I like this one courtesy of diddydicky, although you would need to adapt it a bit - Dear sir/madam..... .............. In your letter you claim to have fulfilled your requirements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, I strongly disagree with this claim as this is contrary to the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557): 2. Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms (1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a colour which is readily distinguishable from the . (2) The wording of any Form prescribed by these Regulations shall be reproduced in copies of unexecuted or executed agreements or in Notices of Cancellation Rights sent [by an appropriate method] under section 64(1)(b) or (2) of the Act without any alteration or addition, except that-- (a) the creditor or owner may enter the name and address of the debtor or hirer in any Cancellation Form prescribed by these Regulations; and (b) every Form shall be completed in accordance with any footnote. (3) Any such footnote shall not be treated as part of any Form prescribed by these Regulations and may be reproduced in addition to any such Form. (4) Where any such footnote requires any words to be omitted, those words shall be omitted or deleted. Furthermore in your letter you state: ‘As you will understand, our applications are filmed for ease of storage and while I agree the attached copy could be clearer, I would disagree it is completely illegible….. Unfortunately I am unable to provide a clearer copy due to the quality of the film’. I disagree with your view that the copy which you have sent me is legible. This dispute will only be resolved if you are able to provide the original consumer credit agreement with the prescribed terms and conditions, signed by me at the time the alleged agreement began. The Consumer Credit Act allows no relief from your obligation to provide easily legible copies of documents, however in order to assist you and in view of the desireability of disposing of this matter more efficiently i would suggest that you make the original agreement available for me to inspect, in the ordinary course of events it would be practice for the document to be viewed where it is, however as i am offering to assist to rectify your non compliance i feel it would be reasonable for you to stand the costs of sending this document to a local branch near to me to inspect this document. If in fact, as I suspect, you do not have possession of a properly executed and enforceable agreement then it would be the better for you to tell me so at this stage so that we can then come to some mutually acceptable conclusion to this matter. Yours faithfully, xxxxx(Print, don't sign) SH

Even though I will probably be up all night working to meet an urgent deadline I have given the defence a look over. It looks good to go to me, unless there is a PPI or significant unfair charges issue which could be included as part of the points about the need for a default notice to be accurate. The only question I would ask is with points 13 and 16 - Shouldn't Section 60(1) really be 61(1) as that is the part that specifically mentions the prescribed terms? SH

I hope that doesn't include the organists who play at Coventry Cathedral - all of their recitals are on Mondays! SH

It is a good thing that you have not heard back from Freds. The only thing I notice when reading this thread is that you have had a letter from a certain Mr. Carter, but you don't say what it said. Carter is what is commonly known as a rogue. There is no trick he will not stoop to, so you need to be aware of this and be prepared. What exactly did that letter say? SH

It is a waste of time in that the OFT don't take up individual complaints. However, we need to be achieving a weight of numbers, so every complaint helps. You can submit a complaint without charge through email, so there is no reason not to. All it takes is a bit of time, and we really owe it to the people who come along after us. SH

That is exactly right. There are plenty of examples of holding defences on the CAG site, so do some research and put something together. It is much better if you understand what you are putting together, as you will have to argue your case in court. Copying and pasting someone else's defence without understanding it is a big mistake. If you need any help, we're always here. SH

No, Rhia, it is Part 16 which deals with the statement of case, specifically Part 16.4 PART 16 - STATEMENTS OF CASE - Ministry of Justice CPR 31.16 relates to requesting disclosure of information before proceedings start. SH

This is one of the latest Crapbot gimmicks. I have seen it several times and will be making a post about it on the other thread very soon. Proving an account EXISTS is not enough. How are you supposed to determine any balance on an account purely because it exists??? Why did Francis Bennion draft the act in this way? Why was it a requirement that the prescribed terms be on the signature document? Obviously, because that is the only way a balance can be calculated on the said account. In la-la-Crapbot land we have a situation where people write cheques with "don't know" in the amount box because nobody has provided any way of establishing any amounts which might be payable. And, presumably, the banks cash them. Oh, sorry, of course. I forgot. There is always a way to determine a balance, isn't there? We owe a certain amount of money because Crapbot says so. Our lords and masters have spoken, so we MUST obey. I don't think so, pal, do you? These letters are very naughty. Crapbot are blatantly and quite openly attempting to collect money while in default of a legitimate request made pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 78(1). Everyone who gets one of these letters needs to bring it to the attention of the OFT. SH

