Vulnerable Person being chased

[Deb T]

Relative debt of which I have tried to help with.

 

Original debt £5012 when Cabot took over in 2004 with what I think is a flimsy Assignment, debt now at at £11,216. Cabot were paid each and every month at £25 up until last year when a SARS request was sent to them (not to be confused with a cca request which has never been requested of them) .

 

They responded to the SARS, they were then sent a further letter asking if all that was contained in the SARS was all that they had and nothing more. They responded saying yes it was....Which then clearly demonstrated that Cabot are quite good at constructing documents as some of the letters from them enclosed in the SARS were not the letters sent by them of which the relative has the hard copies of.

 

A request was made to Cabot to remove all interest payments added by them but they responded saying that they had reviewed the account and it was clear that there was a poor payment record with them and they referred to a letter they sent a few years earlier warning interest was to be added. They also stated that under the terms of the original agreement they were entitled to add interest...No agreement at that point had been sent and was not included in the SARS . We reminded them that no agreement between Cabot and my relative existed. At the same time as this we also pointed out that they'd actually sent letters agreeing to continue the payments being made and that no interest was being applied...In all in over and with 60 possible payments to cabot and just prior to SARS request 59 payments had been made, no gaps.

 

 

No request has ever been made to Cabot for a copy of the original credit agreement but then on June 3rd 2011 they sent a copy of what they are saying is an original credit agreement, along with a copy of what looks like the CCA 1974 (card taken out in 96) and also the terms and condtions of the card...

 

Upon a closer look at the alleged 'agreement' it gives the relatives details at the time (job/income) and what looks like their signature but it only says

'Priority Request Form

Credit Agreement Regulated by the Consumer credit Act 1974

 

To the left of the details it says 'How to request your card . To accept our invitation please complete the Priorty Request Form

 

Cabot also enclosed a letter headed Information under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and saying

 

'Further to your request please find all of the relevant information following your request for information under section 77-78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

They also state a paragraph down that 'As we have now complied with your request for information we are able to enforce the credit agreement'

 

Am I right to assume that this does not represent a credit agreement? The page where my relatives signature is has no relevant interest or terms/details etc. At the same time as this Cabot have also enclosed a statement of sorts re the debt since they took over (also contained in the SARS and updated ..on one hand they're saying they've now complied with a request for a cca (never made) but on the other hand they've continued adding interest..which if they considered the account to be in dispute since the the supposed CCA request then they shouldn't be adding interest? ? Go figure...we did point out in oprevious correspondence that no credit agreement request has ever been made to them...which they disregarded obviously.

 

Throughout all of this Cabot were made aware in big bold writing that they person they're attempting to collect a debt from is considered 'vulnerable' and is both registered disabled and had a full time carer...Cabot wanted letters from Doctors but why should we given they quite obviously cannot be trusted with information (false letters in SARs to name but one anomaly) so no documentation from a doctor will be sent to them. There is a letter available from a doctor who wrote 2 years ago to somebody else on behalf of the relative which very clearly outlined his opinion on the vulnerability of the relative...we could have sent them that but I do not trust Cabot with that sort of information.

 

They want to enforce the debt, I dont want to hasten any fires but so far it is my opinion they've acted wholly irresponsibly and possibly illegally where this debt is concerned..

 

I would SARS MBNA but I dont see what would be gained from it.

 

What if anything should we write to Cabot? They dont seem able to do anything but issue random threats, add stupid amounts of interest to an account that we dont know if it's ever been given a default notice from MBNA and we dont know on what terms they add the interest and right now it appears they've fabricated other information on the account.

 

Lastly, in the terms of the account they've just sent it gives the relatives address that is now....printed in a box....but this address is NOT the one on the Priority Request form and was only added to the account with Cabot 18 months ago...is this illegal for them to do as quite clearly the credit agreement they've sent (after the first prioroty request form) is not consistent with information at the time the agreement would have been taken out and is only a year since it's been added...if you understand that? This to me seems as if Cabot or fabricating agreements....or at least adding an address within it that didn't exist when the agreement was first made in the 90's (repeating myself I know) There is no name on the details added, just the address and the one added 18mths ago.....can they do this? is it legal relevant? or does it help further a claim against Cabot for deliberate meddling and sending out false documentation?

