Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

[Riz]

Re: Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

@ fizzle

Better than Niffy.

Sounds like the eighth dwarf who has a bit of a hygiene problem.

[garlok]

Re: Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

Interesting that 2.19 from the OFT is raised in the same breath as "Carey".

What is rarely raised is the issue of s108 and s2324 of Carey in the same context, which could prove to be very dangerous ground for a creditor to get on to. Not least because Carey was based on assumed facts only and the alleged debtors were in fact the claimants in that debacle.

regards
Garlok

[PriorityOne]

Re: Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

This quickly followed by the reply to my CPUTR letter...........
They have complied with my CCA request, responded to my concerns and their position remains unchanged.
'There is no obligation...to provide you with the original credit agreement under s 77/78....Cabot does not and has at no time held your original signed credit agreement, nor are we required to hold this on file.'

'Request under s77/78 has been satisfied and you are required to recommence payment towards your account'. Once again they will not enter into any correspondence, arrange a repayment plan or the account will be escalated in their collections process.

Oh dear.... they've bought themselves a duff account then!! That's really funny..... pass a trophy to the numpty who wrote that from the pits of your offices Cabot

That was my interpretation, however, having dealt with Cabot before, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they follow up with a claim form

I very much doubt it, especially if you nail their arses to the floor by raising a complaint re. their claim not to have any obligation to hold original docs. What an absolutely stupid thing for them to say!

and how very obliging !

Interesting that 2.19 from the OFT is raised in the same breath as "Carey".

What is rarely raised is the issue of s108 and s2324 of Carey in the same context, which could prove to be very dangerous ground for a creditor to get on to. Not least because Carey was based on assumed facts only and the alleged debtors were in fact the claimants in that debacle.

regards
Garlok

Yes.... s108 and s234 are the ones to use..... and if they try and claim that their normal practice is/was to get a signature on Agreements (which was mentioned by someone earlier), that would be a bit of a no-brainer for them really........ since Cabot don't issue Agreements in the first place.

[Paul.]

Re: Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

its all bout evidential burdens

I quote from the judgment of HHJ Plattts

19. Therefore in my judgment when the Defendant wishes to rely section 65 certain
consequences flow. First it is not sufficient for him simply to allege that the
agreement is not properly executed. He must specify the particular breach or
breaches of the regulations on which he relies. The burden of proving that the
agreement has been properly executed then rests with the claimant. .It is his
obligation to put before the court evidence which he considers sufficient to satisfy the
court on this issue .

As to what evidence will discharge the burden is a matter for the judge. But a witness statement say from Barclays saying would have been compliant blah blah blah may satisfy the Court, so never count chickens

[cymruambyth]

Re: Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

In my case they have supplied a document that is totally illegible apart from the applicants details. I'll have to check but I don't think that they have nt the requisite statement of account. They also have not sent annual statements.

[Riz]

Re: Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

its all bout evidential burdens

I quote from the judgment of HHJ Plattts

19. Therefore in my judgment when the Defendant wishes to rely section 65 certain
consequences flow. First it is not sufficient for him simply to allege that the
agreement is not properly executed. He must specify the particular breach or
breaches of the regulations on which he relies. The burden of proving that the
agreement has been properly executed then rests with the claimant. .It is his
obligation to put before the court evidence which he considers sufficient to satisfy the
court on this issue .

As to what evidence will discharge the burden is a matter for the judge. But a witness statement say from Barclays saying would have been compliant blah blah blah may satisfy the Court, so never count chickens

Thanks for that Paul.

So presumably in a case such as this, even if Cabot have admitted that they don't hold an original, if they produce a witness statement from the original creditor as you describe, then that may render Cabots admission a mute point in the eyes of the court?

That is a general point ^^^. Not saying it applies here, as the agreement supplied in this specific case may have further issues.

[Paul.]

Re: Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

Thanks for that Paul.

So presumably in a case such as this, even if Cabot have admitted that they don't hold an original, if they produce a witness statement from the original creditor as you describe, then that may render Cabots admission a mute point in the eyes of the court?

