Morgans/Cabot claim form - on citi Card debt with a recon *** Claim Dismissed by Consent***

[molly13]

well they were in 43:???: says file is damaged.. I'll upload again

[molly13]

should hpefully show now

cabot003.pdf

cabot001.pdf

[molly13]

so you will notice the first letter dated 2006... the 2nd 2011... saying 'we recently '.

 

well I'm sorry, but how recent is 5 years doen the line???

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I think that would satisfy a NOA.

[molly13]

As I have said in earlier post.. I have never received ANY notification from the OC that the account had been sold.. not even one supplied by Cabot.

Ah, well.. onwards and upwards... just try to get something together:-)

 

Thanks anyway

 

Molly:-)

[molly13]

BTW.. I was also under the impression that for an assignment to be absolute it would have to have been assigned with all rights and duties for a creditor to enforce through court:???:

Can anyone explain please?

Thanks

[the_shadow]

As I have said in earlier post.. I have never received ANY notification from the OC that the account had been sold.. not even one supplied by Cabot.

Ah, well.. onwards and upwards... just try to get something together:-)

 

Thanks anyway

 

Molly:-)

 

Doesnt have to come from the original lender, it can come from whoever owns the account now. bizarre I know but look up Law of Property act 1925 s136

 

S.

[the_shadow]

BTW.. I was also under the impression that for an assignment to be absolute it would have to have been assigned with all rights and duties for a creditor to enforce through court:???:

Can anyone explain please?

Thanks

 

I would assume the same.. absolute is absolute not piecemeal, if they have absolute assignment then they have the duties as well as the benefits imvho.

 

S.

[molly13]

Hi shadow,

 

Thanks i'll look up the law of property act..

 

In my CPR 18 I asked if the assignment was Absolute.. The response was " that the claimant was assigned all rights,title and interest under the contract with the Defendant pursuant to s. 136 LoP 1925

 

No mention of duties which is why I want to see the DOA/Sales Agreement..

 

Molly:-)

[the_shadow]

Hi shadow,

 

Thanks i'll look up the law of property act..

 

In my CPR 18 I asked if the assignment was Absolute.. The response was " that the claimant was assigned all rights,title and interest under the contract with the Defendant pursuant to s. 136 LoP 1925

 

No mention of duties which is why I want to see the DOA/Sales Agreement..

 

Molly:-)

 

Hmm welcome to the murky world of DCA's.

 

Just because they dont agree that they have to perform some/all of the duties of the original lender doesnt necessarily mean the sale wasnt absolute. To take you to court they must own the debt outright so they have standing in front of the court, if not then the original lenders must be a co-plaintiff.

S.

[molly13]

Thanks shadow, I'm even more confused now.

 

In a letter Cabot stated that as they were not the OC they did not hold the original agreement, and took several months to produce a reconstituted one. When I asked how it was reconstituted their reply was that they don't know I'd have to ask the OC. In the meantime the OC creditor tells me they don't have the original, so how am I able to prove that the reconstituded agreement is a 'true' copy??:???:At the moment I just feel like giving up on this and let them have what they want:sad:

Thank you anyway:-)

[the_shadow]

Ok, I can see you are confused....a reconstructed copy is a copy of an application basically constructed from information they hold about you, a true copy is a directly copied version of an agreement possibly minus the signature.

 

The DCA will never have a copy of your agreement even after purchasing the debt, they will have recieved a spreadsheet with your contact details contained alongside the amount outstanding and some other bits and bobs of info no doubt. When you s78 a DCA they go to the original creditor for a copy of the agreement.

 

Now reconstructions are allowed to s77/s78 requests it would seem the original creditor has given them this to supply to you. This would satisfy the s77/s78 request but should be contested if they attempt to say it can be used in an enforcement case. Carey vs HSBC was quite adamant it should be used informationally only but you would need to put forward some positive reason why the reconstruction is wrong.. eg. incorrect apr etc etc.

 

S.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The rights assigned in a debt sale are all

the rights and responsibilites set out

in the terms and conditions of the original

contract, giving the debt purchase the same

powers as the original creditor.

 

Brig

[consumeredge]

Hi Molly

 

My understandings from your posts are that the account was sold to Cabot from Citi during November 2006, a Default Notice had been served by the OC although you did not receive a NOA from them.

 

You received a welcome letter from Cabot and sent your I & E; token payments were agreed, any interest frozen, During April 2010 Cabot started to demand more money.

 

Although Cabot wanted a new I & E you ignored this and carried on paying the token amounts.

