these do not sound like the sort of people I want to deal with!

You are better off dealing with this sort of "people" than competent ones.

SH

The information from Silverfox is extremely useful, because it suggests that it is highly unlikely that an agreement, compliant or otherwise, will turn up for this alleged account.

However, I would suggest that sending any kind of request for information to Citi would be a waste of time and money.

If you make a CCA request to Crapbot, then Crapbot are in default of it once the 12+2 days expire. At that point, you are within your rights to stop paying them. They will only be entitled to demand payment again IF they produce a COMPLIANT agreement, which appears extremely unlikely.

This one letter will probably solve your problem, but it MUST be sent to CRAPBOT.

Send it recorded delivery, don't sign it (whatever you do don't sign it as this is a case where they have a genuine incentive to get hold of your signature), and send it with a £1 postal order.

SH

I can t belive how many folk on here have dealings with this lot and none of it good.thats very worrying.

Although there have been some recent court verdicts which beggar belief, there are also plenty of people who have successfully stood up to this shower and seen them off. You have a good chance of doing the same if you follow the right procedures.

1. Take their little telephone toy away from them so that everything needs to be put into writing.

2. Request a copy of the CCA for this alleged account which is extremely unlikely to exist.

3. Respond only to that which needs responding to, but respond forcefully. Where they are lying and misquoting the law, point it out to them.

Crapbot are a total pain, but the pain can be reduced if you handle them properly.

SH

Do not be stressed by letters which only serve to illustrate how useless Ruthbish are and how little information they have. It is their money they are wasting by sending these phishing expeditions and not yours.

Eventually you will be able to forward these to the OFT, whose guidance states -

2.8

Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a.

sending demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that

they are the debtor in question, for example, threatening debt recovery

action to 'the occupier' or sending a payment demand to all people sharing the same name/date of birth as a debtor in the hope that contact with the correct debtor will be made.

You could complain now, but I wouldn't. As you say there is a possibility that you have an alleged debt somewhere which is approaching statute barred status, I would do as little as possible for now. There will be a more propitious time in the future to turn the tables on Ruthbish.

SH

1. if I carry on paying them the same amount every month they can't/won't take me to court?

Incorrect. They can take you to court any time they feel like it whether you pay them anything or not. Which is as good an argument as any to spend your money on something useful instead.

2. if they send paperwork asking me to give them infomation regarding income I don't have to?

You are obliged to give them absolutely nothing and certainly you should not do so. What conceivable benefit can there be to you to give them information?

3. Do I have to by law give them a phone number to contact me?

No, double no, and treble no. They have no right whatsoever to any contact details or any other information. Do NOT allow the cretins to abuse you on their favourite toy.

I strongly advise you to make that CCA request as soon as possible. Only when Crapbot are in default of this can you legitimately stop paying them.

What is the worst case scenario here? They produce an enforceable agreement, and you end up in court. The judge takes a look at your income and expenditure and awards a monthly payment that you can afford to pay.

Even that worst case scenario is better than trying to satisfy Crapbot thugs who will always be trying to suck more blood out of you.

SH

My advice would be to write "not known at this address" on the envelope and put it back in the red box.

You can worry about prove it letters and statute barring if the cretins ever manage to contact the right person at the right address.

SH

Thanks for the welcome SH,

 

Everyone has been great to me and its much appreciated.

Cabot might find it a little hard to contact me by phone now as I binned the simm card they had the number for,done that earlier when i realized i was stupid to call them in the first place! I wish I had known about this site before, maybe I wouldn t be still dealing with these scare-mongers after all these years.

Ah! I hadn't realised it was a cell phone they had called you on! Serves me right for being old-fashioned!

I thought they had your parents' home number. If they haven't, so much the better, although the trueCall is still highly recommended if you all want some peace and quiet.

Keep going, you're doing really well.

SH

Hi trinity, and welcome to the CAG.

You have been getting some excellent advice from my esteemed colleagues.

