Cabot – Citi v Questioner

[questioner]

Cabot – Citi v Questioner

 

This one is fun.

 

Original Creditor – Citi

DCA – Cabot

 

Back in May Cabot come on the scene to tell me that they are reviewing my account and that the quid per month token payments will be reviewed. They also politely offer me a “special discount” to pay up. How nice.

 

At the start of August I CCA them.

 

 

They write back to say the document is being requested off Citi and that it will likely arrive in 12 days. They also send me back the quid statutory fee for the CCA saying they do not accept it.

 

Since then Cabot have apologised in writing twice as the docs they have urgently requested from the OC are still not forthcoming due to a “delay” in the archives it seems. Oh dear!

 

I have written back to tell these nice collectors that the issue is now in dispute.

 

What I have NOT told them is that back in midsummer Citi wrote to me with the following info.

 

“Your account is now closed.”

“In our credit card terms and conditions clause 24.8 erroneously excluded our liability for claims on transactions made abroad under section 75 of the CCA 1974.”

 

If goes on to say if you think you have a claim against us ...blah blah…..

 

The point I want to raise here is that Citi have admitted that their T&C are flawed so this would possibly mean that anyone fighting over enforceability issue on such an agreement would have a good case here. Yes?

 

If the prescribed terms on their older credit docs are misstated (according to the horse’s mouth) then presumably it is bye bye agreement enforceability herein???

 

I do hope this is correct and helpful to others.

 

Heck - it looks like others have had this too

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1754757

 

 

Requirment imposed by OFT on Citi

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/Requirements2.pdf

Edited September 7, 2009 by questioner

[citizenB]

Until someone attempts to pursue you on this, I would just file that lot away.

 

Obviously the more doubt you can highlight, the better. However, until such times as you actually receive something you can cast doubt on. You are kind in limbo land

[questioner]

"Limbo" is so right on most of what I have on the go!

[questioner]

Ok - In my last letter telling Cabot that they should not chase this account cos its in dispute I also mentioned this.......

 

 

"Please note you may also consider this letter as a statutory notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect."

 

IT SEEMS TO HAVE DRIVEN THEN INTO RAPTURES.....

 

As you can see they bleat on about me signing an agreement so..

 

Problem is that they have produced NO copy of diddly squat..

 

Expert opinions welcome..

 

 

 

Like I say they have given me NOTHING in response to a CCA request but lots of sorrys .......

 

They harp on about me signing something that seems to be a figment of their imagination only so does this issue alone not invalidate their claims herein??

Edited September 24, 2009 by questioner

[questioner]

I notice that I also cannot find any data saying that the file was sold to Cabot although they tell me that they bought it off Citi. I thought I was supposed to be told that such a file had been assigned over to a new mob?

 

No sign of any Default Notice either from Citi - it just kinda apparently drifted from one crew to the next.

Edited November 6, 2009 by questioner

[questioner]

I cannot see any DN off CitiFinancial in our own records.

 

However - Cabot sent this in 08

 

[questioner]

I also have this but I thought that Citi (the OC) had to be the guys to do this and not Cabot???

 

I still have had no CCA honoured by this lot..

 

 

[questioner]

Cabot's DN is dated 14th Feb 08 - this gives until 12 March 08 to remedy the breach.

 

The Termination Notice is dated 28th Feb 08.

 

Ergo, they terminated the agreement before the date to remedy the breach .

 

Is this kosher?

 

If not - what do I say to them?

 

IS THERE A TERM FOR SUCH ACTION?

[BeauBrummie]

Just gets better and better for Cabot does'nt it

 

No Notice of Assigment---- oops a rather large clanger me thinks:D

but they will probably come up with something that they will swear until they are blue & (yellow) in the face that they sent it to you---just wait until they take you to court----it will be there somewhere.

 

Then my understanding of Cabots defence to these tactics is "We are not the OC so we do not have to provide a Default Notice" --so whats this then heypresto--- ooops we got it wrong again ----or did we----not quite sure---ah well we just get as much out of the the poor debtor as possible and see what happens.