 

Cabot then started threats and you sent the CCA, which Cabot failed to supply and the account was put in dispute.

 

The last payment you made was June 2010.

 

IMO the question that must first be put is when you agreed initially to make token payments was this confirmed in writing from Cabot? If so was there a paragraph that stated this concessionairy agreement was subject to an annual or periodic review?

 

Cabot Europe and Cabot UK are "companies" which are part of the Cabot Credit Management Group of Companies ("The Group") the principle activity of "The Group" is the purchase and recovery of debt.

"Cabot UK" is the "company name" used by "The Group" to acquire debts, save for statutory officers, "Cabot UK" does not have any employees.

 

Servicing and collection of debts is conducted by "Cabot Europe"

 

Without being able to access to see if the 2 NOA’s you have received are from 2 different and separate companies it would be reasonable to assume Cabot merely "transferred" this account inhouse to another Group name so as to pursue legal action against you.

 

As you state the last payment you made to Cabot was June 2010.

 

With 3 and a half years of payments yet no Statements of Account from Cabot, Cabot Credit Management Group breached terms whereby creditors or DCA’s were required to first issue from October 2008 an annual statement of account, again, it would be reasonable if no such statements have been received to assume Cabot are deliberately trying to hide the true history, implying this to be a new account they "bought" March 2011.

 

Any defence must be based on points of law, could you expand on events June 2010?

 

IMO you have a history of regular payments, without any notice of arrears the dispute arose because without good reason Cabot demanded an increase in payments, the resulting legal action was unnecessary and should be deemed an abuse of process, no action should have commenced whilst the account was in dispute.

　

Section 82 Consumer Credit Act 1974 is of interest to this claim, reflecting the new European Union Directive Assignment of Rights, whenevr the act is amended Creditors are bound to abide by the new terms and enact with immediate affect, not ignore in the hope no one will notice.

 

16. ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS

 

16.1 Where any rights of a creditor under a consumer credit agreement (for example the right to be repaid the money) are sold or transferred to a third party, notice of that assignment must be given to the borrower as soon as reasonably possible, except in the circumstances described below. This requirement applies to all regulated consumer credit agreements other than agreements secured on land. This requirement is in new section 82A of the CCA43.

 

 

16.2 It is the responsibility of the assignee (the creditor acquiring the rights) to ensure that notice is given. However, he does not have to give notice himself, but can agree with the assignor (the creditor assigning the rights) that the assignor will give notice instead, depending on what is more sensible in the circumstances. It is important, however, that notice is given as soon as reasonably possible and in a way that is clearly understandable by the borrower.

 

 

16.3 Notice does not have to be given where arrangements for servicing the credit are unchanged as far as the borrower is concerned. For example, if Creditor A sells his rights under a credit agreement to Creditor B but Creditor A still collects the borrower’s repayments in the same way and is the only point of contact for the borrower on matters regarding the agreement, notice does not have to be given.

 

 

16.4 Where notice has not been given, and arrangements for servicing the credit do subsequently change, the borrower must be informed of the assignment on or before the date that change happens. Again, this must be readily comprehensible to the borrower.

 

 

16.5 The definition of "creditor" in section 189 of the CCA applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party."

　

86C Notice of sums in arrears

 

(1) This section applies where at any time the following conditions are satisfied—

 

(a) That the debtor under an applicable agreement is required to have made at least two payments under the agreement before that time;

 

(b) That the last two payments which he is required to have made before that time have not been made;

 

© That the creditor has not already been required to give a notice under this section in relation to either of those payments; and

 

(d) If a judgement has been given in relation to the agreement before that time, that there is no sum still to be paid under the judgement by the debtor.

 

(2) The creditor shall, no later than the end of the period within which he is next required to give a statement under section 78(4) in relation to the agreement, give the debtor a notice under this section.

 

(3) The notice shall include a copy of the current arrears information sheet under section 86A.

 

(4) The notice may be incorporated in a statement or other notice, which the creditor gives the debtor in relation to the agreement by virtue of another provision of this Act.

 

(5) The debtor shall have no liability to pay any sum in connection with the preparation or the giving to him of the notice.

 

(6) Regulations may make provision about the form and content of notices under this section.

 

(7) In this section ‘applicable agreement’ means an agreement which—

 

(a) Is a regulated agreement for running-account credit; and

 

(b) Is neither a non-commercial agreement nor a small agreement.

　

86D Failure to give notice of sums in arrears

 

(1) This section applies where the creditor or owner under an agreement is under a duty to give the debtor or hirer notices under section 86B but fails to give him such a notice—

 

 

(a) Within the period mentioned in subsection (2)(a) of that section; or

 

(b) Within the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which such a notice was last given to him.

