Me + Mine Vs Cabot + Crap One - "Credit Agreement" supplied - unenforcable.

[UnitedFront]

Hello to all of you beautiful Caggers!!

 

I have not had much chance to be as active as I used to be on the forum lately, owing to the fact that I am now half way through my first year of a law degree.

 

However, I have still been lurking in the background and, when needed, still persevering and helping members of my family with various debt-related issues. One of these such issues is for my father and is regarding crap one via cabot.

 

I have been in dispute with this lot for some time on this matter and they have been in default of my cca request for around a year. Today, however, they have provided me with what they claim is a copy of an executed credit agreement; which I will post below. They also provided many many pages of alleged T&C's; none of which are mentioned on the alleged agreement and on the alleged agreement there is no mention at all of T&C's overleaf etc etc.

 

As you will see, this document is in large parts entirely illegible and so I have duly informed them that this in itself places this in breach of the CCA 1974. Also, you will see that there is no mention of credit limits or how they will be determined, nor any mention of repayments or how they will be determined. There is also no definitive mention of any rate of interest; only a mere note that you are applying for any one of 3 interest rates.

 

I have typed up and dispatched a letter of dispute bringing all of these issues to crap-bots attention and I shall endeavour to keep this thread updated with any developments.

 

I think I am ok at this point in time with this issue and I am confident that I am correct in my stance regarding this; however, as always any feedback/advice/support/opinions etc etc would be very gratefully received whether it be confirming my belief on this issue or, indeed, questioning my belief.

 

Here is the "agreement":

 

[hungrybear]

oh i like that. SHORT application form! load of tosh - would you like the details why or are you happy with your assesment?

[UnitedFront]

Hi hungrybear, thanks for the reply. I think I know where I'm going with this at the moment, but any details you have I would still be very grateful for..... I always think you can never have enough knowledge / ammunition when dealing with these "people"!!! So yes please....

 

Cheers

UF

[UnitedFront]

Ok......... just as expected, CrapBot have totally ignored my last letter to them; telling them exactly what they can do with their "executed credit agreement". I'm not too fussed about their ignoring this, if I'm honest, as having dealt with them many times before, I was expecting this action.

 

I've put a copy of their latest drivel below. I can't be bothered to play letter tennis with them any more, so I phoned them.... and had such fun in the process Tied at least three of them in knots!!

 

I was asked in the end what I wanted; I told them I wanted them to either take the matter to court or confirm in writing that all collection activity has been ceased permanently. Also I demanded that all contact continue to be made in writing only (given the threat of "telephone procedure" in their latest letter). I duly educated them in the law relating to this area.

 

The outcome of this very amusing telephone conversation is thus; They will continue to only contact my relative by writing. The account is being looked at by "someone in our legal dept"

And that a member of their legal team will contact my relative, in writing, imminently.

 

Good times all round, really.

 

 

Here is their latest threatogram:

 

[UnitedFront]

OK, we've had another letter from CrapPot on this matter. Some of it is quite amusing; such as the part where they say that the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations do not apply to this matter..... and then actually quote the section of the Consumer Credit Act that clearly states that they DO apply to this matter!!!!

 

I've posted the letter (2 pages) below for you all to look at. I've already told them in no uncertain terms to start proceedings.... but as always they appear reluctant, instead hoping that we will cave when they start with their bulls**t

 

The bit that is, at the moment, worrying me slightly is that they have made referrence to S189(4) of the CCA; that says that "A document embodies a provision if the provision is set out either in the document itself or in another document referred to in it."

 

Can anyone offer any advice on the above issue? Or indeed, any advice on this overall?

 

Many thanks everyone.

Cheers.

UF

 

[UnitedFront]

BUMP

 

Any thoughts anyone?

 

Cheers.

UF

[debt4get]

crapbots usual smoke and mirrors letter, it is there take on the consumer credit act and it is absolute nonsense .. lets take the part'signed by both the debtor...and they forget to mention THE CREDITOR' you can then see what i mean by smoke and mirrors, write back say its unenforceable i will dig out the letter i sent after receiving same rubbish

[debt4get]

With reference to your letter dated xx/xx/xxx

 

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

[debt4get]

hope this helps

[Huff&Puff]

It's a standard reply of theirs, I've seen it before. It is, as the others have said, pure BS. They like to selectively quote bits of the law that they think may help their cause, while totally ignoring all the bits that negate what they quotye That letter is completely against the OFT guidelines, and is bordering on fraud by misrepresentation IMO. Report them.

[UnitedFront]

Thanks for the replies everyone..... that is exactly what I thought tbh.... it's just always helpful to have other peoples thoughts on these issues as well

 

I'll edit the letter posted above and see what they come back with.... tbh I think I might put a paragraph at the end stating that this will be our final response and that they are free to take us to court if they so wish.... but that we will vigorously defend!!!

 

As I said in an earlier post, I really can't be bothered to get into a game of letter tennis with them, which I know they seem to really like. So I shall just tell them, in no uncertain terms, to bring it on (so to speak)

 

Cheers again everyone.

UF

[spartathisis]

recieved that letter before xmas Told them its a load of bull and just received another quoting the "embody" bit again . They say that not only am I trying to delay my inevitable payments on the account:eek:, but that I have been totally mis-informed.

 

Oh dear, We must all in be in deep sh.. as I quoted case law for all their assertions and backed them up with OFT guidelines, Sols Reg Auth guidelines and anything else I could find. It really does look like Kens lads n lasses really do think they are above the laws of the land.

