Note the wording - 'In light of the above, Cabot is of the opinion that you have been provided sufficient evidence that the account exists' Was anybody ever disputing that the account existed? What is in question is whether an agreement containing all the prescribed terms and therefore compliant with Section 61(1)(a) exists. Without such a document, the account is unenforceable at law. There is no connection between proving that an account exists, which they may or may not have done, and proving that it is enforceable at law. Monty Python's dead parrot existed, but it was still an ex-parrot. SH

I am really sorry to hear this as it is beyond even the moronic behaviour we are used to on here. Make sure you go through the Hellifax complaints procedure as well as they are responsible for the actions of the thugs they set on you. SH

If you and your parents can club together and raise the money, I would strongly recommend getting a trueCall - it will have uses beyond just dealing with these creeps. It gives you complete control over your telephone line. You can then decide whether to just zap these jerks away, or engage them in some "interesting" conversation which can then be recorded and reported. trueCall can even record calls from the start if you press the record button later in the call - ingenious! Have you sent the doorstep harassment letter yet? If not, do so now and keep a record of it. Debt collectors don't have "officers", only desperate idiots chasing a commission who have no more rights to harass you than the refuse collector. I even heard of one case where a DCA employed a poor old age pensioner who was desperate to top up his meagre income. He was on commission only, so probably ended up with bugger all apart from insults, abuse and threats of bodily harm if he didn't disappear rather quickly. He was just as much a victim of these vile organizations as the people they harass. Even if these arsewipes got you into court and got judgment, the court could only award minimal token payments given the situation you are in. Unenforceability issues may help with the CC and the loan, but they won't help with the overdraft. If you are ill and on income support, and have no assets, I would seriously think about a Debt Relief Order. SH

That makes their letter extremely reprehensible as the alleged agreement will be regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Are they actually demanding money or is that the full text of the letter? SH

Well, now that is a new one from Crapbot as far as I know. Does this relate to an account which was opened before April 2007? SH

Go here - Debt Collection Industry - The Consumer Forums Look at the bottom left corner of the listed threads, you will find the "New Thread" button. Click that, type in your heading, and make your post. In time, you will need to start a new thread for each of these alleged debts, but for now just start one to get some initial advice. SH

Yes, send the original letter (take a copy for your own file if you don't already have one) and the PO back to them, with a letter pointing out that the selling on of an account does not affect their duties under the Data Protection Act 1998. Although you are entitled to see everything they hold on you, it is better if the letter specifically mentions anything which is important. Here is a link to a good letter - http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/576-subject-access-request-debt-a-dca.html Also, make sure you make it clear to them that the ORIGINAL timescale still applies - 40 days from the FIRST letter. SH

Looks like Paragoon know they've got something to hide. Keep that letter as evidence that they are refusing to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. While Transcon remain in default of your CCA request, you need not worry about having to pay out more money. 1) Write back to Paragoon reminding them that selling an account on has no relevance to their obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Tell them that the 40 days they have to comply started when they received your SAR and that this timescale still applies. 2) Get ready to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office about non-compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998, even though they are widely regarded as being useless. 3) Get ready to issue court papers against Paragoon. Have a look here - Data Protection Act: Non-Compliance - Consumer Wiki What are they hiding, I wonder? SH

Notts, Remember these - CCA 1974 Section 61(1) 61.—(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless (a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and (b)the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and © the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible. Section 127(3) (3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). Relevant High Court case law - Wilson & Anor v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 (04 April 2007) Wilson & Ors v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40 (10 July 2003) Dimond v. Lovell [2000] UKHL 27; [2000] 2 All ER 897; [2000] 2 WLR 1121 (11th May, 2000) Fingers crossed for you. SH

The next step is to start preparing your defence. Have a read of as many threads as you can find about default notices, and also read through Woodchester v Swayne. This is going to be the most important part of your defence. SH

There is just one thing here which is definitely wrong, and that is saying you will complain to the FOS. Had you said the OFT, it would have been right. The FOS won't look at any complaint unless the alleged creditor has given a final response, and they never take cases based on unenforceability anyway. They always say that is for the courts to decide. The OFT don't look into individual complaints but they do keep them on record so it is important to make them aware of what is happening. I notice there are other issues here with the balance remaining ridiculously high despite your making continued payments. There may be something in this which you could take to the FOS. It is worth trying to do as it does relieve Crapbot of £500 whatever the FOS decides. SH

