Spamheed vs Cabot **discontinued**

[spamheed]

Well it has finally happened, after seeing off Egg, Moorcroft and Freds, I now have Cabot on my tail.

 

Whereas all of the previous chimps have been acting for Egg, Cabot claim to have "bought" the debt.

 

The CCA was requested in December 2007 and proofs of delivery/posting were obtained and still retained, Egg certainly shouldn't have passed on the debt and it looks as if there is no agreement as all I got from Egg was a completely blank set of T&C. No payment has been made since then.

 

Now this lot seem to have a more professional approach and after reading a bit, I hear that they tend to play hardball

 

So I propose to start with the usual "bemused" letter in the first instance, outlining the dispute of the account and default of the CCA,

 

any words of advice etc?

 

also what's the best address to use? 1 King Hill Ave is their registered address

[spamheed]

I've been thinking a little more on this:

 

Since thed CCA request was almost two years ago and three companies removed, I am of two minds, should I insist there is a dispute, as per the bemused letter, or would a stronger track be to deny all knowledge and make them prove it?

 

Opinions please

[spamheed]

Anyone?

[spamheed]

Thanks for that Dave, long time no see, Of course you're right but it's always nice to have the reassurance, sometimes the common sense goes out the window

 

I've already printed off the dispute letter and my other half will record it in the morning, I reckon with two DCAs left by the wayside and two years since the request, Even egg have only produced a blank set of T&C so I reckon that they have little to no chance of producing anything of any value.

 

I reckon by Monday I'll be a fully paid up member of the Fan Club lol

[spamheed]

Firstly they have no right to apply interest or any charges unlesx they are clearly stated in the agreement. (which they wont be)

 

I think the "Egg Letter" is a bigger issue, regardless of what Egg say or don't say, Cabot are misrepresenting themselves by stating that EGG have written a letter when they obviously haven't. betters still in your first Egg letter they haven't even got the wit to get the name of the bank right

 

I would make a complaint to Trading Standards and Companies House, you got nowt to lose and it could prove productive.

[spamheed]

Even with an agreement they have no authority to apply the interest or charges unless it is specifically stipulated within the terms and agreement, and to date there are no such agreements which allow for any as yet unidentified third party to apply such to an agreement.

AsRudy states, tho, this doesn't mean that they are going to stop

[spamheed]

When I sent my bemused letter to Freds a year or so ago, I heard nothing for a while, then Egg sent me a letter headed "You request for a copy of your agreement"

 

It was a blank copy of the terms and conditions, nothing at all on it, no dates, no names or addresses nothing. so now we are a year further on, I cannot see Cabot pulling a correctly executed agreement out of the hat

[spamheed]

Well it's only been three dyas since I got their first introductory letter and their already trying it on with another letter this morning I think our letters must have crossed in the post

 

"The Cabot Financial Group has recently biought the account you held with Egg and we've tried to contact you previously. It's now vital that you contact us urgently to discuss your account"

 

They then continue with:

 

"The most important thing for you to do now is get in touch with us urgently, to prevent further action being taken"

 

Rather presumptious of them to believe that a letter with a forged NOA takes precedent over the match? or even my breakfast, I think not

[spamheed]

I thought a NOA also had to come from Original Creditor.

 

It has to be created by the hand of the assignee, so IMO even if Cabot claim that they have Eggs authority to do this, rather than exonerate them, it just implicates Egg as a party to Fraud

[spamheed]

Absolutely yes, this is written in statute, so as a bove, if Cabot or whoever say "Oh Egg allows us to senf NOA's for them, it doesn't mean that they are free to continue with their actions, it means they are dropping Egg (or whoever) in the sh!te

 

This is about a contract between you and Egg, with Cabot coming along and telling you that they now have full rights, the other party to the contract must by law inform you and obtain your permission to assign the rterms and rights of the contract.

[spamheed]

In the case of a DCA representing the OC then there needs to be no change in contract as the DCA are simply fulfilling the wishes of the OC and acting on their behalf.

