Spamheed vs Cabot **discontinued**

[spamheed]

Right, a little clarification if you please

 

In the POC Morgan have used Cabots Loan Ref instead of Eggs, is this correct?

 

Shouldn't they be using the original account details to identify the account?

[gh2008]

They need to give you enough info in order for you to identify the account.

 

If they are saying Cabot now own the account in its entirety (which, no doubt you will want to put them to strict proof of) then they can give the account any number they want to.

 

If you have info to cross-reference the account back to teh Egg account then that would be ok

 

jmho

[spamheed]

The alleged agreement has no reference number on it at all, someone has handwritten the cabot ref across the signature page of the copy sent to me.

 

but the default and all previous egg corres has a different ref on them,

 

So although all of the Cabot rubbish has the same number on it, the actual Egg stuff has a completely different number on it.

[spamheed]

So in response to my letter prior to Morgan issuing a claim I receive

the same copy of the unenforceable agreement, complete with the Cabot Ref scrawled across the agreement #23

the same documents as per post #23

statements to be provided as and when they are available

 

Since they have provided documentation would an embarrassed defence be appropriate?

 

a general overview of my understanding is as follows

 

They have only provided me with a NOA created by Cabot, never received anything from Egg but the Cabot NOA/letter claims to be from Egg (Fraud?)

The LBA from Morgan shows Egg as the creditor, yet Cabot claim they have "bought the debt"

The CCA as produced has PPI combined but no separate T&C or signature box

The CCA has no right to cancel

CCA produced is a copy of a photocopy - not a copy of the original

They have issued a claim based on the cabot ref and not the Egg number the only place that this number appears is on Cabot Docs and is hand written on copy of CCA

They are adding interest on their claim when no interest is mentioned on the T&C as supplied by Cabot/Morgan

 

Any help would be appreciated

[spamheed]

Oh and I've started the ball rolling with regard to a ppi claim against Egg

[unclebulgaria67]

 

Sounds like you require a lot of clarification before you submit your defence. I know you have received some documents, but these are unclear.

 

From what I have read of Part 18 requests, they do ask for the clarification you are seeking.

 

If you click on the report post thingy, perhaps one of the site team will advise what the best way forward is.

[spamheed]

So now I have a chance to see Morgan's response something else has become very clear

 

I now have three copies of the same "agreement" complete with PPI added and missing key prescribed terms.

 

However, something else has jumped out at me.(bear with me please ref numbers for example purposes only)

 

The account number appearing on the Egg correspondence was ABCDEFG this is also referred to as the Loan Reference on Egg correspondence

 

The Loan Ref according to Cabot and Morgan is 1234567 this is the ref they have issued the claim against

The ref on the response to both my CCA request and the CCA request sent by cabot is 9876

The Cabot ref was hand written (presumably by Cabot staff) on the CCA request delivered by Cabot and also on an earlier "agreement"

 

The agreement itself has no account number or loan reference on it at all, there is a faint hand written number on it, which is none of the three numbers mentioned earlier

So there is nothing at all to link this agreement with any of the account numbers/ Loan refs: either 1234567, ABCDEFG or even 9876 other than the fact Cabot have handwritten their own ref on copies of letters and agreement

 

I really would be grateful for some input on this and preferably a little guidance with regard to the procedure/next step

[spamheed]

More and more bizarre, I have obtained a copy of an Egg CCA which was issued within a few months of the one supplied by Cabot and the account number is clearly visible at the top of the front page

 

This is missing on the "agreement" provided by Cabot/Morgan

 

So Cabot and Morgan are using account numbers and references which are completely different to that used by Egg, issuing a claim form using a Cabot reference number

and there is nothing linking the supplied agreement to any of the account numbers/references used by Cabot or Morgan.

 

as well as this we have an NOA created by Cabot rather than "by the hand of the assignor" as per LOP 1925

 

Fraud???

 

any suggestions would be helpful

[spamheed]

Bump

 

Any advice at all?

 

a general overview of my understanding is as follows

 

They have only provided me with a NOA created by Cabot, never received anything from

Egg

but the Cabot NOA/letter claims to be from Egg (Fraud?)