Edited July 25, 2011 by Deb T

[hatesdebt]

As far as I know and I'm happy to be corrected, a dca can't add interest unless the original agreement has the provision to do so once sold on.

To escalate the debt from £5k to £11k is just a joke and they are taking the pee.

[dx100uk]

correct

 

dx

[dx100uk]

does this show on the relatives cra file?

 

dx

[Deb T]

does what show on the CRA? Do you mean the balance?

 

The reference has since expired due to the 6 years rule but when it was on the report it showed a 'default' amount so presumably there will have been a default from mbna (not seen either a default or termination from them) but the balance reflected cabots inflated figures but in the instances when they wrote to the alleged debtor they did on several occasions give a balance which was consistent with the payments made by the debtor and not their inflated one.

 

At the same time as this they wrote saying that they had frozen interest...but obviously they had not and also in the SARS requests all the letters from them showed no balances on them whatsoever....even though the hard copies that the alleged debtor has does show balances and not the ones Cabot are now quoting .

 

On one particular day a couple of years ago they added just over 2k in a charge but no notification of it was given and thius extends to their SARS ..nothing in there either but their statements do...

 

What about the other issues raised?

[Deb T]

I'm a bit out of touch and have another thread going on a credit agreement or no as the case may be....but in any case.

 

For clarity....

 

IF and it is an if the...

Original agreement was 1996 and governed by the 74 credit act....

 

Account went AWRY in 2004 and a default entered on a crdit file at that point.

 

DCA takes up the mantle and collects until the alleged debtor questions the validity of

some of what they were saying in correspondence.

 

An agreement (for arguments sake lets say it is) was supplied in 2011

 

In the agreement the debtors address is added into it but is incorrect to what was taken out at the time and is in fact one that was added/updated to the DCA 18months ago

 

But more importantly, the 'Copy of the Credit Card Agreement' as it is referred to goes on to mention a date of 2009 within it....this cannot be so because the agreement was originally 1996

 

So, am I right in assuming that a DCA can supply a reconstituted agreement but it must be relevant to the time that the debt went into default? Which according the CRA was 2004 (and since expired due to 6 years but nonetheless it did show as defaulted)....In which case this particular hash and it's reference to 2009 is probably not the one relevant at the time of the account going awry in 2004? If this is the case does this mean what they have sent something they would not be able to rely upon? (notwithstanding that its a poor document anyway)

[dx100uk]

does the debt still show on her cra .... yes or no?

 

if no its sb'ed surely?

 

dx

[citizenB]

Erm !!

 

If no acknowledgment or payment has been made to the debt for 6 years then it is statute barred.

 

I think they still need to be able to provide evidence of what the agreement would have consisted of in 1996.. they just cant provide details of an arbitrary date some years down the line.

 

You might find Harrison v Link to be of some interest as that involved the "reconstructing" of agreements from 1998 I think.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?296622-Harrison-vs-Link-Financial-Limited-High-Court-judgment

[Deb T]

It's not stat barred, payments to cabot were made , it's understanding a reconstituted agreement and what is required is what i'm trying to qualify

 

Erm !!

 

If no acknowledgment or payment has been made to the debt for 6 years then it is statute barred.

 

I think they still need to be able to provide evidence of what the agreement would have consisted of in 1996.. they just cant provide details of an arbitrary date some years down the line.

 

You might find Harrison v Link to be of some interest as that involved the "reconstructing" of agreements from 1998 I think.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?296622-Harrison-vs-Link-Financial-Limited-High-Court-judgment

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?278373-Citi-Cards-and-Cabot&p=3500524&viewfull=1#post3500524

 

If you have a read of the defence in post 242 in the link above, there is reference to certain inforamtion from the Carey v HSBC judgment and HHJ Waksmans comments on reconstructions.. HTH

[Deb T]

Hi, I thought I'd cleared that up in my very first paragraph...

 

Cabot were paid each and every month at £25 up until last year when a SARS request was sent to them (not to be confused with a cca request which has never been requested of them) .