 

but if anyone wants to transfer their liabilities and benefits of being a contract member, and Cabot have claimed that this is the case, then permission must be sought from all other signatories of the original contract.

 

In these cases, since the NOA wasn't even presented by the OC, how can permission have been granted? even if the original terms and conditions stipulate that a signotary can transfer ownership in the way Cabot states. The law is clear that any NOA must be created by the hand of the assignee and cannot be done by proxied third party.

[spamheed]

So anyhow, as well as the usual account in dispute letter, I sent them another pointing out that their NOA was a poor attempt at fraud and I didn't believe they had bought the account and until they provided me with a copy of the agreement and correct NOA, then I wouldn't communicate with them any further.

 

Their laughable response came this morning.

 

"We can confirm that the account was opened on xx/xx/200x and defaulted on xx/xx/200x, we can confirm that we have bought the debt and we are the legal owners" this is not verbatim, but I'm sure you get the gist. No reference to the dispute or previous CCA request

 

I'm so glad that they have cleared that up, a combination of a forged/fake NOA and that reinforcing statement have put my mind completely at rest and I now realise how foolish I have been in doubting Cabot and should begin paying them immediately .

Edited October 26, 2009 by spamheed

[spamheed]

So after two years and Moorcroft Freds etc failures to produce any sort of paperwork at all, Cabot came up with the following.

 

Opinions please

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2009 by spamheed

[spamheed]

Bump

[spamheed]

That's what I thought, general misinterpretation of the CCA

 

even if the agreement in improperly executed we will claim before a judge that it is enforceable and it hasn't caused you any difficulties?

 

laughable

[spamheed]

Received an email from Companies house stating that they have acknowledged my complaint and are going to look into it, however they wont let Cabot know they are investigating them and won't tell me the outcome of the investigation.

 

And the point of this is what exactly????

[spamheed]

So after a couple of months of relative peace, I return after a week away with the family and find that Cabrot are at it again,

 

 

They have sent me the following letter and an alleged agreement

 

 

As an NOA they are still relying on a letter created by Cabrot but with Egg Banks letter head (I know some believe that they are allowed to do this, but they do not appear as affiliates of Egg Bank, and Egg are not affiliated with Cabot - so it's Forgery and misrepresentation by any other name until a Judge shows me the law which allows this)

 

They also sent the following alleged agreement, the blacked out section in the Terms and Conditions is as I received it, (I haven't blacked this out - they have)

 

They have previously sent me nothing more than copies of a fax message stating it to be a copy of the agreement, shown in post #23

 

Those letters had the Egg Logo as an outline only, these ones have the Egg Logo as solid, and blacked out - My opinion is how would I know which of these is genuine? I couldn't so I wont try, I'll happily let a judge decide

 

this looks like a third or fourth generation copy to me (the copy lines at the top and bottom of the pages are as they sent them)

 

 

Comments and reply suggestions please

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2010 by spamheed

[spamheed]

Yeah, I'll be sending something similar

[spamheed]

Well here we go again, after pointing out what a bunch of lying losers they are, this is their latest attempt at intimidation

 

I wonder how this will sit, a firm of "solicitors" representing a company who routinely produce forged documents.

 

well I suppose we'll soon find out, should I be sending Cabot a farewell letter do you think?

 

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2010 by spamheed

[spamheed]

I like the fact that they keep on contradicting themselves, one minute the agreement contains all of the prescribed terms and the next it's okay if they're on another document,

 

Morgans is just another name for the other telephone line in the office

 

I know it's unenforceable, firstly, it's a copy of a fax message, not a copy of the actual agreement, there is no right to cancel, they refer to terms in another document. I doubt very much that they have the actual agreement.

 

The so called NOA was produced by Cabot themselves, this is a proveable fact that they do not wish to enter into a discussion about.