 

 

(2) This section also applies where the creditor under an agreement is under a duty to give the debtor a notice under section 86C but fails to do so before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (2) of that section.

 

(3) The creditor or owner shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of non-compliance.

 

[Hadituptohere]

The rights assigned in a debt sale are all

the rights and responsibilites set out

in the terms and conditions of the original

contract, giving the debt purchase the same

powers as the original creditor.

 

Brig

 

Plenty of people with past history with cabot have pinned cabot down through this, where cabot have clearly stated they have the rights but not the responcabilities (poor spelling i know)of the contract, helps if there are charges that have been applied or PPI that was mis-sold, if cabot are asking you to check with the OC then it seems that cabot arent accepting the responcabilities but want the rights molly

 

Hadituptohere

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Can anyone refresh my memory

do Cabot own this or not???

[Shelley181146]

Can anyone refresh my memory

do Cabot own this or not???

 

Believe this was sold to Cabot in Nov 2006 - that's my understanding from the thread Brig.

[molly13]

Hi,

 

Sorry for delay in response, still feeling a bit ropey and having Pc probs.

Anyway thank you all for your input.

 

Shadow... Thanks, I see what you mean in regards to using Carey.

 

Consumeredge.."IMO the question that must first be put is when you agreed initially to make token payments was this confirmed in writing from Cabot? If so was there a paragraph that stated this concessionairy agreement was subject to an annual or periodic review"

 

Yes it was confirmed in writing... " This arrangement is agreed upon the express terms that all payments are received by us on or before the due dates.We wshall then review your account annually, includibg the applicable interest rate and monthly payment amount. If for any reason payments are not received by the agreed dates,the arrangement will be cancelled and we will enforce our right to payment under the original terms and conditions. Such enforcement will include,but will not be limited to, the reinstatement of the full balance and interest due as of today's date, together with all additional interest that would have accrued but for this arrangement."

 

I have never received ANY statements.. Annual or otherwise.

I did make the payments up until the account was put in dispute due to not receiving the CCA, However after receiving it I sent several letters asking how it had been reconstructed and never got a response until the letter several months later where they ask me to confirm with Citi.I therefore feel that I had a valid reason for disputing the account until they told me how it was reconstituted..

 

BTW I have also noticed that on the reverse of the DN,from Citi with a different account number shown, issued roughly 6 months prior to sale, it is stated: "Re.Notice of Default I am writing to explain the purpose of the Notice of Default that accompanies this letter. I understand that you have an existing arrangement with CitiFinancial Europe plc (Citi) wherby Citi has agreed to accept less than the contractual minimum monthly payment in order to enable you to repay your outstanding debt. As part of its business strategy,Citi has decided to sell those accounts,such as your own, which are subject to long term payment arrangement. In order to sell the account, we have sent out the Default Notice to conform with thee Consumer Credit Act 1974.It is not intended by this Notice to alter the payment terms of our previous areement with you. Citi will sell the account subject to the terms of its agreement with you and on the understanding that the purchaser will continue to honour those terms as long as you maintain your payments. In the event that you default, the purchaser will be free to negotiate alternative terms with you"

 

Brigadier.. Cabot allege that they own the account.. however to date I have no proof of this.

 

Thank you all.

 

Molly:-)

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

In the situation that ''you are unaware of any transfer of the interest in the account to Cabot''

you cannot therefore deal with them would be my response.

Brig.

[molly13]

Brigadier...In my CPR 18 I asked if the assignment was Absolute.. The response was " that the claimant was assigned all rights,title and interest under the contract with the Defendant pursuant to s. 136 LoP 1925

 

No mention of duties which is why I want to see the DOA/Sales Agreement..

[molly13]

Another strange thing...

In the alleged NOA 2006 it says Account type: CitiFinancial

In the letter re payment arrangements it says Card Type: CitiFinancial

Then a year later Account review letter says Account type: CitiPlatinum Card

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The DEED is sensitive commercial document, they

would only produce this on the order of a judge,

and I think reluctantly.

The statement they have made would I think satisfy

the court that they are now the ''creditor''

Brig.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Is that a correct description of the account??

[molly13]

Well I don't know Brig.... The reconsttituted agreement refers to an Associates card... and I suppose they would have issued a Citi card when the Associates one expired.

[molly13]

As well in Morgan Sols response to CPR 31.14 the stated that they were in the process of receiving the account sale agreement and would forward this to me... I have still not received it