Cabot Financial – Dealing with Cabot Financial

[Viva Hate]

Good afternoon all,

 

I have read and taken heart from lots of threads relating to dealing with this company (well done everyone). I would like to share my dispute with these people and if anyone can offer assistance or help in anyway I will be more than grateful. I will try and be concise without, at this stage going overboard with details and will offer more information should anyone require it.

 

July 2008 I was contact by Cabot by letter informing me that someone from their company will be calling me - (OFT state this is bad practice under section 2.11a). I reply asking for details to be forwarded to me. A quick call I made to them established that they were looking for money from a Cahoot credit card last used in 2005, approx £2000.

 

A year passes......

 

July 2009 The exact same letter was sent. I again write back asking for details

 

Aug 2009 - Cabot write to say they are investigating - (OFT 2.1e - Failing to provide debtors or creditors with information on status of debts, for example, not providing requested statements when reasonably requested)

 

Sep 2009 - They again write to say they are investigating

 

late Sep 2009 - They write to explain that hey purchased my account from Cahoot in July 2008 and claim they responded by email to my first query, if they did then I never recieved said email.

 

This letter explained that they had contacted Cahoot in 2008 to ask fro details relating to this debt and that they wrote to me in Oct '08 and Jan '09 - here Cabot admit they had been sending correspondance to an address I last lived in in 2004!!. They again say that they are waiting for Cahoot to provide more info.

 

30th Dec 2009 -They write this time with copies of credit card statements, apparantly proving I owe £2000 from a Cahoot credit card last used in 2005.

 

Ok, I now have to decide what to do next. I have contacted them to inform that I have received their letter and will respond in due course. I have read other cases from people on this forum and it seems I should be looking for Cabot to provide the original copy of my credit agreement, which I thought they would have done considering they have been chasing the relevant info now for about 18 months.

 

Thankyou for reading.

 

I've received a letter back from Cabot. They claim they have included an "enforcable credit agreement". Sorry I don't have a scanner to show a copy of this at this stage

 

In the meantime, what should I be looking for? I cannot see anything relating to my right to cancel and also nothing with regards any charges for late payments. Also there is nothing that suggests an agreed credit card limit.

 

I have started a seperate thread also and apologise for clogging this thread up but i'm just trying to get as much info from fellows Caggers as I can.

 

Regards

[davefirewalker]

I've received a letter back from Cabot. They claim they have included an "enforcable credit agreement". Sorry I don't have a scanner to show a copy of this at this stage

 

In the meantime, what should I be looking for? I cannot see anything relating to my right to cancel and also nothing with regards any charges for late payments. Also there is nothing that suggests an agreed credit card limit.

 

I have started a seperate thread also and apologise for clogging this thread up but i'm just trying to get as much info from fellows Caggers as I can.

 

Regards

 

As a bare minimum it should have (1) how much credit (2) how much interest (3) how you will pay it back.

 

if any or all of these are missing you may well have a case for unenforceability.

 

the credit limit can say "we will tell you later" or just "its £ nnnnn"

 

anything else missing and it is only improperly executed and its enforceability will be upto the judge, who will probably make an enforcement order.......he may then decide to change details of the agreement...(or not) depending on how much prejudice has been caused.

 

 

rgds

 

dave

[Viva Hate]

As a bare minimum it should have (1) how much credit (2) how much interest (3) how you will pay it back.

 

if any or all of these are missing you may well have a case for unenforceability.

 

the credit limit can say "we will tell you later" or just "its £ nnnnn"

 

anything else missing and it is only improperly executed and its enforceability will be upto the judge, who will probably make an enforcement order.......he may then decide to change details of the agreement...(or not) depending on how much prejudice has been caused.

 

 

rgds

 

dave

 

Thanks Dave,

 

Under the "Credit Limit" section it simply states "we will tell you from time to time what your credit card limit is".

 

The copy does state the interest and repayment details but all of the Terms and Conditions are on a seperate, newly printed ( direct from Cahoot website, 2010 ). I wonder if I have a cae in requesting the T@C's at the time of my initial agreement (December 2002 ) .

 

Thanks again for any assistance

[diddydicky]

Thanks Dave,

 

Under the "Credit Limit" section it simply states "we will tell you from time to time what your credit card limit is".

 

The copy does state the interest and repayment details but all of the Terms and Conditions are on a seperate, newly printed ( direct from Cahoot website, 2010 ). I wonder if I have a cae in requesting the T@C's at the time of my initial agreement (December 2002 ) .

 

Thanks again for any assistance

 

that is an acceptable way of expressing the credit limit!

[davefirewalker]

Thanks Dave,

 

Under the "Credit Limit" section it simply states "we will tell you from time to time what your credit card limit is".

