Cabot - Halifax Credit Card - Cabot now started Court Action - Help Please ***SETTLED***

[DonkeyB]

It looks as though they have provided a reconstituted CCA in line with that allowed by Carey v HSBC. This does not require signatures or dates, but must include the correct address when originally provided, together with your name. They must also provide a current version of those T&Cs if different, again with the correct name and address. If they say it is a true copy, then the wording (as well as your name and address) must be absolutely accurate and identical in wording (not layout) to the original. Failure to be identical is fatal.

 

(They can get the name/address information from any source – it does not have to be gleaned from the original CCA. However, it MUST be accurate. This begs the question, ‘why not just provide the original CCA?’ I think there are two answers: (a) they don’t have it, or (b) it’s cheaper to send a recon rather than dig out the original, as it satisfies a s78 request.)

 

However, while this complies with a s78 request, it does NOT mean the debt is enforceable in court. The McGuffick ruling also means they can continue chasing, even if they do not have the original agreement.

 

To enforce this debt in court, they should be forced to produce the ORIGINAL agreement (or a genuine facsimile copy), not a reconstruction. However (and sadly) some judges have fallen for the reconstructed version, as they have not fully understood the Carey ruling, so beware.

 

In that respect, you are being fobbed off (they may even be, er, fibbing) when they claim this document makes the debt enforceable. It most certainly does not.

[DonkeyB]

Thanks so much, should I resopond at all and if so how, I have no idea what to say. Really appreciate your help. Do you think they likely to take it to court?

Perhaps a letter pointing out that a s78 reconstruction is allowed for satisfying a s78 request as per Carey v HSBC, but that a reconstructed agreement CANNOT be used to enforce a debt, as the ORIGINAL would be required (Carey again).

How can I find out if the wording is indentical to the original CCA? Really appreciate your help

 

You can’t, unless you get a copy of the original.

 

Have a browse through this thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?173201-why-you-shouldnt-use-section-77-78-CCA-1974-if-you-want-the-signed-agreement

[DonkeyB]

Mate, it takes a long time and an awful lot of reading to get up to speed on this. So keep reading and learning – you almost have to treat it like swotting for an exam. We’ve all been there, and there’s no easy route.

 

Maybe you should look upon dealing with this situation successfully as the first step back up the ladder.

[DonkeyB]

Pile of crap. The have not supplied the CCA so the account remains in default. They have no option but to put the account on hold until they comply.

[DonkeyB]

That letter would make them look stupid in court. By refusing to respond, you can immediately complain to the Financial Ombudsman. Certainly complain to the OFT.

 

That letter was written by an idiot.

[DonkeyB]

...and they are still in default of your legitimate CCA request.

 

Send the reminder letter again! It will all look very good for you if they do try legal action. Of course, you still have the letter written by the Cabot village idiot which states they don’t actually have any agreement on which to base their case – not even a recon.

[DonkeyB]

Do you have a mobile phone with a camera?

[DonkeyB]

Ref your post #186, I have seen comments from some of the experienced posters, saying that a DN should be sent prior to being sold on to a DCA. If that is correct, then there must be an issue with the sale of lambs account to Cabot.

 

Alan

 

As long as the ability to sell the account is provided for in the T&Cs, a ‘chose’ can be sold at any time. However, the buyer would then have to issue a default notice and terminate correctly before enforcement. Equally, the buyer would require a consumer credit licence and would have to provide the same T&Cs and facilities that were present a the time of sale.

[DonkeyB]

I thought the extension was for a maximum of about 56 days? Does that date fit with the original claim date?

[DonkeyB]

This is wrong. Their letter is wrong. The extension is not to allow you to file a defence. It is to allow them to respond to CPR. When you write to the court with a copy of this, ensure you make this clear in your letter, and include their correspondence to date. Their letter implies the delay is your fault. It is not.

 

The letter should have said they have XX amount of time to respond, then give you, say, 14 days to file a defence.

 

Need some good legal help here – out of my depth, but I smell a rat.

[DonkeyB]

I wish you could record these calls. Stating that you do not warrant additional concern due to your mental health issues is plain wrong and, IMO, would give them some serious problems under CPUTR.

Edited July 1, 2011 by DonkeyB

[DonkeyB]

Suggest you always do it in writing as well, lamb.

 

Spend the day trying to find cheap ways of recording your calls!

[DonkeyB]

Morgans is indeed a relatively small in-house unit. You are not necessarily dealing with proper solicitors here, maybe just numpty paralegals.

[DonkeyB]

This is exactly why recording your calls would be useful. Releasing these to the OFT with a complaint would make them run a mile...

 

PM me if you want some help to record. I can’t stand seeing them get away with this.

[DonkeyB]

Olympus do an acoustic mic – the TP7. One end goes in your ear and you use the phone on that ear. It picks up the caller as well as your voice very clearly. Under a tenner, I think. It’s my standard journalistic tool, and with a mini voice recorder for about £30-£50, you can use it on the move. Worth every penny when you’re fighting these idiots, and cheaper than Trucall.

[DonkeyB]

It will take 27 years to pay... but by then, £10 will be worth diddly squat. Which is a good result for you, IMO.