For information on Crapbot and how they operate, read this thread -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/223570-cabot-financial-dealing-cabot.html

If they have your telephone number, they will definitely continue to abuse it relentlessly. If you live with your parents, could the three of you not club together and buy a trueCall? It really is the best solution as it will not only eliminate Crapbot's nuisance calls but any others as well. See here -

The Consumer Forums - TrueCall digital telephone recorder - the Rolls Royce of call recorders

The first step after that, or in conjunction with that, is to request a copy of the agreement as per Pinky69's post. That will at least shut them up for a bit and give you some breathing space.

Finally, stop worrying about bailiffs. As Pinky says, they can only be sent by the court if you have a county court judgment against you, and you default on the ordered payments. You are a very long way from that.

SH

This dross isn't even legible.

By Crapbot's standards, this is one truly pathetic letter. What the something does this mean - "Please be advised, a credit agreement (account) in your has been assigned from CO to Cabot"?

In your what? 'arris?

I assume the missing word is supposed to be "name". What on earth would that prove even if it were true?

Many accounts are assigned from Crap One to Crapbot without any agreement existing. Usually, there is just a pre-contractual application form devoid of the prescribed terms. The very fact that one of the most deceitful and underhanded of all DCAs is prepared to concede that your "account" is on hold proves that they know they need more than this.

Send the letter given by Cerberusalert and see what drivel they come up with next.

I just have one note of caution regarding that letter - in the last paragraph it states "the default notice is non-compliant". Do we know that this is definitely the case here? If not, I would leave that part out as the current argument is over the agreement. If you don't have the default notice, I would SAR Crap One and try to get it. Crap One hardly ever get any paperwork right, and an invalid default notice may well be useful later on. If it did happen to come back compliant, the lack of an enforceable agreement would still constitute a complete defence.

SH

If these cretins are addressing letters to 'The Occupier', they clearly don't have a lot of information on you, do they?

Definitely IGNORE anything which is not addressed to you personally. If anything comes addressed to the previous tenant, just write "not known at this address" on the envelope and put it back in the red box.

Ruthbish are right at the bottom of the DCA food chain. They get the rubbish the others won't touch. They are extremely aggressive and rude on the telephone, because they know that such bullying is the only way they can ever get money out of people. Do NOT engage them on the telephone. EVER.

Bailiffs would be able to take YOUR possessions if you were taken to court, lost your case, and then failed to maintain the payments ordered by the court. Even in that case, they would NOT be able to take anyone else's possessions.

Your reluctance to get a credit check shows that you have a good understanding of how the system operates. You are very wise to think like this.

The old skeletons are best left in the cupboard unless they decide to emerge by themselves.

Try not to be made sick by Ruthbish. There is not the slightest shred of evidence that they have any information on you which represents a danger.

There is no need to reveal to your housemate that there may have been alleged debts in your past. As the letters are addressed to "The Occupier", they could easily be intended for the previous tenants.

SH

What you should do in the overall situation you are in now depends on many different factors. To give any sensible advice, we would need to know a lot more than you have told us here.

Be careful with the CAB. They don't always give the greatest of advice although they are a genuine organization and do try. Too often, they operate from the position that whatever a big, bad financial institution says must be right, when we all know that all too often it isn't.

On to the specifics. How you handle threats to your communications security depends on your resources and your objectives. If you receive nuisance calls from any religious, political or commercial organization, I recommend that you follow the procedure in the British Telecom Phone Book. Do not even dignify the **** with a response of any sort. When Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, he intended it to be used by human beings.

To stop the nuisance completely, I recommend you get hold of a trueCall. If that is outside of your price range, or if the telephone is not important enough to you for you to spend this money, there are other solutions. You can leave the plug pulled out of the wall, treat your landline as a throwaway number, and get a Skype number for your private communications. Or, if you are like me and absolutely never receive anything other than nuisance calls, you can just remove the plug and forget about it.

Doorstep harassment is another issue where the best procedure is to ignore the cretins completely. It is their fuel and time they are wasting. By all means send them the 'doorstep harassment' letter from the template library first.

How you should handle an actual visit depends on what security systems you have in place. Do you have CCTV? Do you have any monitoring equipment? Do you have a video camera or a cell phone which can record short video clips? Do you have a window through which you can shout to a personal caller?

