after April 2008 by a creditor.

 

I think you would need to be very careful with your reasoning here Tifo. I do know from what I have read that the Unfair Terms part of the CCA 2006 IS retrospective. But to say that ALL actions taken by a DCA fall foul of the legislation might be a bit off the mark. Otherwise how would they operate?

There is a blog (I cant remember the address) where someone is using a similar train of thought, but he seems to be able to back it up with an actual bit of naughtiness that the original lender was up to. Just because a DCA is trying to collect a debt doesn't in itself make it true that it is acting unlawfully. I doubt very much that the new act is outlawing all DCAs just for trying to earn money.

[tifo]

i know the blog you are talking about, it is Seahorse's. We talk regularly elsewhere.

 

i didn't say all the DCA's actions are unlawful, i'm concentrating on the ones that seem to be. Such as not complying with legislation (s.78 request, pre action CPR request, statement request etc.) and in default. Then chasing with threatograms of intended court action, intended statutory demands, intended bankruptcy, passing the debt around either internally or to other agencies, defaulting at CRA's. All this and not a peep out of them for s.78 compliance and proof of legal entitlement. Therefore their actions are all in the absence of a valid agreement. The short application form they send doesn't fully comply, but then that's all they've got. And they won't do anything more than threaten, harass and use their dominant position at the CRA's - “undue influence” means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision. This would apply in the recording of a default at each of the credit reference agencies, in the absence of a valid agreement.

 

on top of this, i've lost all my charges refunds from banks to DCA's, through the FOS and each DCA hasn't had to lift a finger for this.

 

now, through legislation, it's an opportunity to get back at them. The same way they, the banks and the authorities use legislation against us.

 

i have some in-depth threads on this and other bank/DCA related issues and have learnt a lot.

 

as someone quoted from court "we're not here to judge morals, we're here to look at the facts". Of course, i'd pay what is legitimately owed, subject to their legal entitlement being proven and the amount being verified as actually due.

Edited June 17, 2008 by tifo

[babybear39]

The new directive came into force on 26th May 2008 and is NOT retrospective unfortunately.

 

Take a look at my thread here tifo:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/147392-cca-dcas-unfair-commercial.html

[tifo]

The new directive came into force on 26th May 2008 and is NOT retrospective unfortunately.

 

That's fine, at least s.19 CCA 2006 "Unfair Relationships" is retrospective.

[sosumi]

Cabot have gone awfully quiet.

Not a thing, not a peep.

They signed for the letter on 18th.

Hmm

Tomorrow I'll SAR Goldfish, request a Copy of their Complaints Procedure, and enclose Cabot's letter as well.

I want a transcript of the conversation I had with that young man at Goldfish. I want to know everything.

But I'm actually quite calm. The walks did me good

[sosumi]

Dated 18th June, they acknowledged my request for information under the CCA.

'Cabot... not obliged... pleased to help... already requested this documentation from the original lender.

'Cabot Financial Group does not accept the statutory fee... returned...'

Okay fine, you stapled it to your letter Cabot and acknowledged it under 'Notes', so that will do for me. The fact that you don't have the documentation says a lot.

Dated 25th June,

'Acknowledging your complaint'

You 'regret' that I've felt the need to contact yourselves 'to express your dissatisfaction about our service...'

You regret it really do you? Do you really really regret it? Do you Do you?

'We are currently investigating your concerns...' okay. Not a problem. As of this Monday we shall have the £10 required to SAR Goldfish, and I'll include your introductory letter, Cabot.

 

Oh and they enclosed a copy of their Complaints Procedure and the standard FOS leaflet.

I'm assuming that the telephone conversation I had with Goldfish is recorded - they are a Bank after all and thoroughly trustworthy (joke!).

So it will all come out in the wash. Don't underestimate my anger over this Cabot. Or Goldfish.

[penny_foolish]

Don't take it personally. Templates are not meant to be personal.

[Fred Bassett]

Don't take it personally. Templates are not meant to be personal.

 

They don't have the resources to react intelligently - all they can do is send out standard letters that don't necessarily have anything to do with the matter at hand. Even if every letter was 'hand crafted', half the idiots who work for these people have difficulty enough speaking the language, let alone stringing a number of coherent sentences together in a letter. That's the crux of the problem. Innit?

 

Fred

Edited August 9, 2008 by Fred Bassett

[sosumi]

Update but will have to edit the details when I can find the letter. I wrote to Goldfish for my SAR, didn't mention Cabot... couple of days later had another letter from Cabot, 'further to our letters, still investigating...' Yet nothing from Goldfish...

Well 8 weeks are up on 16th August. Cabot haven't sent me anything other than letters apologising for the delay. Absolute zilch from Goldfish. ???

[creditcardmug]

I'm in the same position as you except i havent done a sar, it looks like barclays have washed their hands of all "problem debts" so i doubt cabot will ever get any sort of Agreement from, where shall i start, Morgan Stanley/Goldfish/barclays.

Bottom line is Cabot are now the "creditor" for the puposes of CCA requests, so if you havent already done so send a request to Cabot under s78 of the Act, they will still cough and splutter but thats about it IMO

[babybear39]

Yes, as CPUTR 2008 has been intergrated into UK law now, the DCAs are stuck...Oops ROFLMFAO...

[sosumi]

I'm in the same position as you except i havent done a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), it looks like barclays have washed their hands of all "problem debts" so i doubt cabot will ever get any sort of Agreement from, where shall i start, Morgan Stanley/Goldfish/barclays.

Bottom line is Cabot are now the "creditor" for the puposes of CCA requests, so if you havent already done so send a request to Cabot under s78 of the Act, they will still cough and splutter but thats about it IMO

The CCA request was part of my letter of complaint to them - 16th June. They haven't provided me with anything - nothing, just letters apologising for delay several times over. So I'm thinking a week from tomorrow I'll be approaching the authorities about them.

After all, they threatened to 'default' me in that letter. They're in a big big hole with this.

I'm sure I've seen in the CPUTR that failing to adhere to the codes of conduct of an association a company claims to belong to is - well it's bad.

Strikes me as ironic that not only is Cabot a member of the CSA, but Ken wotsit is one of the CSA's Directors. And the CSA, as we know, has a very strict code of conduct

[babybear39]

Yep you're right sosumi with regard to the CPUTR and you don't have to wait for the further calendar month now either