Cabot/Vanquis Credit Card....I am confused.com

[huggy41]

I think I need some advice here.

CCA'd Cabot on 9th August, it was delivered on the 10th. since then I have received many letters which you will find below.

 

Not sure where to go from here.

 

Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Huggy

[Guest]

huggy

 

what did they send you re your cca request? a 'reconstruction' or an actual copy of the alleged agreement? if the latter, is it valid?

[huggy41]

hi Ford all i got was 6 pages yes thats right 6 pages of t & c but no agreement zilch / zip /nothing me thinks they don't have an agreement

[huggys boss]

subbing

[Guest]

hi huggy

 

(and huggys boss:-))

 

imo. if pre 2007, if they don't have a signed agreement, then it is not enforceable in court! they can't claim that they can obtain a ccj! you've sent the dispute letter? you could do a sar to o/c specifically including a request for an exact copy of the alleged agreement. there is a template on cag. is there any missold ppi and/or unlawful charges?

in any event, a compliant default notice would also be required following any default?

and/or, as they have possibly threatened legal action/ccj you could do a cpr 31.16 request for the relevant docs?

[huggy41]

what is the difference between pre 2007 and now as regards cca request ?????

[Guest]

what is the difference between pre 2007 and now as regards cca request ?????

 

AFAIK. the difference is re enforcement. if the agreement (not the actual request) is post, then the ct may be able to enforce without an actual signed agreement. if prior, then no signed agreement = no enforcement.

 

imo. they are now only required to send a 'reconstruction' of the alleged agreement in re of a cca request. but, if the alleged agreement is pre 2007 and there is no signed agreement available then the ct cannot enforce it.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Ford
typo

[seriously fed up]

All the difference in the world sport. Pre April 2007 then you are protected by s127(3) which prevents a court issuing an enforcement notice in the event there isnt a properly signed agreement with the prescribed terms on it. Note that it doesnt mean there is no agreement or that it will go away - ONLY that enforcement through court is a dead end for them.

Post 2007 (like the one I have got) doesnt attract that protection as 127 (3) was repealed by the 2006 Act. So while they might not have a properly signed agreement, its open to the court to issue an enforcement notice unless you an show you have been prejudiced by this failure- which is pretty difficult.

I have been through the same loop as you and made clear to them that what Vanquis have sent is a load of pants, and in particular they havent produced evidence of a default notice so their termination of the account (by demanding the full amount) offends s87 and 88 and arguably amounts to unlawful recission of the contract. I could therefore sue them - at least in theory - for any damage this might have caused me.

Last month I suggested to them coming back with a F&F settlement figure and they came back with 50% which rather suggests to me that they know they are on shaky ground (even for a post 2007 account). Currently considering position, but my thoughts are that they probably bought this for 10% of its value - 20% tops - and I am kind of unwilling to allow them to make a profit from this - or much of a profit. So if anyone has thoughts on my position I would be pleased to hear from you.

But huggy, were I you, I would hit them with a request for the DN that someone must have sent you before they looked for the full amount - otherwise they are in serious soapy bubble.

That is if you have a post 2007 agreement - if you signed up before April 2007 tell them to get lost, as 127 (3) applies. Often arguments about this centre on whether the prescribed terms are in place, but a bit of paper with T&Cs with your name at the top is just a joke!

[huggy41]

thanks for that seriously fed up all i got was the t&c's no names on them no nothing.

excuse me a miniute must make a plug

 

 

I'M MAKING VIDEO FOR PEOPLE ON HOW TO USE PHOTOBUCKET

• View Profile
  
• View Forum Posts
  
• Private Message
  
• View Blog Entries
  
• View Articles
  
• Add as Contact
  

[huggy41]

right here we go just an update got a 2 page letter from crab-rot see below. which has left me feeling rather dizzy (not in the stupid sense). on page 1 they state (case law shows that a "true copy " does not mean an exact copy) do i not have the right to see the alledge agreement with my supposed signiture on it.

page 1

 

then on page 2 see below. they say ( DPA are entirely relevant to your case, as you signed a credit agreement (then show me it) which has been assigned by Vanquis to Crab-rot financial.

this is weired because. i have a letter from Crab-rot stating on the 28th july that they have bought the account you held with Vanquis. i also have a letter from Vanquis stating the account was sold to Crab-rot on the 2nd Apri. and i still have not seen a copy of any paper work with my signiture on it.

 

PAGE 2

 

[seriously fed up]

TBH, they are taking maximum advantage of every loophole that the law allows them to take advantage of, substantially as a consequence of Waksman's judgement at the end of last year, which allowed lenders to meet their obligations under s77/8 with a "true copy". This idea of a "true copy" goes back before photocopiers - a clerk would sit and copy out the original agreement. Why lenders are now allowed the leeway that they are when a responsible and well organized lender ought to be able to come up with the agreement, shove it in a photocopier and send it out, is just beyond me (well its not but you know what I mean). But with things as they are lenders will send out copies of T&Cs with name and address typed at the top and say "that's your lot - s77/8 fully satisfied". However, that is a million miles away from producing anything that would (or should) stand up in court for enforcement. As we all know that is s61 and s127 (3) - except the latter was repealed in 2006 so does not apply to any agreement signed since april 2007.

This is where your case gets close to mine. Frankly Vanquis, in administrative terms are a joke. I got the same T&Cs as you did, but also a screen dump with some personal particulars that you could have got from the phone book (for instance). Right now I am negotiating an F&F with them. They have offered 50%. I have replied that for an account for which they dont have an agreement and cant show a default notice was issued (they sent me one with someone else's name and address on it) that seems like rather a lot. So I have offered 20%. I expect we will settle somewhere in the middle (35%?) in due course.