 

Cynical---I know but Cabot do really make it up as they go along, with whatever suits them at the time. I have seen a few post on here today with Cabots new tactics based on the recent high court judgments---just slight changes in phrases or a small adjustment to a sentence, and they believe they can make you believe that they are right.

 

File this lot ready for litigation if they dare. Then take them to the cleaners and help to wipe another 6m of their balance sheet.

 

Beau

[questioner]

No, it Citi who provided nothing - not Cabot.

 

But I think Citi should have done - yes?

 

The point is that the dates seem to leave the issue wanting badly here.

 

I am no expert and just need to know what to say over these dates to CABOT???

 

And is the DN invalid as it came off Cabot not Citi?

[citizenB]

Q, if they terminated before the remedy date had been reached.. then oops. It is classed as unlawful recission I understand.. This is one for Vint and diddydicky who have more knowledge of this.

 

:D

[BeauBrummie]

If there has not been a legal assignment ----properly notified to you Cabot should be told to go away---they will bleat and threaten but why should you pay someone who does not have a legal right to collect on an agreement that is most likely unenforceable.

 

Cabot are going to argue at some point that they are not trying to enforce the agreement -- that is their current defence to the "enforcability" issue---they will say they only want to collect the arrears??

 

As Citizenb says it could be an unlawfull recission, but you have alot of ammo here, sit tight and let them keep making the mistakes---if they do issue a claim against you, there will be plenty here to defend with.

 

Beau

[questioner]

Thanks guys

 

I have been asking for a copy agreement for months and not even received a terms sheet off Cabot. Zilch.

 

Also Citi had written to me in summer admitting tha errors existed in the terms of the card attached to this . I mentioned this earlier on.

 

I am most interested in this unlawfull recission thing - which you think may apply here.

 

The more I can hit Cabot with the better and then I SHALL GET ONTO THE DREAEDED PPI WORD.. :grin:

 

THEY MAY HAVE NO AGREEMENT BUT IF THEY THINK THEY OWN THE FILE THEN THEY CAN PAY UP FOR THIS.

[questioner]

It looks like I am not the only one to have this with cabot too.

 

 

Sorry about link here - I was not to know

 

Sadly the poster here did not get a response.

Edited November 17, 2009 by questioner
Removed link - not permitted, sorry.

[citizenB]

Q, it is not permitted to put links from that forum on this one. Sorry:(

[cerberusalert]

I am most interested in this unlawfull recission thing - which you think may apply here.

You could tell them to read the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983, and that a failure of a Default Notice or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd V Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998 but it is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt (Wilson V First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, Wilson V Robertsons (London) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1088, Wilson V Pawnbrokers [2005] EWCA Civ 147) - but would also give the claimant a claim for damages in the sum of £1000 (Kpophraror V Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119).

[veryweary]

My OH jas had a similiar situation with a Morgan Stanley account, see my post' Morgan Stanley- Cabot question' don't know how to provide link.in which Pinky69 has similiarly explained fact Morgan Stanley didn't issue default notice prior to sale to Cabot makes this rescission of contract.

 

Checked this with the legal helpline on my insurance and they have confirmed what the posters on here are advsing. ie if original creditor didn't issue a default then there is no debt for Cabot to chase.

 

It is down to Cabot to prove that the original creditor issued a valid default notice. Neither can they claim they aren't enforcing just collecting arrears. And in your case if Cabot were slippery enough to try to persuade a judge that they had the right to issue a Notice under Section 87 then they've mucked that up as well.

 

Course as we are all only too aware, it all depends on the Judge on the day, there are no guarantees for success in court cases.

[citizenB]

Here you go.. link to very weary's thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/226824-morgan-stanley-cabot-question.html

 

VW, all you do is go to the thread you want to link to. Left click on the address bar to highlight, right click then copy. Hightail it over to the thread where you want to leave the link and right click and paste. Voila

[citizenB]

My OH jas had a similiar situation with a Morgan Stanley account, see my post' Morgan Stanley- Cabot question' don't know how to provide link.in which Pinky69 has similiarly explained fact Morgan Stanley didn't issue default notice prior to sale to Cabot makes this rescission of contract.

