help with cabot, b/card and cca

[Seahorse]

Aye, right. Of course it will.

 

Never mind. You can always just preempt the complaints procedure thusly . . .

 

Complain

[karen654321]

Thanks for that seahorse. Will go have a look now.

 

karen

[karen654321]

Hiya all. I need help.

 

Today recieved this letter from cabot financial.

 

Thank you for your letter which was recieved on 31/7/07

 

I regret that you have felt cause to complain to cabot financial and apologise for any incovenience that you may have suffered in relation to this matter. I am dissapointed that cabot has not been able to satisfy your concerns on previous occasions.

 

I understand you have requested further information relating to the above account.

 

The cabot financial group purchawd your account from b/card, the original lender, on or about 10 sept 2004. The cabot financial group, the asignee of your account , is entitled to collect the outstanding balance on your account and also to enforce the orignal terms of the credit agreement. Although cabot does not have an obligation under section 77 and/or 78 of the consumer credit act 1974 to supply this information, cabot will at all times assist customers in order to provide info. Cabot does rely on the original lender to provide info in order to assist with your enquires.

 

You have stated in your letter that we have failed to supply the documents you rquested. Howeve, cabot has previously sent you a copy of the credit agreement on 16/7/07. Neverthless please find enclosed a further copy of the credit agreement, which you signed and agreed with the oprignal lender. Please note that on the agreement your signature is supported by the statement, this is a credit agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974. Sign only if you want to be legally bound by its terms.

 

Furthermore please be advies that although the orignal copy may not be available b/card has supplied cabot with a copy of the orignal which you signed and satisfies all requirements of both b/card and cabot. Under section 78 of the consumer credit act 1974 it stes the creditor shall give the debtor a copy of the executed afreement (if any) and stresss the word if any. Cabot has been provided with a copy fo the agreemtn from b/card and therefore this satisfies all obligations of both parties. I can confirm the current outstanding balance is £ and i would respetfully recomment you contact our collections dept to discuss the available options in order to settle the above account

 

They have one again sent me a copy of the application form. In big bold letters at the tom is states application. Aboe where i have signed it there is a big block that has been blacked out. It has no terms and conditions. Not limits or interest rates and id say over half the application form you cant actually read anyway because its such a bad copy.

 

I dont really know what to do now.

 

Any help appreciated

 

 

karen

[djdave]

That sounds almost word-for-word the same as the letter they sent me (details here).

 

I've asked them to clarify whether they are relying on this document to prove that a debt exists. I've also raised complaints with the OFT and the FOS about their behaviour.

 

Does your application form look anything like the one I posted? I'm treating mine as unenforcable, and inviting Cabot to test this in Court if they're so confident that it's a valid agreement.

[karen654321]

hiya thanks for the reply. Yes it does look very similiar although i do a very large section blacked out. I can see you have a part blanked out to.

 

So what would you suggest i do next?

 

Do i have to reply to cabot and if so any idea what to say.

 

thanks

 

karen

[Seahorse]

I would just write back and tell them that, as they have not supplied any other documentation in support of their claim that there is a debt, you regret that you are again unable to acknowledge that any debt is due to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited. Therefore you have no intention of complying with their request that you contact their collections department as you will not be paying them anything until such time as they are able to show that any alleged debt is enforcable.

 

Tell them that you do not believe that there is any prospect of them producing any valid documentation to support their claim, and that you will not be contacting them again if they feel unable to respond in a satisfactory manner to your complaint. Tell them that unless there is a successful outcome to this matter, (in that you wish them to write to tell you that they are ceasing all attempts to collect on the debt and will be destroying your data, and removing any adverse data from the CRA's) you can see no alternative but to refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service, as well as the Information Commissioner's Office for an apparent breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. And to the Office of Fair Trading for their continued attempts to collect on an unenforcable debt. Tell them that you reserve the right to take court action as a last resort.

[42man]

IS MY AGREEMENT ENFORCEABLE( Via section 127(3) CCA1974)

PRESCRIBED TERMS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 61(1)(0) AND 127(3) OF THE

CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 Taken from sced.6(1983/1553) regulations

(If you just want to find out, skip the bits in between the stars it’s just some extra information)

 

**What do we mean by unenforceable?

In the Consumer Credit Act section 127 there is a provision for making an agreement unenforceable if it does not contain certain pieces of information.

Subsections 1,2,3,4 state which pieces of information these are, and everything mentioned there must be included within the body of the agreement, if one is missing the agreement is unenforceable.

 

How does unenforceable differ from enforceable with a court order only?

When an agreement is unenforceable it means that the court or the judge cannot make a ruling on it. The court cannot make it enforceable.