 

So we have a DCA who have created a letter which is supposed to be from a bank (Fraud) in support of nothing more than a photocopy of something which may also in itself be a fraud because I have no recollection of ever taking out a loan with either Egg or Cabot. I think it's a copy and paste job

 

Basically they need to produce the original agreement with my original signature on it in court and the DOA/NOA.

 

I haven't gone near claiming the PPI as yet

[spamheed]

My thoughts exactly - At the moment I want them to prove that

 

a. I am the debtor - which they can only do by providing the original agreement

 

b. That they have a legal right to enforce the agreement - to date all they have produced is a forged letter written by themselves.

 

However,if they do continue along their route of enforcement and somehow obtain a judgement against me, ( I don't have a great deal of faith in a legal system which allows the abuses it does) then I shall of course be entitled (as the debtor) to reclaim all unlawful charges and PPI.

 

that should cheer them up :o)

[spamheed]

Subbing...all the NOA i've received (including from Cabot) have all been very obviously sent by the DCA and not the original company, because they are all on photocopied "letterheads" and included in the first contact letter from the DCA, I've never received one direct from the original company. I'm currently just starting (yet another) battle with Cabot, for a Sainsbury's account, the latter originally stated they provided an enforceable CCA, I've disagreed, Cabot are now going back to Sainsburys to see what they say (how nice of them). I'm actually dreading dealing with Cabot as know they tend to not take any notice of anything you say, the only thing keeping me sane is the fact that if Sainsburys thought they had an enforceable agreement they'd have taken me to court as the outstanding balance is around £8K and not flogged it off for a couple of quid to Cabot.

 

Good luck

 

I can understand (if not understand or agree with a lot of it) with a lot that has been said about agreements being enforceable.

 

I cannot understand.

 

Why do the DCA create fake letters when it would be easier (and lawful) to simply get the OC to create one and send it to the debtor - this to me stinks as I cannot believe that anyone would risk losing money by breaking the law (not just guidelines) unnecessarilly.

 

Why DCAs send dodgy copies of anything they can find, when they acually have the original agreement, it cannot be down to laziness, or commplete incompetence.

 

I fully expect Cabot to eventually take me to court and try to bullsh!t their way to a judgement

I fully expect to get shafted by the court, (obviously I hope it doesn't happen but this is my way)

 

so I intend to try making them prove that everything they do and have done is legal and allowable, not just the NOA, but the agreement, the DOA, the lot. They may well be bigger than most, but the basics remain the same, If they do get the judgement, that makes me the debtor and them the crediotr and as such, they are liable for the PPI and charges reclaim

 

hope everything goes okay

[spamheed]

Just looking again at the Terms and Conditions provided by Cabot.

 

I actually received a copy of the terms and conditions from Egg bank themselves back in 2008 and they bear no resemblance at all to those provided by Cabot.

 

Assuming that this does eventually go before a court, Cabot would have to state that the redacted T&C are correct whilst the T&C supplied by the alleged OC are incorrect.

 

All in all, it does seem to add to my growing opinion that this entire "debt" is made up of nothing more than copy and pasted documents produced by the one chimp who can use Paintshop

[spamheed]

Well here we go again, they've passed it on to the next desk on the left

 

Aren't Solicitors Letters really scary and have you noticed, it was actually signed by someone called Morgan

 

 

Edited July 3, 2010 by spamheed

[spamheed]

IMHO, that is a formal 'Letter before Action' and you should reply. Check out the Pre-Action Protocols for what you need to do.

 

Check out Annex A and especially Annex B of the Practice Direction as, I don't think that, they themselves have fully complied.

 

If you ignore it you may open yourself up to a costs order.

 

 

Oh I have every intention of replying and refuting their claim entirely, they are having a laugh

 

Interestingly, that letter would seem to confirm my suspicions about assignments to Cabot (and others) in that it is not absolute i.e. Egg remains the creditor and Cabot only 'buys the rights' and therefore Egg should be joined in any litigation. JMHO

 

How do you mean, I thought Cabot bought up debts which were effectively at the end of their shelf lives