The lba

from Morgan shows Egg as the creditor, yet Cabot claim they have "bought the debt"

The CCA as produced has PPI

combined but no separate T&C or signature

box

The CCA has no right to cancel

The CCA has no account number/Reference to link it to Cabot/Morgans claim

CCA produced is a copy of a photocopy - not a copy of the original

They have issued a claim based on the cabot ref and not the Egg number the only place that this number appears is on Cabot Docs and is hand written on copy of CCA

They are adding interest

on their claim when no interest is mentioned on the T&C as supplied by Cabot/Morgan

[spamheed]

6 days without a reply? is this some kind of record

 

A little guidance would be most helpful

 

a general overview of my understanding is as follows

 

They have only provided me with a NOA created by Cabot, never received anything from

Egg

but the Cabot NOA/letter claims to be from Egg (Fraud?)

The lba

from Morgan shows Egg as the creditor, yet Cabot claim they have "bought the debt"

The CCA as produced has PPI

combined but no separate T&C or signature

box

The CCA has no right to cancel

The CCA has no account number or reference on it linking it to Cabot/Morgans claim

CCA produced is a copy of a photocopy - not a copy of the original

They have issued a claim based on the cabot ref and not the Egg number the only place that this number appears is on Cabot Docs and is hand written on copy of CCA

They are adding interest

on their claim when no interest is mentioned on the T&C as supplied by Cabot/Morgan

[creditcardmug]

All the above are valid points to go in your defence. Check out my threads for defences

Also reading the POC, they arent entitled to s69 interest either

[unclebulgaria67]

As the last poster says, these are all points you make in your defence about the inconsistency in the documents provided to date.

 

When you put in your defence, a copy will be supplied to the claimants, so they will have a chance to try to answer these at any hearing.

[gh2008]

The first 2 points will have no legs in Court - They are authorised to use the Egg letterhead and the Law allows them to send the NOA on behalf of the creditor. The new European Directive Article 17 makes this very clear.

 

Cabot buy the debt, not the account. The account remains with Egg and Egg are still the creditor - however all repayments are now due to Cabot.

 

The rest are all very valid - stick with the valid ones and don't give them an easy bite into your argument IMHO

[spamheed]

The first 2 points will have no legs in Court - They are authorised to use the Egg letterhead and the Law allows them to send the NOA on behalf of the creditor. The new European Directive Article 17 makes this very clear.

 

Cabot buy the debt, not the account. The account remains with Egg and Egg are still the creditor - however all repayments are now due to Cabot.

 

The rest are all very valid - stick with the valid ones and don't give them an easy bite into your argument IMHO

 

Thanks for that, very informative and much appreciated, Nice to know I'm heading in the right direction

 

I contacted the court today and I have to have my defence in by 1st september

 

waiting on part 18 and 31.14 which I feel will probably be nothing more than a rehash of what they have previously sent

 

I'm not going to follow the usual embarrassed defence option, I'll defend on the basis of what they have sent me and anything I get between now and the end of August.

 

Thanks again for the heads up

[PriorityOne]

 

Cabot buy the debt, not the account. The account remains with Egg and Egg are still the creditor - however all repayments are now due to Cabot.

 

 

This is not my understanding of how it works. Cabot have tried for a long time to make people believe this but it's been shot down in flames many times on these forums on the older Cabot threads. When Cabot buy accounts by Absolute Assignment.... they are buying them absolutely; as the term implies.... which means everything. If they don't buy the account, then how can they buy a debt?... since the debt is the account.

 

No other DCA seems to make these claims either. Are Cabot special?

[spamheed]

My understanding is that the cca defines "the creditor" as the owner of the rights and the duties of an account. When Cabot make this claim about only buying the rights and not the duties are they not shooting themselves in the foot?

 

I have read that if they state that they only have the rights then they cannot bring a claim as they are not the creditor (they don't own the duties) and the original creditor is unable to bring a claim because they don't own the rights.

