Cabot/morgan Claimform Morgan stanley card debt **struck out**

[pt2537]

okay, firstly,

 

section 61

 

61. Signing of agreement

.

— (1) 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.

 

 

 

The key thing to point out that for enforcement purposes, section 127(3) clearly and concisely sets out that the court cannot make an enforcement order unless s 61(1) (A) was complied with

 

(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).

 

 

so the fact that the document embodies a set of terms and conditions is irrelevent, i am surprised they have foolishly used goode to support their contention as it clealry makes reference to there being a difference between the words Embody and contain and therefore embodies will not suffice

 

i have this in writing from professor Sir Roy Goode QC himself and this view is further supported by lloyd and guest, Halsburys laws of England and Wilson & hurstanger

 

in fact the Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations were altered under regulation 2 so that the document MUST now have the prescribed terms before the signature so that they cannot be left out of the agreement

 

this shows that it was the will of parliament, other wise it wouldnt have changed it if it sufficed for a document to embody the prescribed terms as the amending SI would be redundant and any company which didnt want to comply with the CCA could just say oh well the prescribed terms were in a document somewhere but we cant be bothered to follwo the law

[Hadituptohere]

Ok thanks for that, and thanks for taking time to look at my thread, any suggestions as what to throw back at them.... its all getting a little deep for me

 

Hadituptohere

[blipvert]

subscribing

[pt2537]

the problem is that,what i would throw back at them would lead to litigation. this is not something that you are going to resolve without it and i must point out that this could end up in court.

 

what they have sent you it seems is an improperly executed agreement which is unenforceable, however they would need to be told this by the court

 

so it would end up in legal action no doubt, the question is not if i can suggest what to throw back but the question is do you have what it takes to be strong in court and fight this? do you have the ability to argue your case as it is likely that this bunch will go to court

 

i dont mean to put you off but it would be an error on my part to just say "sling this at them"

[Hadituptohere]

I have been known to like an arguement and yes Im strong enough to take on these idiots, ive tried to resolve this matter on a number of occasions, I even offered them 7000.00 back in 2006 in settlement for both so called accounts and they wouldnt accept, im just lacking in the legal side of things...

 

Hadituptohere

[Hadituptohere]

Is it correct that if the account is in dispute with the original lender regarding unfair charges, cabot can continue to persue collection on the outstanding balance? How do cabot know the correct outstanding balance? Also the default being proccesed is incorrect....

[Hadituptohere]

Hello all

 

after SARing monument and only just receiving the last 5 original providian statements for the default entered by cabot ive noticed a few discrepancies :

 

The final figure on the providian statements 4364.80, cabot default 4922.00

 

Account also contains unlawfull charges

 

The last statement recieved from providian 26/01/04, cabot have entered a default dated 04/06/03

 

NO default notice

 

No properley excecuted CCA

 

just wondering if I need to send prelim letter again requesting cabot cease proccesing then LBA then N1?????

Any advise in this situation would be appreciated

 

Hadituptohere

[Hadituptohere]

Bump

[Hadituptohere]

Hahaha

 

Cabot have had the cheek to send another 'you better get in touch' letter in todays post

 

Hadituptohere

[elizabeth1]

Hello all

 

after SARing monument and only just receiving the last 5 original providian statements for the default entered by cabot ive noticed a few discrepancies :

 

The final figure on the providian statements 4364.80, cabot default 4922.00

 

Account also contains unlawfull charges

 

The last statement recieved from providian 26/01/04, cabot have entered a default dated 04/06/03

 

NO default notice

 

No properley excecuted CCA

 

just wondering if I need to send prelim letter again requesting cabot cease proccesing then LBA then N1?????

Any advise in this situation would be appreciated

 

Hadituptohere

 

To be honest I'd sit it out and let THEM do all the work!! Don't go after them - wait for them to come after you and then DEFEND.

[Hadituptohere]

Thanks lizzy

 

the defaults drop off: one in April, one in June

 

Hadituptohere

[Hadituptohere]

Received today in the post....

 

Common cabot have you got the BALLS????????

 

 

Hadituptohere

[mr.ton]

Pre-litigation department..what a joke, just a desk on the other side of their office room.

Tell them to take you to a county court were the matter can be sorted out once & for all, properley & officially or to get lost

[ScabHunter]

That letter is a joke. Instead of threatening you with court action, they are threatening to push a piece of paper on to another desk in their stupid office. I bet you are absolutely terrified.

 

It has been quite a long time since I read through this thread, so I'll go through it again just to refresh my memory. I can remember that you made them an extremely generous and reasonable full and final settlement offer two years ago, which they were too stupid to accept. Unless they can pull an agreement out of a hat, it looks like they have just turned a certain profit into an equally certain loss.

 

Not the most intelligent way to run a business.

 

SH

[mr.ton]

I can remember that you made them an extremely generous and reasonable full and final settlement offer two years ago, which they were too stupid to accept.

 

Thats the thing SH..the greed of these DCA's knows no bounds - to such an extent that they talk themselves out of any payments that would be made to them & end up being paid nothing at all.