 

and although the CRA ref has gone it wont be stat barred if payments were maintained, the Stat barred issue is a moot point, it's the rest of the points raised I'm looking to find help/advice on

 

 

 

does the debt still show on her cra .... yes or no?

 

if no its sb'ed surely?

 

dx

[Deb T]

Anyone?

[Deb T]

Was a little vague but has the Carey v HSBC judgment been successfully used as a defence for a reconstituted agreement post the judgement

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Recon agreements consist of the original T&C's and the varied T &C's

Must contain the debtor and creditors names and addresses and as with

any agreement should have a statement of account with it.

These are being accepted more and more especially

with traceable statement and or a signed application form.

[PriorityOne]

If the Agreement was circa. 1996, then the original has to be produced; in line with CCA 1974; sec 127 (3). A reconstituted Agreement can be in response to a sec 77/78 request only but the original will be needed in court. Cabot will be well aware of this.... so don't fall for it. Ask them for confirmation as to whether they hold a copy of the original Agreement under CPUTR 2008... see the link in my signature.

 

[wittsend]

B2jcs

 

when you say 'must contain debtor name and address'

should this be the address that the debtor was resideing at when taken out.

also,as in my OH case should the creditors name and address be the one with whom the original account was with

ie; TSB not Lloyds TSB

[dx100uk]

are you saying it is not showing on the CRA?

 

dx

[PriorityOne]

Why are you still paying this? There's no CCA.... and the figure has been grossly inflated with interest charges on the basis of.... an application form.

[Deb T]

Cabot took over the debt with a flimsy assignment in 2005, they were being paid until a request for a sars was made last year, sars came through showing a number of issues and false accounting and as such payments to Cabot were stopped and attem to reconcile the issues were made but as is the norm Cabot responded with altogether non relevant matters and ducked all others.

 

They sent the document mentioned in the first post on 3rd June and stated they had provided the correct documentation and the debt was enforceable and what were the alleged debtors proposals..which is why I'm posting and asking for clarity.

 

The SARS they provided had incorrect information held in it...my aunt had hard copies that Cabot sent in the post over the years, some of the copies showing in their dvd SARS shows fundamental differences and no balances on any of them. and a good majority of them do not correspond with the hard copies, to the point where they appear to have been fabricated by Cabot.

 

No dx the debt is no longer showing on the relatives credit file, default 2004 and added to the credit file by mbna, cabot take over a year later and payments to them are made until 2010 , the entry on the credit file has expired and payments to cabot were also stopped pending them supplying details etc.

[PriorityOne]

Cabot took over the debt with a flimsy assignment in 2005, they were being paid until a request for a sars was made last year, sars came through showing a number of issues and false accounting and as such payments to Cabot were stopped and attem to reconcile the issues were made but as is the norm Cabot responded with altogether non relevant matters and ducked all others.

So if payments were stopped, are you saying that you've overpaid on this account or, are you just wanting to find out more info. about it?

 

They sent the document mentioned in the first post on 3rd June and stated they had provided the correct documentation and the debt was enforceable and what were the alleged debtors proposals..which is why I'm posting and asking for clarity. Well, they haven't and it isn't. What they're saying that they've sent all the info. required under a sec 77/78 request but what they haven't said is that they'd need the original to have it re-enforced through the courts.

 

The SARS they provided had incorrect information held in it...my aunt had hard copies that Cabot sent in the post over the years, some of the copies showing in their dvd SARS shows fundamental differences and no balances on any of them. and a good majority of them do not correspond with the hard copies, to the point where they appear to have been fabricated by Cabot.

 

No dx the debt is no longer showing on the relatives credit file, default 2004 and added to the credit file by mbna, cabot take over a year later and payments to them are made until 2010 , the entry on the credit file has expired and payments to cabot were also stopped pending them supplying details etc.

 

If they're still chasing you, then they need to be informed that it's currenltly legally unenforceable under CCA 1974; sec 127 (3) and asked for written confirmation that they do not hold an original, signed Consumer Credit Agreement (as opposed to an application for credit) under CPUTR 2008.

