Cabot makes an accusation in writing.

[harrassed senior]

I recently sent a formal complaint to this company as they were attempting to convince me that a 'reply card' is the same as a valid Credit Agreement. Now it clearly states that this 'application' is 'Subject to Credit Approval'.

 

The photocopied Terms and conditions are all from different sets as they are different sizes.

 

Now the Visa Conditions have a barcode and under that barcode is typed 'complaints-6' Not going into too much detail but surfice it to say it is obvious they are at least 2 sets cobbled together.

 

Now they have gone into great detail in their response about complying with my request, and 'explaining' that I dont understand etc. etc.

 

Now, towards the end it goes on to say:

 

I note your reference to section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("CCA"). From the documentation previously provided, there is no question as to the enforceability of your Credit Agreement. It clearly complies with the requirements of the CCA and The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, relevant at the time. Should you intend to challenge the enforceability of your credit agreement, you must apply to the Court to obtain a declaration of unenforceability. We would recommend you seek independent legal advice prior to the commencement of any such proceedings.

 

We would therefore like to highlight that the sole purpose of the CCA is for consumer protection, not to provide a method for the avoidance of debt, which we strongly believe you are attempting in this matter.

I also note your comments regarding the OFT debt collection guildelines, and can confirm that Cabot has, at all times adhered to them.

Ok, now :

 

With this letter we have enclosed:

 

'your complaint and the ombudsman's leaflet

putting the pieces together leaflet

Copy of your signed credit agreement and terms of your agreement.Which is confirmation that they do not have any enforceable credit agreement.

 

So, I am either going to send a letter thanking them for confirming that this copied reply card is all they have, but would welcome thoughts on the accusation above.

[Halibutt]

I would have thought that "We would therefore like to highlight that the sole purpose of the CCA is for consumer protection, not to provide a method for the avoidance of debt, which we strongly believe you are attempting in this matter." is at the very least defamatory.I'd be inclined to send your letter. I doubt a court would take a very good view of their actions, their failure to produce a valid CCA or their unproved accusations (very unprofessional). Saying that, if you really doubt their "CCA" is enforceable, there's not alot to worry about!

 

Good luck HS!

[ScarletPimpernel]

The CCA is to protect consumers - from unscrupulous DCAs who attempt to pass off unenforceable credit agreements as enforceable, for example?

[Huff&Puff]

The Fraud Act 2006 is for the sole purpose of preventing acts of fraud, such as trying to pass off fabricated documents, which I strongly belive they are attempting in this matter

[B3rty]

127(3) is a defence against enforcement brought by them against you through the courts so in a way they are right because you are not challenging the enforceability through the court, and as we know following Carey they can provide a reconstituted agreement for a s78 request so the only time this is relevant is if they litigate against you.

 

Up until that point they can chase, send the usual plethora of threats you can refuse payment but its still stalemate.

[NailPost]

Their accusation would only be considered defamatory if it is made to a third party. If it is repeated to a credit reference agency for instance.

 

They clearly do not have an enforcebale agreement so they are resorting to huffing and puffing. If they continue to chase you I'd be tempted to challenge them to take you to court.

 

Cabot are more likely to pass this matter off to one of their pet collectors like Mackenzie Hall or Ruthbridge who are known for chasing dead accounts.

[Delta-Charlie-76]

Oh joy.....I'll have them to look forward too then...lol, as they've admitted that they have no agreement for my account and cannot enforce.

[noddyaccount]

IMO , the paragraph about you Must go to court in order to declare unenforcibility is a bluff trap to make you the claimant as in other cases where the consumer has lost , with you as a defendant the onus is on them to proof enforcibility in a county court , which they are obviously not prepared to do , as they would risk costs , tricky trap though .