That is a general point ^^^. Not saying it applies here, as the agreement supplied in this specific case may have further issues.

yes, in a nutshell, that may suffice,

That was what HFO failed to do in Fribourgs case and it cost them dearly

[cymruambyth]

Re: Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

However, if they have supplied an illegible application form and they produce a ws to say that it is a true copy etc then you try and use the usual argument of Civil Evidence Act 1995?

[cymruambyth]

Re: Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

Hi, I've had a 'few distractions' so I'm now back trying to reply and complain!
Having reread everyone's useful comments:
1) Is it best to raise a complaint just with Cabot or should I complain to FOS/TS?
2) Do I reply to their letter? If so, do I make a composition of information in posts 47 and 63? None of Niddy's wonderful templates seem to fit!
Thanks

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

Hi, I've had a 'few distractions' so I'm now back trying to reply and complain!
Having reread everyone's useful comments:
1) Is it best to raise a complaint just with Cabot or should I complain to FOS/TS?
2) Do I reply to their letter? If so, do I make a composition of information in posts 47 and 63? None of Niddy's wonderful templates seem to fit!
Thanks

I would complain direct to the FOS/TS and then once you have done both, send a copy of each to Cabot with a simple cover note saying "I warned you to back off, as you do not have the agreement you are unable to enforce this debt; yes you are allowed to request payment but that does not give you the added bonus of being allowed to harass me like you are"....

Literally, short n sweet - just to keep them in the loop so to speak.

Point is so long as they cannot enforce this, then you're kinda in control so I wouldn't worry too much...

[MINNACK]

Re: Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

Not published is it? Paul quoted this one page 1 - ie that he was involved!

Read this ---> BBC News - How credit card lenders can trip up when chasing debts

this is extremely helpful and interesting!

[MINNACK]

Re: Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

In fact looking back a while at some of this stuff. Without holding the original document they can't really enforce anyway. As "owners" they have inherited also all of the obligations and responsibilties which includes having the docs.

Response to CPUTR demand therefore misleading and non-compliant.

regards
Garlok

i am going to use this too.

[cymruambyth]

Re: Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

Complaints posted......

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

Complaints posted......

good luck -

Just realised, what and who have you complained to and would you mind letting us know what it is you have said (briefly)...

I wasn't paying attention before, dunno why I said complain to FOS as they cannot touch UE issues and if I did suggest that I am wondering why..... hmmmmm

Thanks

[cymruambyth]

Re: Cabot/FIRE/MSDW

My complaint has been more about failing their legal duty:

Cabot Financial Ltd have failed in their legal obligations.
On xx I made a request under s 77/78 Consumer credit Act 1974 for a copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement for a Morgan Stanley credit card account for which Cabot Financial were trying to claim money. After several months I was supplied with an illegible application form (a copy is enclosed). The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) (“copy documents regulations”) require that any copy of an agreement required to be provided under the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) must be easily legible (regulation 2 (1) of the copy documents regulations). I have made several further requests for a legible copy of this agreement, which Cabot have failed to supply. Cabot have informed me that this covers their legal obligation and that they will have no further communication. This account was then passed to FIRE and Clarity (both subsidiaries of Cabot) who have failed to supply ant further documentation before returning the account to Cabot.
On xx I made a request under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 for a copy of the original Consumer Credit Agreement. Cabot has replied that 'there is no legal obligation for Cabot Financial Limited to provide you with the original credit agreement under section 77/78 of the CCA. I can confirm that Cabot does not and has at no time held your original signed credit agreement, nor are we required to hold this on file.' I believe that this fails to comply with the CPUTR 2008. They have said that they have no legal obligation to hold the agreement, which is in fact untrue. They do have an obligation under the CCA 1974 to have the relevant documentation to support any threat of litigation, which they have made on numerous occasions.
Under CPUTR they are not allowed to mislead and in this case they clearly are attempting to mislead.