 

The copy does state the interest and repayment details but all of the Terms and Conditions are on a separate, newly printed ( direct from Cahoot website, 2010 ). I wonder if I have a case in requesting the t&c's at the time of my initial agreement (December 2002 ) .

 

Thanks again for any assistance

 

The law upto the manchester cases basically states that they must supply terms as varied or something like that....meaning upto date terms...they did not need to supply the original ones unless there was a court action, and even then they try to get away with current terms.

 

I havent fully read through the Manchester judgement yet so cant say how it affects the supply of original terms.

 

The oft have just put forward a consultation document for guidelines on what needs to be supplied with a s77-79 request. When the document is finalised it will become clearer

 

rgds

 

Dave

[diddydicky]

The law upto the manchester cases basically states that they must supply terms as varied or something like that....meaning upto date terms...they did not need to supply the original ones unless there was a court action, and even then they try to get away with current terms.

 

I havent fully read through the Manchester judgement yet so cant say how it affects the supply of original terms.

 

The oft have just put forward a consultation document for guidelines on what needs to be supplied with a s77-79 request. When the document is finalised it will become clearer

 

rgds

 

Dave

 

i have to disagree to a certain extent with that anyalysis

 

s78 has always demanded that the creditor supply a true copy of the executed agreement and of any other document referred to in it

 

If the terms and conditions are not included on what is sent then it is either an agreement that has no terms and conditions (highly unlikely) or they are referred to somewhere on the signature document

 

The current terms and conditions, or any that have been varied since the agreement was entered into cannot possible have been referred to in the original agreement - that would suggest that the agreement could see into the future! The original agreement could only ever have referred to something that existed at that time or before, not in the future

 

what was referred to in the executed agreement are the terms and conditions that were applicable AT THE TIME it was entered into.

 

Further, as common sense dictates, one cannot possibly be legally bound by Varied terms of a contract unless there is evidence of a consent (which by defination would ONLY be in the original terms and conditions) for the original terms and conditions to be varied by one party or the other,

 

If the original terms and conditions are not produced how can anyone possibly say what has been varied and what has not

 

in the past i think it has been more to do with the way in which the failure has been explained to the court than a failing of the CCA (IMO)

[BeauBrummie]

Hi all,

 

Something I picked while searching through my case for inspiration is the cancellation box on the application form on this link.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...2&d=1261657307

 

It says that the Cancellation of the "Agreement" is to be offered on a seperate document (it is in fact on T&C's page 10) but there is no link from that app form to the T&C's except where it states :

 

"Important - Your Information

 

"I have read condition 21 of the T&C's............etc

 

And in the main paragraph it talks about the T&C's and how your information is dealt with in your "Application"

 

The T&C's give most of the prescribed terms that would make this enforceable but is the link STRONG enough to enforce, in my case the DJ in court clearly thought that this was the case.

 

I am now appealing this decision but I am looking for signs that definitelty make this document or combination of the documents unenforcable.

 

Any Thoughts Anyone

 

Beau

__________________

[diddydicky]

can u post up the T & C's

[BeauBrummie]

can u post up the T & C's

 

Hi diddydicky,

 

I will have to do this this evening -- there may well be a legibility issue but I will try.

 

Beau

[diddydicky]

ok what i was looking for was the small printers code that might be on them, usually bottom left or right

 

the one on the appl from is 2001

 

also the prescribed terms cannot be buried within the general terms and conditions and have to be prominent to the signator of the application form if it is to be regarded as a credit agreement

 

also see what the charges are and try to compare them with other caggers information about charges pertaining in 2001

[BeauBrummie]

ok what i was looking for was the small printers code that might be on them, usually bottom left or right

 

the one on the appl from is 2001

 

also the prescribed terms cannot be buried within the general terms and conditions and have to be prominent to the signator of the application form if it is to be regarded as a credit agreement

 

also see what the charges are and try to compare them with other caggers information about charges pertaining in 2001

 

I am 99% certain that the T&C's come from the same era as the app cicra 2001 - the charges look about right. The Prescribed Terms excluding the Credit Limit are in the "General Terms" as you put it.

 

As I say I will try post it up later --- I am at work at the mo---oops:smile:

 

Beau

[alangee]

DD

 

That looks like a copy of my wifes application form, which is now subject of a claim by Cabot, on thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/239521-letter-morgan-behalf-cabot.html. The T&C's are dated June01, and the prescribed terms are buried within the general terms.

 

One thing I have noticed is that in the T&C's it states that there is a 3 month 0% introductory charge, however, my wife still has the original letter from Monument that states that the introductory charge is 2.9% APR, for the first 3 months.