It looks like just one of many I've seen on here - totally unenforceable with no prescribed terms - although I can't be definite as part of it is illegible, at least on this scan. No doubt they will try to CONvince you that the terms in the separate T&Cs are vaild because they are referred to in the signature document. That is rubbish of course, but they have managed to convince some people of this. Including some judges, it has to be said, although one suspects that these judges were just looking for any excuse to find in the claimant's favour, and that if that excuse hadn't been there, they would have just found another one. But no, this short application form is typical of the time for Crap One. None of the others have had the prescribed terms on them, so there is no reason to suspect that this one will have either. SH

Thanks jetbags and pmhcfc. I shall only be looking in briefly over this weekend as I've got a pretty heavy workload, but don't think I've gone away for good - I haven't. There will definitely be more to come. SH

x20, Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Directions you are referring to are for a Claimant trying to claim back unfair charges. The first paragraph and the sentence "From the moment your claim starts in the court" would suggest this. SH

Defending against Cabot litigation OK, so now we come to the big one. Cabot Financial is launching court claim after court claim, often with absolutely no paperwork to back these claims up. Yet, they are getting judgments. I would go as far as to say that Cabot would lose every single case they bring to court, IF judges would only apply the law that they are paid to uphold. The reasons I would say this are - 1) Every single Cabot claim form I have ever seen is insufficiently particularised and does not comply with CPR 16.4. They should all be struck out under CPR 3.4. But, of course, none of them ever are. 2) Every single alleged debt which has been given absolute assignment to Cabot has been accompanied by FORGED Notices of Assignment, on notepaper which is obviously not from the original creditor. All of these cases should be being thrown out as there is no compliance with the Law of Property Act 1925 s136(1) "Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor....." Of course, none of them ever are. This is before we even come on to the consideration of the CCA 1974. Of course, the vast majority of Cabot claims should fall down under s127(3) and/or the need for a compliant default notice. The need for a base defence If no-one learns from anyone else, we are all pioneers. This will put every one of as at a disadvantage when litigation starts. Although every person's case is individual, there are many common themes which occur time and again in these cases. It is vital that we learn from experience and submit as effective a defence as we possibly can. Of course, submitting a defence is only one part of the battle. It then has to be backed up by an effective performance in court which is another matter entirely. Nevertheless, let's stick for now with the subject of the defence. It seems to me that we should be able to construct a "base" defence, which will need relatively little changing for the vast majority of individual cases. SH

The main thrusts of the complaint should be 1) That they are harassing you for money without proving that any alleged debt is actually owed 2) That they are harassing a third party who would not in any case be liable for any alleged debt. SH

Reference numbers are not enough. There needs to be a specific ACCOUNT number for you to even know whether or not any alleged debt exists. Complain to the OFT, TS and directly to Aktiv Krapital. If they ever do manage to come up with an account number, then you can hit them with the SB letter. SH

What did the letter to your home address say? Did it include any kind of account number which could be used to trace an alleged debt? If you had a store card over ten years ago, then presumably you will not have made any payments nor acknowledged any alleged debt in writing during the last six years? If that is the case, any alleged debt will be barred under the Limitations Act anyway. (Just to be absolutely clear - an alleged debt is statute barred if there has been ANY period of six years where no payment or written acknowledgment has been made, it does not have to be the LAST six years) It sounds as though you are safe here in just launching the necessary complaints. SH