 

I did ask the question, "How do you know that the Application Form was legible at the time of alleged signing, as I cant remember and I may have filled it in!", of course all questions are ignored.

[UnitedFront]

Just an update, my father today received yet another threatogram; this time saying that the account had been escalated to the pre-litigation division...

 

Obviously standard advice is not to phone them but to me it's a type of sport and, in all honesty, a sport that I very much enjoy!! And so I did and I had such fun; firstly they refused my father's permission to speak to me unless he gave them my personal details - a clear breach of OFT guidelines under the ruse that they need the information to satisfy their obligations under the Data Protection Act which is absolute nonsense. Rest assures complaints are being prepared as we speak, so to speak.

 

Anyway, having given them a hard time and telling them any old rubbish so they would speak to me, I had much fun pointing out that the agreement is unenforceable. They tried all the usual tricks of "you admit your father borrowed money" etc but I simply refused to get drawn into this.

 

Funniest thing was when I had to explain to the manager that I ended up speaking to exactly what prescribed terms were!! Priceless!!

 

Basically all I wanted to know was why they continue to misrepresent the law and send threatograms when they've been told in clear and certain terms that my father will not be paying them so much as a penny without a courts order to do so. I've effectively begged them to just issue the court papers - or respectfully FOXTROT OSCAR!!!

 

The conversation ended with this muppet of a manager saying that he would speak with the company solicitor and see where to go; I've had exactly the same statement from them previously and still the threatograms come!!

 

It makes me laugh; surely even the most unintelligent phone jockey they have (although I'm sure all of their staff are highly educated and intelligent people) there knows that these agreements are unenforceable; this is the only reason I can think of why they won't just "put up or shut up"; by this I mean go to court or go away!!

 

Whilst I thoroughly enjoy my occasional banter with these people and I really thoroughly enjoy running them in circles when it comes to the law, I have to say I'm getting quite bored of this.

 

I wonder does anyone have any advice on how we can get these people to go away once and for all - or at the very least to let us have our day in court!! Best thing is that father is on a very low income (he is really rather ill and subsequently can't work) and so they'd end up with virtually nothing each month even if they did take it to court.

 

We've tried just ignoring their threatograms but still they come, I've tried writing and telling them the law etc but, as per the above posts, they come back with their own "unique" interpretation of the consumer credit laws.

 

There's no way that we'll be issuing proceedings as this would reverse the burden of proof and, quite frankly, I think that they are the ones making demands and so they should do their own work!!

 

Any advice on how I might go about getting rid of these rather unpleasant (in my opinion) people would be appreciated.

 

Hope everyone is well.

Cheers

UF

 

I am a first year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. If you are in doubt, always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

 

 

 

[angry cat]

To be honest, I cannnot see any point in phoning them.

And I wouldn't even waste a stamp writing.

 

Cabot are chancers!

[UnitedFront]

Haha yeah I totally agree there's no useful point in phoning them... I literally just do it because I enjoy it when they end up getting confused and angry simply because they don't understand even the most basic of things.

 

And again I agree... we gave up writing to them long ago when we'd exhausted all other options and they just continued with the same misguided statements.

 

Definitely agree that they're chancers though!!

 

Cheers

UF

[wilko1]

In MHO you are more likely to eventually get rid of them by ignoring them rather than baiting them.

[UnitedFront]

I suspect you right.... oh well I suppose I've lost another foe in my ongoing sport... never mind I'm sure there will be others I can come up against in the future

 

Thanks for the replies everyone

 

Cheers

UF

[robcag]

Hi UF

 

However illegible the alleged agreement, there is still a good chance you will get your wish that Cabot will take you to court!

 

I'm battling them on 2 accounts.

 

The first involves an illegible CrapOne agreement, and I've received similar smoke and mirrors letters. I've pointed out the error of their ways to them much as you have, but still they issued a claim.

 

The second is even more unbelievable. They've admitted not being able to supply an agreement (as yet) in two separate letters, but they've still gone ahead and issued a claim!

 

So, as I said above, you may get your day in court. Or maybe they'll back down before the actual trial. Who knows with CrapPot?

 

Cheers

Rob

[UnitedFront]

Thing is it's not just the illegibility of what they've provided... the agreement supplied is clearly void of many prescribed terms and so is unenforceable anyway... this is why we've told them we're not giving them anything!!

 

Cheers

UF

 

I am a first year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. If you are in doubt, always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

 

 

 

 

[robcag]

 

... the agreement supplied is clearly void of many prescribed terms and so is unenforceable anyway... this is why we've told them we're not giving them anything!!

 

 

Which is much the same as my partners CrapOne , and especially my ex-Goldfish one which they have so far failed to produce

 

Cheers

Rob

[UnitedFront]

Nothing suprises me with this lot anymore... I've dealt with them a number of times over the last few years for various friends and relatives and for myself once or twice and they really do seem to be a law unto themselves!!

 

Ah well, we're going to revert to ignoring this bunch of chancers until they actually do something worth doing!! They've got no chance of getting judgment by default at previous address as we've got ample evidence of them communicating effectively via current address; so whatever they do or don't do, we'll know about it and be able to take any necessary steps

 

It just really infuriates me how these people behave.... but we'll just sit back and wait for them... we've given them enough rope with which to hang themselves I feel, so lets just hope they use it

 

Cheers

UF