 

[NailPost]

And if they don't the correct documents they should be invited to confirm their position is f****** and should inform you the account has been binned. If they don't do so start a claim for defamation against them. That will cost them money, bring them into disrepute in the eyes of the court/judge

[Deb T]

The was an entry on the CRA after the default in 2004...mbna debt, cabot put it on the file in 2004 when they started servicing the alleged debt......SO , that is an entry on the credit file. ...between 2004 and 2010 ok Cabot were paid on the debt right up until 2010 ...The CRA file entry then dropped off naturally after the 6 years in 2010 .... A sars was requested of Cabot in 2010 and payments to them were stopped due to some of the contents of the SAR ok? none of this actually relevant or peritnent to the questions I've been asking but for whatever reason you seemed to have stuck on the point even when it's explained to you.

[Deb T]

Priority One

 

The original debt was 5k, Cabot were paid for almost 5 years with no missing payments, they added interest each month but the interest was double what the payments made to them were, they kept saying interest wa frozen but none of it was . We made the SARS because we wanted more information from them re the account.

 

So it is an application form and not an executed document? I would put it up but it's not particular easy to read as it's shrunk down a little, but also we have NEVER made a request under sec 77/78 , just the SARS ...they have sent it (the application) saying they've complied with our request but it's lies as our letters to them show.

 

I will inform them re the legally unenforceable but they tend not to listen to anything written to them, we told them the person they're attempting to collect from is considered vulnerable by their doctor, that documents in the sar were not the same as the hard copies we had, that interest was agreed to be frozen by them (hard copy lettera) but they ignored all this and contune you on....the reason why the payments were stopped were to force cabots hand, whilst our relative is in no fit state to attend court we thought it best to force cabot to take the action and where I think with the documentation we have and the documentation they dont along with other varying bit's of legislation should show Cabot up to be altogether irresponsible when attempting to collect the debt. they've lied, issued documents that dont exist and added interest where they shouldnt and increased the alleged indebtness simply becuase they wanted to.

 

For an example, they wrote in 2008 agreeing to keep payments as they were and that interest had been frozen...in 2010 and when payments to them were stopped they wrote saying that interest was increasing and that there had been a poor payment record so they would not remove the interest. In the period they mentioned there were 60 payment slots, of which 59 had been paid and the other

was pending them sending a payment card. In the SARS it shows that in 2008 when they agreed to keep the interest frozen they were actually adding interest (statements supplied) and on one

particular day they added 2k+ to the account. When we asked they remove it they quote the poor payment record. We have the hard copy letters of them freezing interest but in the SARS they letters

they enclosed (digitially on a dvd) the text of the letters is different and no balances are included but simply keyb board characters....You give them all this info and they simply write back asking us

to supply them with the letters....which until court we will not do (but we have them safe) we suggested they write the allged debt off due to the vulnerabilty of the alleged debtor but they said

they wanted proof...but sending Cabot details from a doctor when it's clear they cannot be trusted with other information is not going to happen. The letter exists and can be shown in court.

 

There are many other irregularities with cabot, the alleged agreement they've now sent is an application from, the interest rates are nowhere to be seen but in further to the document there is

the address of the debtor on the so called credit agreement but it's an address that was only added to cabots file 18months ago when we wrote giving change of address....so it can not be the

agreement from the 90s and also the interest rate on this hashed ed up cabot document is double what it was at the time the agreement was taken out and also there is a debt of 2009 in the

printed credit agreement ...hardly consistent with a 90's credit agreement and whilst it's obviously reconstituted it surely has to be relevant to the one taken out at the time?

 

There s much much more but whats the point when Cabot dont listen..

 

If we write quoting the cputr does not that set a precedent? or change the direction of the matter and is there a template letter on here for that?

[PriorityOne]

This is horrendous!!

 

I'll reply to you properly in a bit..... am in the middle of something at the moment....

[PriorityOne]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you.....

 

Priority One

 

The original debt was 5k, Cabot were paid for almost 5 years with no missing payments, they added interest each month but the interest was double what the payments made to them were, they kept saying interest wa frozen but none of it was . We made the SARS because we wanted more information from them re the account. This is appalling and in theory, could go on forever. There is absolutely nothing to substantiate Cabot's "right" to add interest; no paperwork, no legal authority, nothing. Not as I see it anyway.