Thanks everybody for replying - much appreciated. I will need to read through your thread again BeauBrummie, but if enforceability is an issue in your case then Section 61(1)(a), Section 127(3) and the supporting High Court precedents are the very essence of what you must get the judge to see. If the prescribed terms are not within the four corners of the document, that is a complete defence - IF the judge follows the law and the High Court precedents which are binding. pmhcfc, I have only been on this site since September 2008, so I only know of the Cabot Fan Club from reading old posts. I had read before of threads being taken down by the Site Team, but obviously I am completely unaware of the circumstances. If dedicated people have been lost to the boards, that is very regrettable. This is one enemy which is going to need all the strength we can muster. I certainly haven't copied anything, except the case law which is in quotes. The thread was entirely my own idea. Maybe there are some lost threads which would provide useful information, but I do feel we are seeing a different Cabot now. The economic depression and the losses they have endured seem to have made them more aggressive, and yet they are using deception too effectively, and gaining court judgments in outrageous circumstances. I think we need an evolving thread which allow us to keep up to date with the current threats and current deceptions, and allow us to be more effective in the way we deal with these threats and deceptions. If anyone has any input from the past which is still relevant, I would appreciate it being posted here. Certainly, from my point of view, I would have thought the aims of this thread are totally in alignment with the aims of CAG as a whole. All I am trying to do here is raise the standard of the way we deal with recurring situations, by having people share information which can be useful to everyone. If anyone, Site Team or otherwise, sees a negative consequence, they are more than welcome to PM me. Huff&Puff, Thanks for that link - I'll have a look at it tomorrow. I had certainly been thinking along similar lines. martin g, Thanks for your post. You have certainly introduced material I had not considered or seen before. I don't expect this to be an avenue we can go down with misrepresentation of points of law, but it would be nice if I was wrong. Oh, Hi guests! A bit late to be up reading forums, isn't it? SH

The first thing you absolutely must do is get a basic account with a bank which is totally unrelated to the Nationsnide and get your income paid into there. Securing the income you currently have is always the first essential. SH

At first sight that looks an excellent base on which to build your defence. It is late now so I'll give it a more detailed look tomorrow. SH

It should be pointed out that the vast majority of opinion on the site is that Clownell are not exactly a reputable organization. It should also be pointed out that the conduct of the people holding that opinion is rather less infantile than the conduct of the one dissenter. Finally, it should be pointed out that there are quite a few links to the CAG forum on there, so the more attention it gets, the more advertising we get. Nice to see a Clownell employee doing such a good job of helping to advertise a site which helps people deal more effectively with Clownell. Thank you, and keep taking whatever it is you're on. SH

In this case I honestly cannot tell you. Their basic strategy is attrition - wearing people down with endless grinding threats. Maybe they think that you will just say "Oh, well, they must have meant to put it in there!" and start paying them! Doesn't seem very likely in a situation where you know no debt ever existed in the first place. There is, of course, always the possibility that one of the negative-IQ threat monkeys simply made a mistake. Although there are some fiendishly clever minds at Crapbot, there are still plenty of the other sort as well. With Crapbot, we always look for subterfuge at every turn. In this case, it may even genuinely be an "admin error"! SH

Hi Zooee, I have referred to your Crapbot letters on one of my threads, and given them a bit of analysis. You might like to have a look and see if you find it useful. Letters denying the truth that the prescribed terms MUST be in the signature document - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/223570-cabot-financial-dealing-cabot-2.html#post2488448 Letter threatening doorstep harassment - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/223570-cabot-financial-dealing-cabot-2.html#post2488756 Hope this helps. SH