When an agreement is enforceable only by ruling of the court it means that the agreement can be stopped by the debtor but the court has the power to re-instate it and allow the credit to continue to enforce.**

 

The Prescribed Terms are these

 

A Amount of credit

A term stating the amount of credit

 

B Repayments

A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following-

(a) Number of repayments;

(b) Amount of repayments;

© Frequency and timing of repayments;

(d) Dates of repayments;

(e) The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable.

 

C Rate of interest

A term stating the rate of interest to be applied to the credit issued under the agreement

D Credit limit

This may be a term or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit.

--------------------------

 

Which of these applies to you depends on the type of agreement you have?

 

For a Running Account (credit card) agreement

 

BC and D Apply

 

For a Restricted Use Debtor Creditor Supplier

• Where the dealer is the supplier and the creditor is the one providing the finance.
  
• The money can only be used for the purpose it is given.
  
• There is no interest on the purchase (the cash price is the same as the total price)
  
• And there is no advance payment

A is applicable

 

For a fixed Sum Credit Agreement

A conventional credit agreement with none of the above restrictions

 

A and B apply

 

For a Hire Agreement

 

B is Applicable

 

This paper only covers section 127(3) of the Act agreements can also be unenforceable by contravention of sections 1 and4 this will be the subject of the next paper.

Please note that these Prescribed terms where not changed in any way by the 2004/1482 Ammendments although the form in which they appear on the agreement was. Subsection127(3) was repealed on the 6th of April 2007 so that unenforceability due to 127(3) will only apply to agreemens executed before that date.

vbrep_register("1005260")

[42man]

just thought i'd post the above....thought it might be of help...

[karen654321]

Yes that great thanks for all the info. will draft a letter now.

 

karen

[Edz11]

A late addendum to this thread.

 

I was never quite sure what the term "if any" actually meant (copies of agreements). So I contacted the man who actually wrote the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and asked if he could explain what "if any" meant.

 

He said that that some of the terms of the "executed agreement" (defintion at the end of the Act) may not be in writing. They may be verbal (or implied?) terms. So there can't be written copy of a verbal agreement.

 

Upshot of that is that if you're dealing with a Bank/Credit Card Issuer/loan company then you can delete "if any" when reading ss77 etc as there won't be anything agreed verbally with that type of company as far as an executed agreement is concerned.

[karen654321]

Hiya just to update ive had nothing more from cabot. Im getting slightly worried though. I dont think its in there nature just to leave alone for any amount of time so i am expecting some nasty letter.

 

will let you know when it arrives

 

karen

[rory32]

Well I haven't heard from Cabot since April. So you never know.

[karen654321]

Thanks for reply.. Be nice if this was the end of it but im sure it wont be. Got a long wait for the 7 years statute barred thingy. But counting

 

 

karen

[rory32]

Got a long wait for the 7 years statute barred thingy.

That'll be the 6 years statute barred thingy Karen

[Windywoo]

I received a very similar letter from Cabot today!

 

They really are in cloud cockoo land......they now say that section 127(3) has been repealed, and not to rely upon this. Correct me if I'm wrong, does this not apply to agreements taken out since 6th April this year? They seem to think it applies to all agreements, irrespective of the age!

 

Comments please!

[42man]

Windy can you scan the letter (taking out all your details) and post it on here !!!!

[Edz11]

yes, this would be very interesting!!

[Seahorse]

If they are putting this down in writing, they are seriously making a mistake. Just because it is missing from the CCA 2006, doesn't mean it doesn't apply to agreements regulated by the CCA 1974, which DOES include it.

 

So being kind to them, they are talking pish. Again.

[rory32]

They seem to think it applies to all agreements, irrespective of the age!

 

It's more likely that they would like you to think that and hope that you are not sufficiently informed. It would be nice to see this in writing if poss.

[Windywoo]

My scanner has decided to play up this morning, so have typed up the letter for you to have a look at:

 

 

Dear Windywoo,

 

Our response to you complaint.

 

I refer to your letter, which was received on the 5th December 2007.

 

Cabot has previously clarified the points raised in this letter and we believe your arguements are unfounded. However, please find below our further response to the points raised.

 

You have stated in your letter that Cabot has failed to provide you with a copy of the credit agreement. I would advise that Cabot has previously supplied you with a copy of the credit agreement, which you agreed and consented to with Barclaycard Littlewoods, which is sufficient. Furthermore, in consideration of your acceptance of the agreement, you received the availabilty of credit from BL by the way of a credit card, which you have utilised as clearly indicated by the account statements, which was also enclosed in previous correspondence. Notwithstanding, we

note your comments in relation to the legibilty and the prescribed terms.