 

Alan

[diddydicky]

DD

 

That looks like a copy of my wifes application form, which is now subject of a claim by Cabot, on thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/239521-letter-morgan-behalf-cabot.html. The T&C's are dated June01, and the prescribed terms are buried within the general terms.

 

One thing I have noticed is that in the T&C's it states that there is a 3 month 0% introductory charge, however, my wife still has the original letter from Monument that states that the introductory charge is 2.9% APR, for the first 3 months.

 

Alan

 

every little bit of evidence helps

[alangee]

On my other thread, B3arty has just pointed out that the application refers to enclosed T&C's, not attached. As he said in the light of the Waksman judgment, the T&C's need to form part of the agreement - even if stapled.

 

Alan

[diddydicky]

On my other thread, B3arty has just pointed out that the application refers to enclosed T&C's, not attached. As he said in the light of the Waksman judgment, the T&C's need to form part of the agreement - even if stapled.

 

Alan

 

yes , that was a VERY loose and suspect interpretation

 

he was saying that they could be in another document that was part of the original documentation if i remember

 

stapled or not they would have , in my opinion to be EXPRESSLY identified and referred to on the signature document

 

otherwise the creditor could simply staple a copy of the beano to the signed copy and say it was all there at the outset!!

[MAGDA]

Prof Goode would not agree with Judge Waksman that's for sure. He has said that the interpretation of the Act is that the prescribed terms must be in the signature document, not just some other document referred to in it.

 

Magda

[volvo]

So,

 

Who is right Goode or Wakeman??

 

VOLVO

[diddydicky]

more important than goode, and given the overriding objectives of this piece of legistlation, it is the opinion of the "chap on the Clapham Omnibus" that should hold sway

 

the act was written so that the ordinary person could understand and comprehend what was being asked/demanded of him - not what prof goode would understand

 

a fact that defendants should be forcefully making to the courts in their defence when half baked judges accuse THEM of relying on "technicalities"

[BeauBrummie]

Ok if this works,

 

Here are the T&Cs to go with the App form in the link in post 232

 

 

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll33/Topcat046/ProvidianTCsPg1910.jpg

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll33/Topcat046/ProvidianTCsPg234.jpg

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll33/Topcat046/ProvidianTCsPg456.jpg

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll33/Topcat046/ProvidianTCsPg789.jpg

 

Hope it works

 

Beau

Edited January 30, 2010 by BeauBrummie
Getting the links right !!

[tedney]

Subbing, great thread. Will read up.

[alangee]

Beau

 

They are the same T&C's my wife received. She applied in May 2001, yet those T&C's are dated June 2001. There may only be a month difference, but the introductory interest offers are different.

 

They also cannot say they are part of the same document as the application, because they are fan folded, and the reply slip was not attached to them as it is a different size.

Alan

[cymruambyth]

My application form was dated even earlier in 2001, yet those t & cs were applicable then;)

[BeauBrummie]

Beau

 

They are the same T&C's my wife received. She applied in May 2001, yet those T&C's are dated June 2001. There may only be a month difference, but the introductory interest offers are different.

 

They also cannot say they are part of the same document as the application, because they are fan folded, and the reply slip was not attached to them as it is a different size.

Alan

 

So what is the opinion on the enforceability !!!

 

I have a Skeleton argument to prepare by latest next Friday and my main thrust would appear to be - as it was in my original defence - that these two documents do not conform to s61 which then brings in s65 & s127

 

I look for inspiration - but I do have one little nugget up my sleeve concerning termination of the account - still I do not know how to bring in new information at an appeal hearing? we will see.

 

Beau

[alangee]

cymruambyth

 

What was the introductory interest offer in your T&C's?

 

Alan

[BeauBrummie]

The argument that Cabot put forward regarding a DN in my case could seem to warrant some scrutiny - they state that they do not need to produce one (nor the OC) : (We assume that the debt still exists to be enforced by the OC or anyone the OC sells the debt to in this case Cabot)

 

 

1) Would the OC have to have issued a legal Default Notice?

 

2) Assuming account is sold on - does the Assignee (Cabot) have to prove that there is in existance a legal default notice issued by the OC ?

 

3) Cabot WS in this case states that they only wish to collect the arrears but I KNOW the agreement was terminated.

 

From their WS at my hearing :

 

"A notice (Default) is not required where the creditor simply demands payment for arrears, with or without contractual interest. As the claimant does not wish to rely upon any of the circumstances listed in section 87 of the CCA 1974, neither the claimant nor the assignor was required to send a Default Notice under that section or at all. The sums claimed by the claimant as assignee relate to arrears only"

 

So this is their entire reasoning for not sending a DN - but surely the point here is that without a DN in the first place the accouint was terminated without following s87 and therefore they should be thrown out on that basis?

 

Does anybody concur ?

 

Beau