They display sheer financial lunacy of the highest order

[Hadituptohere]

Hi scab and mr ton

yes your right I did offer them 7000.00 for the two alledged accounts after following their advise and looking into remortageing the house two years ago. I so hope that cabot do try and bring litigation on because they would have a huge mountain to climb without a leg to stand on.

 

Hadituptohere

[andrew1]

Poor ole Emma Robertson must have lost her bal*s , Alex Duncan now? See him in the ladies!

[Hadituptohere]

Another threat O gram from cabot today.... My knees are really shaking now cabot .................

 

 

Just had barclay card on the phone who are apparently the owners to this debt and they have informed me they dont have all statements for the life of this alledged account or copies of CCA and Default/termination notices, if this is so where are cabot going to get them from?????????????

 

Hadituptohere

[Duffers Mum]

Ah Cabot, don't you just love them. Cabot sent me a set of statements for the past couple of years and advised me that they had complied with my CCA request, I rang them just because i wanted to laugh at them! they admitted Goldfish couldn't provide any copy agreement, next letter from Cabot said account had been recalled to Goldfish and I was to deal directly with them from now on, however Cabot are still processing my personal information. Have sent another letter telling them to cease immediately, which they will no doubt ignore.

 

I would be inclined to write to Cabot and tell them what Barclaycard have told you and see what happens then.

 

Good luck

[andrew1]

I'd just remind them if they continue to process your data you've got an eye on this..RICHARD DURKIN v. DGS RETAIL LIMITED+HFC BANK PLC, 26 March 2008, Sheriff J K Tierney , that'll hit their tea money! Oh, and give him the love and kisses from the Cabot Fan Club

[andrew1]

Check your PM's Hadit...

[ScabHunter]

That letter goes way beyond the usual meaningless Crapbot drivel. It is blatantly in violation of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance as it claiming that Crapbot have powers which they simply don't have.

 

Relevant parts -

 

2.2 (b) leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it

creates a false or misleading impression or exploits debtors'

lack of knowledge

 

This letter blatntly claims that Crapbot are considering "options" such as a Warrant of Execution, a Charging Order, an Attachment of Earnings Order, or an Order To Obtain Information. In fact, it states clearly that one of these options WILL occur. As none of these options can occur without a court order, Crapbot is clearly in violation of 2.2(b)

2.4 (b) falsely implying or stating that action can or will be taken when it legally cannot, for example, referring to bankruptcy or sequestration proceedings when the balance is too low to qualify for such proceedings or claiming a right of entry when no court order to this effect has been granted

 

Implying, as Crapbot do, that they have the option to apply a Warrant of Execution instructing bailiffs to remove items from your home without a court order is in clear violation of 2.4 (b)

 

2.4 (d) falsely implying or stating that action has been taken when it has not, for example, that civil action has been taken or that a court judgment has already been obtained

 

As all of the "options" Crapbot claim to be considering require a court order, Crapbot are effectively implying that they have obtained one, and are therefor in violation of 2.4 (d)

 

2.8 (i) failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued

 

Failing to respond to a CCA request, and then making threats they have no power to carry out involves "failing to provide details as appropriate", and is clearly in violation of 2.8 (i)

2.8 (k) not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt

 

Crapbot have not only failed to cease collection activity, they have escalated it. All of this on an alleged debt clearly in dispute as there is no agreement. Crapbot are clearly in violation of 2.8 (k).

 

I don't have time at the moment to go through this thread and see whether you have already made any complaints to the relevant authorities, as I am working on a couple of urgent court battles. If you haven't launched complaints, now is the time to do so.

 

Report Crapbot's letter to the OFT. Then, send an email to Crapbot asking for a copy of their complaints procedure, which they are obliged to supply. If they ignore you, complain anyway. Eventually, you may be able to pass it to the FOS and get Crapbot a £450 bill, although you will need more than unenforceablility to get them to look at your complaint.

 

Also go through Consumer Direct to Trading Standards, although they are a complete joke.

 

Crapbot send so many idiotic letters making up the law as they go along, that it is tempting to get involved in a war of words or even lose your temper with them. Just remember that they will go to court on the most ridiculous grounds, even on statute barred debts, and that anything you write may be shown to the judge. The best response is to write an ever so polite, but matter of fact, email pointing out exactly what is wrong with the letter they have sent, and then ever so politely remind them that the dispute still stands.

 

SH

[Hadituptohere]

Nice letter went out yesturday to the idiots at cabot pointing out the violation of OFT's collection guiadance (thanks to scab) and an enquiry into the assignment of the debt seeing as cabot failed to answer that question back in September last year...

thanks for the all the help guys..(and girls).

 

Hadituptohere

[Hadituptohere]

Looks like cabot/hodsons are willing to make themselves look like fools in front of a judge yet again..........

 

 

I could be calling on the Cabot Fan Club with this one after all.

 

Hadituptohere

[andrew1]

Shivver me timbers - the 'Hodsons fools' ooooo, got us shakin in our boots Deano? ( sorry, that's Dean Spencer aka Frank) at Hodsons!

 

You'll have fun with these, don't worry.... They usually get run out of court by the Judges..

 

Send them the regards of the Cabot Fan Club too, they'll treat you with some respect then...won't you Deano?