 

This being the case I have a company who are not the actual creditor, bringing a claim with an invalid account/reference number and an alleged agreement that cannot be linked back to any account number/reference that they or the OC have used to identify the account. How can the figures claimed be even close to being accurate when there is no account number on the agreement to link it to any statements/payments/assignments etc and so forth

 

that's before we look into the enforceability of the agreement which doesn't have all of the prescribed terms and has ppi included but no separate agreement

 

If I wasn't aware of the unreliability of the judicial system and in particular their judgement of consumer credit accounts, I would say they really don't have a lot to be bringing a claim over

[PriorityOne]

My understanding is that the cca defines "the creditor" as the owner of the rights and the duties of an account. When Cabot make this claim about only buying the rights and not the duties are they not shooting themselves in the foot? It's either wordplay or porkies.... from memory, I think s175 of CCA 1974 defines them as the creditor under Absolute Assignment.... so they do need to produce accurate docs. to enforce their little purchase and that Agreement (if they have it). They also need to justify the legal basis for adding (post-purchase) interest to it, as they tend to do.

 

I have read that if they state that they only have the rights then they cannot bring a claim as they are not the creditor (they don't own the duties) and the original creditor is unable to bring a claim because they don't own the rights. They've bought it, so I'd ignore this. It's there to confuse.

 

This being the case I have a company who are not the actual creditor, bringing a claim with an invalid account/reference number and an alleged agreement that cannot be linked back to any account number/reference that they or the OC have used to identify the account. How can the figures claimed be even close to being accurate when there is no account number on the agreement to link it to any statements/payments/assignments etc and so forth They've bought it (as above) so can bring a claim. If the figures are not accurate (and the CCA is enforceable) then the total can be challenged as including unsubstantiated charges. I'm not sure if having a different ref. no, will be a strong enough argument in court but there needs to be a legal basis for being able to add charges and it's up to Cabot to explain that to the court.

 

that's before we look into the enforceability of the agreement which doesn't have all of the prescribed terms and has ppi included but no separate agreement There you go! No prescribed terms, so how can any right to add charges be substantiated? Where is the proof that you agreed to PPI? If there's no proof that you agreed to PPI, then it shouldn't be included in the claim; which makes their total inaccurate.

 

If I wasn't aware of the unreliability of the judicial system and in particular their judgement of consumer credit accounts, I would say they really don't have a lot to be bringing a claim over

 

It's down to your ability to fight it and how well your argument is presented.

[gh2008]

This is not my understanding of how it works. Cabot have tried for a long time to make people believe this but it's been shot down in flames many times on these forums on the older Cabot threads. When Cabot buy accounts by Absolute Assignment.... they are buying them absolutely; as the term implies.... which means everything. If they don't buy the account, then how can they buy a debt?... since the debt is the account.

 

No other DCA seems to make these claims either. Are Cabot special?

 

The new European Directive, Article 17 (which is now adopted) makes this much clearer. The UK debt buying industry was singled out as being misleading.

 

There is also a statement from Cabot on Humbleman's thread I linked to on BO's thread which makes it very clear.

 

Try issuing a claim against any of these debt buyers (debt buyers not account buyers) over historical charges or PPI and see what reaction you get ....

[gh2008]

CCman's rather than Humbleman's thread - 5 mins to edit Grrrrr

Article attached

ART_Apr07_CM_Legalmisconceptionsindebtsaleandadministration (2).pdf

[spamheed]

"I'm not sure if having a different ref. no, will be a strong enough argument in court but there needs to be a legal basis for being able to add charges and it's up to Cabot to explain that to the court."

I was rather hoping that the agreement produced by Egg/Cabot/Morgan not having any number on it at all to link it to their claims would throw a spanner on their argument before we even got to the enforceablity of the agreement

"Try issuing a claim against any of these debt buyers (debt buyers not account buyers) over historical charges or PPI and see what reaction you get .... "

 

So we can no longer rely on the fact that they don't assign correctly, or that they are not the creditor as far as the law is concerned. Now in order to get any kind of justice, we have to rely solely on the ability of a judge to determine whether an agreement is enforceable. Rather than clear statements of fact and law, we now rely on "The balance of probabilities"

 

Talk about moving the goalposts

[gh2008]

Any argument that you have against the OC can be used against an assignee in Court - that is part of the directive. (and one which I am going to use against Cabot & Aktiv & Lowells myself re unrecoverable charges)

 

The reference number thing - if you can show that you do not know what they are talking about (hard with reference to this thread) then the argument would work.