In 99% of cases, these pests are relatively harmless. Once you tell them to disappear, they do. I have only ever said two words to doorstep pests in my life, and the second one was "off". The dickhead then stood outside the door writing on a piece of paper for a few minutes before inserting it through my letterbox. I simply wrote on the piece of paper - "Your operative appears to have dropped his litter through my letterbox", and sent it back to them in one of their prepaid envelopes.

It does have to be mentioned that there has been one incident reported on this forum recently where a thug did go way over the top, and actually violated the property rights of the alleged debtor. It is best if any "communication" occurs without you actually opening the door, if any occurs at all. Although there are no problems in the vast majority of cases, it is prudent to be as safety minded as possible.

You could deal with these cretins in the same way I dealt with the nuisance door-to-door salesmen who used to irritate this neighbourhood a few years ago. The first thing I did was go on to the Internet and find a very expensive affiliate program for a business course. The one I chose was a Forex trading course costing $997 a month! I signed up to the affiliate network, which is free, and then set up a website using a free hosting provider.

I then put up a sign on my door saying "Fed Up With Being A Door-To-Door Salesidiot And Being Ignored Like This? Visit to see how you can earn a fortune sitting at home in your pyjamas, and not have to deal with miserable residents like us!"

Next, I got an old stereo speaker and positioned it just inside my front door. As soon as one of the sales idiots knocked on my door, I would turn the message on, rather loudly. In my best fake American accent - "Fed Up With Being A Door-To-Door Salesidiot, And Being Ignored Like This....."

They never got to sell to me, but I sure as hell got to sell to them. It's just a shame none of the buggers ever bought the affiliate offer!

SH

The link to the McGuffick case is here -

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/mcguffick-v-rbs.pdf

The significant part here is part 3, just under the heading "The essential facts."

It says -

"On 3 October 2005, the claimant entered into a fixed-sum regulated loan agreement

with the bank under which the claimant received credit in the sum of £17,034. The

total amount to be repaid was £20,781 in 60 monthly instalments of £346.35. It is not

suggested by the claimant that the agreement was in any way improperly executed, so

that sections 61, 65 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are not directly in issue."

So, there you have it.

The "judge" in the BeauBrummie case has introduced, purely of his own volition, a case in which, according to the The Honourable Mr Justice Flaux, "sections 61, 65 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are not directly in issue."

As these sections are the very crux on which the BeauBrummie case rested, the "judge" has blatantly misdirected himself.

If there has ever been a clearer case for an appeal, I have never seen it.

SH

There have been two significant events in (fairly) recent times, which have changed the situation somewhat.

The CCA 2006 has, as dannyboy660 correctly points out, repealed Section 127(3 - 5) of the CCA 1974. This was NOT retrospective, however. Agreements signed before 6th April 2007 are still covered by the CCA 1974, and Section 127 (3 - 5) STILL APPLIES.

The other incident, and the one I suspect your "friends" in Watford are referring to, is the recent McGuffick case, which can be found here.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/mcguffick-v-rbs.pdf

Note in particular point 3, under "The Essential Facts", which states -

"It is not suggested by the claimant (who was McGuffick and not the bank - SH) that the agreement was in any way improperly executed, so that sections 61, 65 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are not directly in issue."

In other words, the McGuffick case has no relevance whatsoever to unenforceability.

If you have a pre-April 2007 agreement, and it is improperly executed, everything remains exactly as before.

This also illustrates why you should not engage these idiots on the telephone. Use the damn thing as a doorstop which is all it is good for.

SH

My brain is not on today. Can someone remind me of the differences between pre and post CCA 2006. And am I correct in thinking that they are still in default as they haven't responded within the 12+2 working days.

Yes, they are still in default at the same stage. The main difference with the CCA 2006 is the repeal of section 127(3 - 5). The courts will now have "discretion" over declaring agreements unenforceable.

SH

Indeed, it will be covered by the CCA, but which version will depend on exactly how early in 2007 it was taken out.

The CCA 2006 covers anything taken out after 6 April 2007.