But, I hear you ask, if they dont have an agreement and cant show a default notice, why give them anything? Well mainly because the account was post 04/07 and doesnt attract the protection of s127 (3) - though if there was an example of Bennion's famous quote that if the lender couldnt get the basics right they deserved to lose, this is it. Its just not - imo - worth going to court and risking losing. If they werent prepared to deal then I might feel differently, but given that 127 (3) doesnt apply and also the balance on the account is quite small, I would rather test this out first.

BUT, in general terms, Vanquis are a shambles - TOTAL shambles (I made a SAR last November and got nothing back). Cabot will twist the law as they see fit and will continue with collection activity as long as its even just remotely possible. You would need a big wall to stop them.

[huggys boss]

I understand the change and the pre/post 2007 bit (I think), but, do they not have to produce something with a signature on it? I ask this because there are some unscrupulous people out there who would take advantage of the situation that I dare say a lot of us are in.

For example, we rent our home, and this is the house that our landlady lived in prior to the move to her present address, we have her bank account details because we pay our rent into it. We know her employment details as she runs her own business locally, and we know her date of birth, so, we could, if we were that way inclined, get a credit card or catalogue or whatever in her name, make payments for a few years and then move house and stop paying. If the DCA who would eventually get the account, didn't have to prove by way of signature that the account was hers, she would be liable for the account????

 

All we are trying to get out of Cabot is proof of account by way of a signature, and if the change in the law means they don't need a signature, it is leaving the system wide open to abuse.

[Guest]

imo

maybe do a sar and see what comes up, if anything?

 

unfortunately, they are now allowed to send a 'reconstruction' re a cca request. (that's why a sar may now be more fruitful, if they comply! or even a cpr request when (if) they threaten legal action?) but, in any event, a recon should be a recon of the original agreement! if they don't have sight of the original, then how can it be a recon?

[lord_tiger_putin]

I think I need some advice here.

CCA'd Cabot on 9th August, it was delivered on the 10th. since then I have received many letters which you will find below.

 

Not sure where to go from here.

 

They bought it and didn't send you the NoA via recorded delivery. Therefore the sale was illegal and Cabot do not owe the debt and will not be able to enforce it in a court.

[lord_tiger_putin]

imo

maybe do a sar and see what comes up, if anything?

 

unfortunately, they are now allowed to send a 'reconstruction' re a cca request. (that's why a sar may now be more fruitful, if they comply! or even a cpr request when (if) they threaten legal action?) but, in any event, a recon should be a recon of the original agreement! if they don't have sight of the original, then how can it be a recon?

 

With mine and my wife's, and plenty of other Vanquis posts I have seen, they doesn't seem to keep the original signed agreement.

[Guest]

With mine and my wife's, and plenty of other Vanquis posts I have seen, they doesn't seem to keep the original signed agreement.

 

eg. in such circumstances, how can they, technically, say that what they have sent is a recon when they don't have the original to refer to! they still have to send the terms as they were at the time of the alleged agreement!?

Edited September 26, 2010 by Ford
typo

[huggy41]

can somone answer this very simple QUESTION if this goes to court will they have to produce an agreement with my SIGNITURE ON IT !!!!!

[Guest]

can somone answer this very simple QUESTION if this goes to court will they have to produce an agreement with my SIGNITURE ON IT !!!!!

 

imo

as posts above, if pre 07 then yes. see s127 (3) Consumer Credit Act (prior to amendment.)

Edited September 26, 2010 by Ford
typo

[izzitme101]

hmm im more interested in the fact that they seem to believe recording your calls would be illegal under RIPA.

Any comments anyone? im sure they would be wrong.

[Guest]

hmm im more interested in the fact that they seem to believe recording your calls would be illegal under RIPA.

Any comments anyone? im sure they would be wrong.

 

they are on about 'disclosure' of recorded calls, not recording itself. also, they don't say that it is an offence to disclose, but rather that they would consider it to be an offence to disclose. totally different!

Edited September 25, 2010 by Ford
typo

[seriously fed up]

The main part of s127 that is left post 2006 is

"the court shall dismiss the application if, but 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

"(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."

So, for instance, a lender might argue to court that "well no, we dont have the original agreement, but we do have the statements and can demonstrate that lending took place. Therefore can we get an order to get our money back". It really does leave it open to the court to decide what to do, and with the prejudice shown to lenders in cases where orders really shouldnt be given (eg because paragraph 3 still applies) I wouldnt be confident personally. In other words, I wouldnt want to bet that a signature is actually necessary if they have alternative evidence of lending. That is just my opinion of how it is with post 2007 accounts - most certainly not how I think how it SHOULD be - but others may take another view and I will be watching with interest to see if there is. But that is mine.

Not sure about the procedure they used with purchasing the debt and notifying you of this. Personally I think a letter saying "oh we have bought your debt from xxxxxxxxxx, so please pay us from now on" is just ridiculous. But, again, how much difference would this make in court?

[Huff&Puff]

hmm im more interested in the fact that they seem to believe recording your calls would be illegal under RIPA.

Any comments anyone? im sure they would be wrong.

 

It is perfectly legal to record phone calls made to you, so long as you don't broadcast them to a 3rd party. That's my understanding anyway. Crackpots are notorious for misquoting any bit of law that they see fit, as you can see from the letters above.

[huggy41]

Hi Huff & puff i tell all DCA'S that we record all are telephone calls to our number when we send out our cca request using there same tactics. ie small print at the very bottom of the page after all who the hell reads the small print.

[huggy41]

been playing letter tennis with cabot . this morning they sent me a budget sheet to fill in for them so i filled it with this.

[huggy41]

and at the bottom of this 1 then even make a threat.