 

However if you turned up in Court and said that you did not know what Cabot were on about with reference to this account number and they produced this thread as clear evidence that you do fully understand what their claim refers to IMHO the argument would not be taken too seriously and would compromise the rest of your *good* arguments

 

But jmho ....

[spamheed]

Any argument that you have against the OC can be used against an assignee in Court - that is part of the directive. (and one which I am going to use against Cabot & Aktiv & Lowells myself re unrecoverable charges)

 

The reference number thing - if you can show that you do not know what they are talking about (hard with reference to this thread) then the argument would work.

 

However if you turned up in Court and said that you did not know what Cabot were on about with reference to this account number and they produced this thread as clear evidence that you do fully understand what their claim refers to IMHO the argument would not be taken too seriously and would compromise the rest of your *good* arguments

 

But jmho ....

 

So by posting on here and seeking clarification of what an alleged creditor is and isn't allowed to do, you're saying that they can somehow produce this thread as clear evidence of my alleged liability?

 

I don't see how that ccould happen.

 

"The reference number thing" isn't an attempt to pull the wool over anyones eyes. they have to prove their case, especially that the agreement is directly linked to the account that they have purchased, without any numbers or references of any kind on it, how can such a link be established? Nowhere on this thread has it been stated or conceded that they are connected or linked in any way

[gh2008]

As long as you are confident that you can persuade a DJ that you have no knowledge of the Egg account you refer to Cabot having 'bought' and that you have asked for a copy of the agreement for.

 

I'm not sure I would want to go down that route myself.

They are at liberty to change the reference number and to use multiple references for it, as long as you are aware of the account they refer to - which I think you have confirmed is an old Egg account

 

Personally, I would want them to prove that they actually own the debt though as there could easily have been a mistake. And that means a proper copy of the DOA or proper formal confirmation from Egg themselves.

 

But as I say jmho ...... I just know that if I were Cabot reading this I would pounce on that and use a printout of the thread to show that you were 'trying to obstruct Justice' - a trick they have pulled on more than 1 occasion recently.

[spamheed]

I think you are reading me completely wrong here. I don't think that this is an attempt to defraud, or con anyone and certaibnly not trying to obstruct justice in any way at all

 

I would like to see an example of this as I cannot see how it could be possible.

[PriorityOne]

So by posting on here and seeking clarification of what an alleged creditor is and isn't allowed to do, you're saying that they can somehow produce this thread as clear evidence of my alleged liability?

 

 

Sorry... but that's rubbish. CCA 1974 is very clear on when an account can be re-enforced and when it can't. Chit-chat on a pubic forum is not evidence of any liability without sight of a contractually assignable, properly executed Consumer Credit Agreement.

 

The new European Directive, Article 17 (which is now adopted) makes this much clearer. The UK debt buying industry was singled out as being misleading.

 

There is also a statement from Cabot on Humbleman's thread I linked to on BO's thread which makes it very clear.

 

Try issuing a claim against any of these debt buyers (debt buyers not account buyers) over historical charges or PPI and see what reaction you get ....

 

I have downloaded the link and will read it but on face value, it may be a claimant/defendant issue in terms of the burden of proof. You talk about issuing a claim, but we're not issuing a cliam here. The claim has been issued by them. As for reading a statement from Cabot... that's bound to be biased/worded in their favour anyway.

 

Any argument that you have against the OC can be used against an assignee in Court - that is part of the directive. (and one which I am going to use against Cabot & Aktiv & Lowells myself re unrecoverable charges)

 

The reference number thing - if you can show that you do not know what they are talking about (hard with reference to this thread) then the argument would work.

 

However if you turned up in Court and said that you did not know what Cabot were on about with reference to this account number and they produced this thread as clear evidence that you do fully understand what their claim refers to IMHO the argument would not be taken too seriously and would compromise the rest of your *good* arguments

 

But jmho ....

 

Another claimant/defendant difference, I think.