 

With regards to your referral to section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act. I must respectfully advise you that this subsection of the Act has been repealed and therefore you cannot rely on this. Futhermore you have not suffered any prejudice, the agreement will be enforceable as you have used the funds available to you and failed to repy them as evidenced by the statements we have enclosed again.

In light of the above it is evident that the debt exists and that you are required to settle the outstanding balance with Cabot. Therfore I urge you to contact our collections department on blah blah within the next 7 days to arrange repayment on this account. Failure to do so will result in your account being escalated through our collections procedures.

 

I note that you consider taking further aciotn. Please be advised, that Cabot has at all times acted appropriately and in accordance will all laws, regulations, codes of practice and guidance applicable to this industry and any legal proceedings initiated against the CFG shall be vigorously defended and counterclaim shall be entered for the full oustanding balance.

 

I trust I have set out our position clearly.

 

Phew!

I will try and scan the original copy to my own thread later on!

[Seahorse]

As an aside, I see that Cabot now consider the Cabot Financial GROUP to be the owner of purchased debt. Quite how that happens is beyod my comprehension. Only one company buys debts, and as far as I'm concerned, that is Cabot Financial (UK) Limited, until I have evidence of assignment. How can a GROUP of companies buy debts? Hmm.

 

Anyway, I digress. Cabot are now breaking OFT rules yet again, by attempting to mislead on a point of law. Yes, the CCA 1974 has been supeceded but the CCA 2006. However, THAT act does not apply to agreements regulated by the CCA 1974.

 

Of course, if that is your honest interpretation Cabot, then you will obviously have no hesitation whatsoever in taking ME to court to try to enforce MY alleged debt.

 

Go on. Make my day. Put your money where your mouth is, and we'll see who's right.

 

I think this need a mention in my blog. Is that OK with you, WindyWoo?

[andrew1]

I have seen Seahorse that Cabot Financial Group Limited have been buying debt. Their accounts show some interesting figures..and Directors! from Opera to Ventilation systems.. in other words hot air to sending us on a song and dance

[Windywoo]

As an aside, I see that Cabot now consider the Cabot Financial GROUP to be the owner of purchased debt. Quite how that happens is beyod my comprehension. Only one company buys debts, and as far as I'm concerned, that is Cabot Financial (UK) Limited, until I have evidence of assignment. How can a GROUP of companies buy debts? Hmm.

 

Anyway, I digress. Cabot are now breaking OFT rules yet again, by attempting to mislead on a point of law. Yes, the CCA 1974 has been supeceded but the CCA 2006. However, THAT act does not apply to agreements regulated by the CCA 1974.

 

Of course, if that is your honest interpretation Cabot, then you will obviously have no hesitation whatsoever in taking ME to court to try to enforce MY alleged debt.

 

Go on. Make my day. Put your money where your mouth is, and we'll see who's right.

 

I think this need a mention in my blog. Is that OK with you, WindyWoo?

 

 

Go for it Seahorse!!!

[Seahorse]

Very witty as always Sarah.

 

Seriously though, the letter that Cabot sent to the CSA in response to my complaint indicated that the GROUP were owners of my account.

 

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cabot Financial (UK) Limited are NOT the owners of my alleged debt, and the Cabot Financial Group IS, how has that happened? Have they transferred it by assignment? And if so why have I not received a Notice of Assignment?

 

However, they are describing themselves in writing as the Cabot Financial Group, which appears to me to differ considerably from Cabot Financial Group LIMITED. Or am I simple being too pedantic?

 

It all sounds like they are trying a new dodge to confuse any potential court action.

[andrew1]

No, no Seahorse, you know better than that of Cabot. We know the way they sell the name of Cabot. either, they refer to it in their letters as 'Cabot Financial' or occasionally 'Cabot Financial Group' or just plain 'Cabot'. Now you know better than most 'Cabot ' have about 16 odd companies they intermingle with so as to throw everyone off course. Easy to use the words 'Cabot Financial Group' when trying to infer you are dealing with a conglomerate and the transactions, somewhere down the line were carried out by one of those companies within. But the devil being in the detail with this bunch of *****sters is where and by whom the transactions were undertaken. In your case, they sound as though they are banding the ' whole group' as a generalism, but the purchase as you say undertaken in earlier days by either Kingshill No1 Ltd as it was known in darker days or Cabot Financial (UK)Ltd which it is called now.

 

I found out that one of their 16 companies is called Cabot Financial Group Limited and they have been purchasing debt rather than (UK)Ltd. Perhaps our Ken when he's watching might confirm that for us.

 

 

Sarah - You can't mess with the Cabot Fan Club