 

Checked this with the legal helpline on my insurance and they have confirmed what the posters on here are advsing. ie if original creditor didn't issue a default then there is no debt for Cabot to chase.

 

It is down to Cabot to prove that the original creditor issued a valid default notice. Neither can they claim they aren't enforcing just collecting arrears. And in your case if Cabot were slippery enough to try to persuade a judge that they had the right to issue a Notice under Section 87 then they've mucked that up as well.

 

Course as we are all only too aware, it all depends on the Judge on the day, there are no guarantees for success in court cases.

 

Sadly you are correct, in some cases, Judge lottery kicks in. However, those people who research and prepare properly are usually successful.

 

You need to be absolutely confident in your arguments.

[questioner]

I will let you know if they come up with any silly excuses.

[questioner]

"You need to be absolutely confident in your arguments."

 

Well thats ok then - coz I'm always right!!!

[Fred Bassett]

I notice that I also cannot find any data saying that the file was sold to Cabot although they tell me that they bought it off Citi. I thought I was supposed to be told that such a file had been assigned over to a new mob?

 

No sign of any Default Notice either from Citi - it just kinda apparently drifted from one crew to the next.

 

This is oh-so-familiar. Here's my thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/131660-fred-bassett-morgan-stanley.html

 

Same thing. No default notice, no notice of assignment, no nothing. What bunch of jokers.

 

Fred

[Fred Bassett]

This is going to seem like a dumb question and one that I probably ought to know the answer to. Can the original creditor sell the debt without issuing a default notice?

 

Fred

[Enron]

OK, glad I stumbled across this post as i've been doing a lot of work on Citi Financial Europe Plc.

 

What you'll find is that Citi don't produce "Notice Of Assignments", someone on the Citi section of this forum phoned Citi and were told this verbally. This would match the faked "Notice Of Assignment" that purported to come from Citi but was so obviously a photoshopped produced by 1st Credit when my account was sold to them - lots of incorrect details including their old registered company address present on a letter, after Citi had been using new stationary for some six months with their canary wharf address.

 

So you will never get a "Notice Of Assignment" that Citi produced, it may be an idea to push Cabot on this point. As far as I know it is a legal requirement, but then again Citi and most DCA companies operate like cowboys.

 

At present Citi are NOT sending out any responses to s78(1) CCA requests to their customers or DCAs that purchased accounts.

 

Previously they were sending out copies of recent Terms & Conditions which obviously were not fulfilling a request for a copy of the "executed agreements", but got a slap on the knuckles from the OFT for this practice. Now they have resulted to sending out diddly squat.

 

If Cabot press you for payment on this account they are not entitled to do so after the 12+2 days statutory period for them to reply has passed, likewise you are not obliged to make any payments. As clarified to me by the OFT a creditor in default of a s77-s79 request is not entitled to enforce the agreement AT ALL either with or without a court order.

 

That said many do attempt to continue to enforce the agreement, i.e. letters and phone calls requesting payment, updating credit files etc. Whilst s78(6) CCA is in force they should not be doing this, to do so is to operate contrary to law, but as with a lot of these banks they operate regardless of law, regulations, banking code and their own internal codes of conduct - preferring to operate by routine, as with all modern financial institutions is only the bottom line that matters.

 

Hope this info is of help.

[questioner]

Eron

 

And it appears that FOS are very happy to support the DCAs in their quests for payments; even when no enforcable agreement exists.

 

I was told by a guy from there that so long as they have one's signature on any old piece of paper such as an illegible application form, plus a few old bank statements that clearly equates with an enforcable debt according to FOS.

 

Its pathetic but true, flies in the face of OFT guidlines too (and CCA law) and this absurd stance MUST be challenged and changed as it is totally anti-consumer.

Edited December 1, 2009 by questioner