SH

Well had a letter from Cabot today stateing they have now closed the accounts and classed them as unrecoverable. After all the worry, the letters, the phonecalls , the threats, what a simple ending . We must thank everyone for their help especialy SCAB HUNTER & ANGRY CAT. We never reached or could prove where the information Cabot had come from so a bit frustrating that. Also we could not get to the consequence of us receiving letters from Cabot just after a morgage application, it does seem personal information is being filtered out by an unknown and this being passed to another party (india ?} but we will never know. I did suggest this to Cabot , is it again coincidence they have now closed the accounts. Anyway, I think this thread is to its conclusion now .

Isn't it just "coincidence" that they hoist the white flag right at the time you appear to have rumbled their nasty little game?

I still think it is worth drawing to the attention of the regulatory authorities the fact that Crapbot have a credit card agreement with your "signature" on, when you have never in fact owned a credit card. The "circumstances" which have been mentioned in above posts also make interesting reading.

It is up to you, of course, but I would at least let the authorities know.

Congratulations on standing up to them, anyway.

Keep that letter safe in case another DCA crawls from under a rock sometime in the future.

I totally agree with that advice. Crapbot are lower than a snake's belly and with considerably fewer morals. It would hardly be surprising if they sold this turkey on to one of their fellow rabble.

SH

So, they've passed it to the monkey on the opposite desk.

dRED is presumably so named because RED is the colour of DANGER!!! They aim to FRIGHTEN YOU into submission!! Just like Crapbot who have now copied this idea with their alter-ego FIRE (Further Irrelevant Rubbish Emitted). Pay us MONEY or you will BURN IN HELL!!!!!

The truth, of course, is that a full and final settlement offer is usually a good sign. If they had compliant paperwork and could get judgment for the full amount, why would they settle for less? They are hardly renowned for their generosity.

If you want to accept their generous offer, here is my template from last year -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/104668-cabot-windywoo-4.html#post1813490

SH

I don't really think it is good or bad news, it is just what you expect from Crapbot.

They try it on all the time with inflated costs figures trying to frighten people. They've still got to get judgment with a total lack of paperwork.

SH

That AQ looks completely normal and is exactly what I would expect. The only question is over the very high figure for costs, as this is something Crapbot always use as a weapon in cases which are due to go fast track.

I have seen cases where Crapbot have brought in lawyers, had them stay in the town's poshest and most expensive hotel, and then add this as a legitimate "cost" of fighting the case. I have seen the judge award these costs as well, even in cases which should have been thrown out before they even got to trial as there was nothing more than an unenforceable application form.

The system is corrupt and judges are completely ignoring the law. But then I don't need to tell you that anyway.

SH

I would be very interested to know this myself.

What I am trying to do is form an overview of how Crapbot decide when to litigate, and when to just bombard the alleged debtor with scary letters, culminating in a barrage of paper from FIRE (Further Irrelevant Rubbish Emitted). They must have an "algorithm" somewhere which they use to decide.

Logic would suggest that the algorithm would depend on both the chances of success in court, and the amount of assets owned by the debtor. Certainly, there are other debt collectors who ignore this logic completely. I have seen two recent threads where Coward Hohen, for example, has gone to court against people who were unemployed and owned no property. In both cases, the agreement was unenforceable.

It is hard to see what sense this makes, when you bear in mind that an unenforceable application form should result in the case being thrown out. So, a certain percentage of cases must be lost. When you add up the gains from the percentage which is won, it is hard to see how they can compensate for the losers. The court can only award nominal token payments from someone who is on benefits, and even in that case the losing defendant now has the option of a debt relief order which can wipe the liability out anyway. It is now more dangerous for a debt collector to sue a pauper - they can win and still end up losing.

Crapbot are usually much cleverer than this, and most of the recent cases I have seen have been brought against property owners.

But back to the original question, I have yet to hear about any Crapbot or FIRE agents actually polluting anyone's doorstep, and I believe they are as fictitious as the Clownell "Licensed Field Agents".

As long as it only involves the price of sending a letter, I think Crapbot are happy to threaten from a distance. If they think they have a chance in court, they are far more likely to spend money issuing proceedings than they are to spend it on fuel sending idiots to someone's home just to be told to bugger off.

I may be wrong, but I would be surprised if these people actually exist.

SH

A termination notice can only legally be served AFTER a default notice. The default notice needs to tell you what to do to correct any breach, and, if you do not correct it, they can terminate the account.