Only to the extent that you are gifting monies to an undeserving organization. It has no effect on the alleged debt being statute barred. Once a debt is statute barred, it will always be statute barred. There only has to be a clear period of six years somewhere in the account's history - it does not have to be the last six years. SH

If you were paying these idiots £100 a month you must have a reasonable income. Spend the next £100 on something useful instead, namely the trueCall recorder. CAG has a special offer where you can buy the basic machine and they will give you the recorder card. Then, it is up to you. You can either block the idiots and get some peace or you can engage them on the telephone and record all of the conversations. Your choice entirely. SH

Hi Scotty and welcome to the CAG. Has there definitely been a period of six consecutive years during which you neither made a payment nor acknowledged the alleged debt in writing? (Assuming you are in England or Wales - substitute "five" for "six" if you are in Scotland) SH

This is the usual drivel and lies they quote on every letter, except in this case they haven't even mentioned the relevant Section 127(3). Their quote from s61(1) is not complete - they have conveniently missed important words out. Have a look at this post, and the following one - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/223570-cabot-financial-dealing-cabot-2.html#post2479594 Ashmk is perfectly correct in stating that Crapbot will never agree with obvious facts, and will continue to send out threat letters full of deception and lies in an attempt to wear you down. The only grey area is how you counter such behaviour. Ignoring them is certainly the cheapest way, but it is important not to give them any initiative in court. If you are going to ignore them, I feel it is important to write a detailed letter outlining the facts, quoting the CCA 1974 S61(1) and S127(3) in full, pointing out where they have tried to blatantly deceive, and making it clear that that is your final response. Then, you will be able to show the relevant letters to the court, and prove that you have been more than reasonable in responding to them. SH

This is just the typical Crapbot behaviour. They will just blatantly deny the most obvious of realities in order to try to extract money under false pretences. Can you scan in any letter they have sent you where they claim this is enforceable? I would love to see what their “reasoning” is for this one! SH

Here is a possible letter to send them if you are just looking for a quick template - http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/582-possible-letter-when-a-questionable-agreementapplication-is-sent You will need to change the word "yourselves" to "Providian" in the first paragraph, and there is a typo in the last line - "an" should be "any". SH

Welcome to the Crapbot merrygoround. The pre-contractual application form doesn't have anything resembling prescribed terms on it, so it is completely unenforceable. Read CCA 1974 Section 61(1)(a) and Section 127(3) for the relevant legislation. Of course, getting some of the judges in our county courts to follow the law is another matter altogether. If Providian no longer exists, Crapbot must have bought the alleged debt from someone. Didn't you get the usual fake NoA? SH

Even more blatant is the claim based on Section 127(3) that "You shall note from this section of the Act, that the Court take into account if the debtor has suffered any prejudice by the contravention in question. Therefore, if this credit agreement had been improperly executed, we would argue that you have suffered no prejudice as a result of its execution." You will notice that Cabot refrain from quoting directly from the Act here. I wonder why..... Here is what Section 127 REALLY says - 127.—(1) In the case of an application for an enforcement order under— (a) section 65(1) (improperly executed agreements), or (b) section 105(7)(a) or (b) (improperly executed security instruments), or © section 111(2) (failure to serve copy of notice on surety), or (d) section 124(1) or (2) (taking of negotiable instrument in contravention of section 123), the court shall dismiss the application if, but (subject to subsections (3) and (4)) only if, it considers it just to do so having regard to— (i) prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question, and the degree of culpability for it; and (ii) the powers conferred on the court by subsection (2) and sections 135 and 136. (2) If it appears to the court just to do so, it may in an enforcement order reduce or discharge any sum payable by the debtor or hirer, or any surety, so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention in question. (3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). (4) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) in the case of a cancellable agreement if— (a) a provision of section 62 or 63 was not complied with, and the creditor or owner did not give a copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document referred to in it, to the debtor or hirer before the commencement of the proceedings in which the order is sought. or (b) section 64(1) was not complied with. (5) Where an enforcement order is made in a case to which subsection (3) applies, the order may direct that the regulated agreement is to have effect as if it did not include a term omitted from the document signed by the debtor or hirer. As you can see, any references to prejudice are contained in Section 127(1) where the Court has discretionary powers. There is no mention whatsoever of prejudice in Section 127(3), which is mandatory on the Court, and not permissive. This amounts to nothing more than a blatant lie by Cabot. They are not quoting from the Act because they are fully aware that the drivel they are quoting belongs to a different section from the relevant one. The truth is simple enough. If an agreement is regulated under the CCA 1974, and it does not contain the prescribed terms within the four corners of the agreement, it IS unenforceable. The problem is that the truth is being concealed within a Cabot smokescreen, and lay people and judges alike are being conned and misled by Cabot's rather crude use of smoke and mirrors. I would suggest that every time someone gets one of these letters, they write to Cabot outlining the truth. Quote the relevant sections of the Act in their entirety - something Cabot would not have the guts to do. If they did, the smoke cloud would lift, and everyone, including a judge, could see the obvious truth very clearly indeed. One day, it may indeed be a judge who gets to see these letters. SH

