Spamheed vs Cabot **discontinued**

[ScabHunter]

More Crapbot LIES.

 

Section 127(3) mentions NOTHING about prejudice. That is mentioned in Section127(1) and then (2), where the court has discretionary powers.

 

To quote Section 127 in full -

 

"127.—

 

(1) In the case of an application for an enforcement order under—

(a) section 65(1) (improperly executed agreements), or

(b) section 105(7)(a) or (b) (improperly executed security instruments), or

© section 111(2) (failure to serve copy of notice on surety), or

(d) section 124(1) or (2) (taking of negotiable instrument in contravention of section 123),

the court shall dismiss the application if, but (subject to subsections (3) and (4)) only if, it considers it just to do so having regard to—

(i)

prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question, and

the degree of culpability for it; and

(ii)

the powers conferred on the court by subsection (2) and sections 135

and 136.

 

(2) If it appears to the court just to do so, it may in an enforcement order reduce or discharge any sum payable by the debtor or hirer, or any surety, so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention in question.

 

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

(4) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) in the case of a cancellable agreement if—

(a) a provision of section 62 or 63 was not complied with, and the creditor or owner did not give a copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document

referred to in it, to the debtor or hirer before the commencement of the proceedings in which the order is sought. or

(b)section 64(1) was not complied with.

 

(5) Where an enforcement order is made in a case to which subsection (3) applies, the order may direct that the regulated agreement is to have effect as if it did not include a term omitted from the document signed by the debtor or hirer.

I challenge any Crapbot employee to find the word "prejudice", or any indirect reference to prejudice, in Section 127(3). They are LYING, and that fact needs to be pointed out to them (as if they don't already know), in a formal complaint. It also needs to be reported to the OFT, although that doesn't have to be done immediately.

 

Referring to another document which contains the terms will not suffice. Section 127(3) is explicit on this, when it states "itself containing all the prescribed terms."

 

The relevant case law is Wilson v Hurstanger. From the judgment of Lord Justice Tuckey -

 

"It is not necessary or rewarding to go on a grand tour of the legislation in order to explain the issues we have to decide. Put shortly section 60 (1) of the Act gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the form and content of documents embodying regulated agreements. Section 61 (1) provides that a regulated agreement is not properly executed unless it is in a document containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to the regulations made under section 60 (1). An improperly executed agreement is enforceable against the debtor only on an order of the court (section 65 (1)), but no such an order can be made unless it contains all the prescribed terms (section 127 (3)). "

 

"In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1."

SH

[hungrybear]

scabby you forced me to read their letter - just assumed same old bull to be honest. The paragraph referring to 127(3) is utter nonsense. Yes they have the statute wrong but also how can you possibly not suffer prejudice by improper execution.

 

This is why I just ignore their drival

 

 

 

Yes I agree about Hurstanger, but it was the interpretation of the word 'incorporates' that I wasn't sure about.

[hungrybear]

 

 

 

Yes I agree about Hurstanger, but it was the interpretation of the word 'incorporates' that I wasn't sure about.

 

 

Then again they quite clearly say 'supplied to you with your copy of this agreement.' Which means it's not part of their copy - which is the original

[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

[volvo]

subbing with interest.

 

Have received the same 'predujice' drivel from Cabot on another debt they have 'purchased'.

 

VOLVO

[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????

[debt4get]

they really take the biscuit dont they? they have added over 800 quid interest to my account, and i was stupidly paying them, when I questioned them the other day about why they felt they were justified in adding interest the line went deathly silent..they also sent a fake noa allegedly from barclaycard, no dates nothing.. account was actually bought from providian, and crapbot had this account before b/c even bought providian out...am awaiting with baited breath for them to take me to court.

[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

[debt4get]

usual crapbot rubbish send em this

Your reference xxxx

 

 

With reference to your letter dated xx/xx/xx

 

I believe that what you have replied with to my concerns regarding the alleged CCA, is nothing more than ‘smoke and mirrors’ and has been selectively designed in order to confuse and deceive.

A copy of your letter will be sent along with my complaint to the OFT alongside this letter detailing your points.

I draw your attention to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, S61(1) and your response, where you have stated

‘A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless

(a) A document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to the regulations (Consumer Credit (Agreement) Regulation 1983) under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor…

You conveniently forget to add the ending to this part of S61(1), which actually states

A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms

and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed

manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner,

and

(b)the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms,

and

© the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in

such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

In other words, for a regulated agreement to be properly executed, ALL THREE CONDITIONS must be met. Condition a), which must be met, could scarcely be more explicit - "a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms"

 

If you read the entire Section 61(1) as I have quoted it above, it is impossible to understand how anyone could consider that the prescribed terms can be in another document. The word "embody" clearly has no such meaning.

Perhaps you would be so kind to point out in the document that you supplied where the creditor has signed, and where the prescribed terms are within this document because as much as I peruse the said document I am unable to find these important omissions.

 

 

I await your response that this account is now closed and my balance reverted to zero

Yours faithfully

[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

[gh2008]

I would thank them for their response and confirming that the terms were set out in another document and not the one you signed.

 

Have they confirmed when you were given sight of this 'other document'?

 

I love the way they talk about Morgan Solicitors - especially as it is just a trading name of Cabot anyway.

 

One point though - why do you think it is uneforceable?

 

Have you reclaimed the PPI?

If it was mis-sold and Cabot now have confirmed they have bought the account you could reclaim the PPI payments from them.

[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

[unclebulgaria67]

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

 

I haven't gone near claiming the PPI as yet

 

 

If it was not your loan, then you might have a bit of difficulty claiming back the PPI !!!!!!!!!

 

Perhaps it would be best to leave the PPI aspect alone.

[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)

[Duffers Mum]

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

[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

[Duffers Mum]

I think its an absolute disgrace that these DCA's can act the way they do and the courts just seem to accept it, its about time they were hauled over the coals and made to get their house and procedures in order, but doubt that will ever happen. I fully expect Cabot to take me to court as well, just have to hope that an application form, T&C's downloaded from a web site, 2 dodge DN's and a fraudulent NOA will be enough!

[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

[cymruambyth]

'We are obliged to inform youthat should you noy comply with the Practice Direction, the Court has the power to impose sanctions, which may include costs sanctions.'

Call me old fashioned ........... but doesn't this apply to them as well!

[gh2008]

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.

[gh2008]

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

[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

[robcag]

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

 

 

 

Hi Spamheed

 

They certainly are scary - NOT - certainly not when we have the benefit of having found CAG .

 

I can't remember all the details of your thread re DNs (or lack of) etc., but note the bit where it tells you 'the outstanding balance is now payable immediately' just in case they later claim the account has not been terminated (which they probably will).

 

'We are obliged to inform youthat should you noy comply with the Practice Direction, the Court has the power to impose sanctions, which may include costs sanctions.'

Call me old fashioned ........... but doesn't this apply to them as well!

 

Exactly! But do they ever?

 

 

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

 

 

IME, in particular they (and other so-called solicitors) never seem to comply with Annex A, paragraph 2.2(1), Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct of the CPR, which requires them to set out in their Letter before Claim a list of;- “… the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely”.

 

But then, they seem to think and act as if they're above the law .

 

Cheers

Rob