If they have sent you a termination notice BEFORE you received any default notice, then they have shot themselves in the foot. They will only be entitled to claim the arrears and no longer the full balance.

An account can only ever be terminated once. Once this has happened, it is no longer an account. It has passed on and gone to meet its maker. It is an EX-ACCOUNT!

Keep those letters very safe as they may come in useful one day.

SH

Please try not to be terrified. From what I read on here, it is just going to be a hearing to decide the track. That is reasonable as the amount is very close to the limit.

I think you are worrying unnecessarily about not filling in the AQ properly. Some of your answers are not the ones I would have given but I don't think there will be any serious consequences.

The judge actually mentions the particulars of claim, so he may be thinking more that Coward Hohen has done something wrong than you.

If anything does happen to take things beyond the stage of allocating the case to a track, I would definitely request an adjournment as this was not supposed to happen. However, I do agree with CitizenB about having three copies of that defence. The belt, braces, and elasticated trousers approach never did anybody any harm.

Whatever happens, be calm, be polite, but argue your points forcefully. I hope everything goes well for you.

SH

Other information looks good.

Get other opinions, though. It's a shame there is not a lot of background information before the claim was issued.

SH

The Claimant shall within 14 days of service of this order file and serve the following:

* Copies of the Credit Agreement and any documents referred to within it which complies with the consumer Credit Act 1974 and all subsequent regulations, which the claimant seeks to rely upon. The original documents must be brought to the hearing.

* Default Notice compliant with s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 andConsumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) as amended

* Document, contract or deed of assignment

* Notice of assignment, with proof of service of the same compliant with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

* Copies of any statement or other document relied upon

If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order.

The Defendant shall, in response, file and serve the following

* An amended defence sufficiently particularised in response to the documents supplied by the claimant

The original documents need to be brought to the hearing

I have removed the 14 day stipulation as there is no point imposing that on yourself. Let the judge set the timescales.

SH

Never let it be said that I am not a benevolent character.

I am even prepared to come here and help Notts out on the very day his naffing football team comes to Selhurst Park and goes away with a point. Mind you, they must be one hell of an amazing team to manage that.

We'll just have to stuff them in the Premier League next season.

Anyway, back on topic.

A - Settlement

1 - I would say 'Yes' to this just to show willing. It also avoids the need to answer question 4.

2 - Yes (sort of leads onfrom question 1 really)

3 - No (you have to answer no to this to avoid a fee. There are plenty of other ways to try to settle out of court)

4 - Leave Blank

B - Location of Trial

No (It has already been transferred)

C - Pre - Action Protocols

I would answer 'No', and then write in the box - "Please see attached Section C"

Then, on another piece of paper I would write -

"This case is not covered by any approved protocol. However, I have tried to act reasonably in exchanging information and documents relevant to the claim, but the claimant has been unco-operative.

On the **DATE** I wrote to the claimant requesting information pursuant to the CPR Part 31.14, in order that I could investigate their Particulars of Claim, and file a suitable defence. A copy of the letter, together with proof of delivery, is attached to the form.

Despite CPR 31.15© stating that the claimant must supply a copy of the documents within 7 days, the claimant has ignored my legitimate request."

Attach this piece of paper, a copy of your CPR 31.14 request, and proof of delivery, to the AQ form.

D - Case Management Information

What amount of the claim is in dispute? - Enter the full amount being claimed

Applications - No

Witness name - Your own

Witness to which facts - All

Experts - No to the first question, leave the rest blank

Track - Fast Track

Leave blank (Fast track is normal for £11k)

E - Trial or Final Hearing

How Long - 2 hours

Only you know whether there are any dates you can't be there, so fill that in accordingly

F - Proposed Directions

Yes

No

G - Costs

Leave blank (unless you are going to engage a solicitor)

H - Fee

Leave blank (not payable by defendant)

I - Other Information

Yes

Yes

Sent today

No (unless you intend to make an application based on their non-compliance with CPR 31.14)

Leave blank (again, unless you intend to make an application based on their non-compliance with CPR 31.14)

That is how I would fill out the form. I will now look at the Draft Order for Directions and the Other Information

SH