Cabot now threatening doorstep harassment I have now seen a letter from Cabot threatening doorstep harassment, which I must admit is the first of its type that I have seen. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/216994-help-cabot.html#post2486911 What we need to know now is whether these threats are just hot air, or whether Cabot really is going to stoop to this level of behaviour. If they are, I will take it as a certain sign of desperation. Not only is it necessary to spent employee time on such harassment, it is also necessary to use fuel, and that is not cheap. Given that there are so many people who are simply not in a position to pay anything towards any alleged debt anyway, it is hardly likely to be a profitable exercise for them. Of course, there is always the possibility of "employing" desperate people on a commission-only basis. I have read of one case where another debt collection agency engaged an old age pensioner desperate to top up his meagre pension on commission-only. I can't quite believe that this is Cabot's style - it just isn't threatening enough and would make them look silly. Or, is it just bluff? Are the Cabot "External Agents" as fictitious as the Lowell "Licensed Field Agents"? Certainly, deception IS their style! One way or another, we need to know. If anybody comes across an incident of a genuine "visit" by a Cabot "External Agent", would they please alert me to it just in case I don't see it? Anyone who gets one of these obnoxious threat letters should immediately send this - http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/590-letter-used-when-a-dca-threatens-a-doorstep-visit-.html Amend it to suit if the first part isn't true. Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance 2.12(f) - visiting or threatening to visit debtors without prior agreement when the debt is deadlocked or disputed Therefore, Cabot is in violation of this guidance JUST BY THREATENING a visit - it doesn't actually have to happen. More fuel for the OFT complaints. If I DO find that Cabot is now harassing people at their own doorstep, I will post again with some further suggestions. SH

Go here - Debt Collection Industry - The Consumer Forums and click the "New Thread" button in the bottom left corner. And don't talk to these vermin on the telephone. SH

I have seen this ploy before, or at least a similar one. I am aware of a case where Crapbot claimed to have enclosed material which would "solve your dispute". There was absolutely nothing else in the envelope. Looks like more Crapbot lies to be reported to the OFT. SH

Cabot LIES pretending that the prescribed terms do NOT have to be in the SIGNATURE document Here are examples of letters sent by Cabot which illustrate perfectly how they use deception to make unenforceable agreements "enforceable", even to the extent of hoodwinking judges and getting judgments they have no right to be getting. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/216994-help-cabot.html#post2392219 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/216994-help-cabot.html#post2436408 The first letter contains the same deception that I mentioned in Post #28 above - they have quoted a PART of Section 61, conveniently leaving out the parts which don't happen to suit them. They are then referring to the irrelevant 189(4) again in support, without even bothering to say what 189(4) says. This is a very clever piece of deception, because they then go on to quote the one section of the CCA 1974 which is most damaging to them, Section 127(3), in its entirety. The reason they can do this is simple - they have already conned the victim into thinking that the prescribed terms can be set out in another document referred to by the signature document, when of course this is not the case. Having effected this deception, they can then quote Section 127(3) with impunity, as the reader already believes the LIE that the Terms and Conditions form a legitimate part of the agreement. These letters are not being written by a moron, or the usual negative-IQ DCA threat monkey. They are a very cleverly written piece of deception and deceit. Unless you are a trained litigator, these specious arguments are not easy to refute, especially before a judge with no training in Consumer Law. Sections 61(1) and 127(3) are quoted in full in Post #28 above, and their meaning is crystal clear. In support, we have the High Court precedent of Wilson v Hurstanger - "33. In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1." Also, Wilson v First County Trust - "29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and 63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order." A quote from Francis Bennion, the draftsman of the CCA 1974 - "As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97. Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn't be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I'm glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody's human rights were infringed." From Professor Goode - "It is clear that s61(1)(a) is referring to the prospective regulated agreement, so that its requirements must be fulfilled by that document and not just by another document to which it refers”: Goode, Consumer Credit Law and Practice, paras 30.102-30.103. The situation is clear enough until it is clouded by the Cabot smokescreen. I would suggest that if anyone receives letters of the type linked to here, they should be complaining to someone in authority at Cabot, pointing out EXACTLY why the letters they have been sent are misleading, and also pointing out the weight of evidence in favour of the truth as seen above. After all, these are the very same truths of which you will probably one day have to convince a judge. Of course, a complaint should also go to the Office of Fair Trading, whose Debt Collection Guidance states - 2.1 It is unfair to communicate, in whatever form, with consumers in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner. If you compare the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the High Court precedents which reinforce it, and the opinions of the two most highly regarded authorities on the subject, with the Cabot lies, I don't think it is difficult to work out where Cabot have been INACCURATE and MISLEADING. Let's see these complaints mounting up. SH