 

So it is an application form and not an executed document? From the description you've given, yes. I would put it up but it's not particular easy to read as it's shrunk down a little, probably from microfiche then, which is also unenforceable... but also we have NEVER made a request under sec 77/78 , just the SARS ...they have sent it (the application) saying they've complied with our request but it's lies as our letters to them show. It's your choice whether you formalise this or not with a seperate CCA request but after so much letter ping-pong, it might be easier to just go down the CPUTR route. If they do decide to pass it to solicitors, then a CCA request can go off then; a legal request for documentation which can and does throw a spanner into the works. A SAR doesn't place an account "in dispute" in the same way.

 

I will inform them re the legally unenforceable but they tend not to listen to anything written to them, Not worth the bother then really... we told them the person they're attempting to collect from is considered vulnerable by their doctor, that documents in the sar were not the same as the hard copies we had, that interest was agreed to be frozen by them (hard copy lettera) but they ignored all this and contune you on....This is unlikely to interest them either.... the reason why the payments were stopped were to force cabots hand, whilst our relative is in no fit state to attend court we thought it best to force cabot to take the action and where I think with the documentation we have and the documentation they dont along with other varying bit's of legislation should show Cabot up to be altogether irresponsible when attempting to collect the debt. they've lied, issued documents that dont exist and added interest where they shouldnt and increased the alleged indebtness simply becuase they wanted to. A simple CCA request could have dealt with all of this but it depends what you want out of it. If you believe that you have paid more than the original debt, then a SAR would give you the opportunity to calculate the extent of it but you'd probably need to issue a claim yourself to get it back, which could be costly. If not, then a CCA request should have gone off.

 

For an example, they wrote in 2008 agreeing to keep payments as they were and that interest had been frozen...in 2010 and when payments to them were stopped they wrote saying that interest was increasing and that there had been a poor payment record so they would not remove the interest. In the period they mentioned there were 60 payment slots, of which 59 had been paid and the other

was pending them sending a payment card. In the SARS it shows that in 2008 when they agreed to keep the interest frozen they were actually adding interest (statements supplied) and on one

particular day they added 2k+ to the account. When we asked they remove it they quote the poor payment record. We have the hard copy letters of them freezing interest but in the SARS they letters

they enclosed (digitially on a dvd) the text of the letters is different and no balances are included but simply keyb board characters....You give them all this info and they simply write back asking us

to supply them with the letters....which until court we will not do (but we have them safe) we suggested they write the allged debt off due to the vulnerabilty of the alleged debtor but they said

they wanted proof...but sending Cabot details from a doctor when it's clear they cannot be trusted with other information is not going to happen. The letter exists and can be shown in court. None of this would get to the route of the problem, which is that there was no legal right to add any interest in the first place.... All they've done is to purchase a debt.... and as this was never challenged in the form of a legal request for enforceable docs. (CCA), the merry-go-round has continued on and on and Cabot have grown richer.

 

There are many other irregularities with cabot, the alleged agreement they've now sent is an application from, the interest rates are nowhere to be seen but in further to the document there is

the address of the debtor on the so called credit agreement but it's an address that was only added to cabots file 18months ago when we wrote giving change of address....so it can not be the

agreement from the 90s and also the interest rate on this hashed ed up cabot document is double what it was at the time the agreement was taken out and also there is a debt of 2009 in the

printed credit agreement ...hardly consistent with a 90's credit agreement and whilst it's obviously reconstituted it surely has to be relevant to the one taken out at the time?

 

There s much much more but whats the point when Cabot dont listen..

 

If we write quoting the cputr does not that set a precedent? or change the direction of the matter and is there a template letter on here for that?

 

What do you mean by "set a precedent"? This really does need to come to close now.... So, you have two choices:

 

1. Either you have paid over and above the original debt and this needs to be re-claimed, or

2. They just need to get lost on the basis of no enforceable docs... in which case and on reflection, I would place the account in dispute with a CCA request now after all and then follow it up with a request for confirmation under CPUTR 2008 to close it down for good.

 

Which way do you want to go?