"Prejudice" and "Embody" smokescreens In the threat letters which Cabot Financial is sending out to alleged debtors, we are seeing repeated deception based on these two factors. Firstly, the word "embody" is being misused to try to deceive the alleged debtor into believing that the prescribed terms do NOT have to be within the four corners of the document, but can be referred to in another document. What Cabot do is quote a PART of Section 61 - A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless (a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor.... (b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms.... and then completely misquote Section 189(4) in supposed support - "A document embodies a provision if the provision is set out either in the document itself or in another document referred to in it." The REALITY is that Section 61(1) states - A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless (a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and (b)the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and © the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible. Note the subtle difference. Have a look at part a), and you will see that Cabot have craftily omitted the end, specifically the word "and". Such a simple little word, but so significant. Note the REAL Section 61(1) states a) AND b) AND c). I don't know if you are familiar with Boolean mathematics, but the operand AND requires ALL conditions to be true before returning a value of 1. So, 1 AND 1 AND 0 would return 0 because not all conditions have been met. The use of the word "and" in language has the same meaning. In other words, for a regulated agreement to be properly executed, ALL THREE CONDITIONS must be met. Condition a), which must be met, could scarcely be more explicit - "a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms" If you read the entire Section 61(1) as I have quoted it above, it is impossible to understand how anyone could consider that the prescribed terms can be in another document. The word "embody" clearly has no such meaning. We need to be questioning Cabot every time we get one of these silly letters.

GRRRR sorry about that - I don't know how on Earth I didn't see it. I will have a full read through that because I think it is an important thread. As for pt2537, I know his time is extremely valuable and much sought after. If he puts in an appearance it will be an honour, but I won't be expecting it. We certainly need to be getting our defences as strong as possible as they are being challenged - even to the point of trying to get Summary Judgment when they've got nothing but an appo form with no prescribed terms. I will be making quite a few posts about defences in the coming weeks. SH

That is exactly right. Browse through the forums and you'll find plenty of examples of holding defences. It shouldn't be too difficult to adapt one to suit your circumstances. One factor I am picking up on is the need to include the paragraph stating that CCA 1974 and not the CCA 2006 is the relevant act very close to the top of the defence. There are far too many judges content to ignore unenforcability issues when the High Court case law is binding upon them. Just a personal opinion. SH

I also notice that they are estimating membership at between 20,000 and 25,000. According to the site itself the current figure is 236,893. Quite a difference. SH

Thank you everybody for replying to this thread. I will try to answer everybody's points. Cymruambyth, I think the best thing would be if anyone who has anything which they think could be significant to other people, for them to post a complete post so the information is easily found in one place. If anyone else is in a similar situation, they should just post with a link to their own case so people can follow it if they want to. Thanks for mentioning Brent-London. I read one of his threads a couple of weeks ago and came to the same conclusion you did. He would be a very valuable contributor. BeauBrummie, can you please post a link to your thread so people can easily find it, as I think there is a lot going on there which is highly significant. As we can see, Cabot is going to court in cases where they could not possibly succeed if the law was applied properly - s127(3) of the CCA 1974 and the supporting High Court precedents are binding on the lower courts. They are obviously relying on judges not applying the law, and, as we all know, that is happening far too often. Stephan56, your posts are excellent and raise some very important points. The biggest worry of all is that they are succeeding with claims based on statute barred debts. That is why it is beginning to look as though they own the court system. The lack of a compliant agreement, which should be a complete defence in itself for anything regulated by the CCA 1974, seems to be being just ignored by the courts. It almost seems as though the courts are saying "s127(3) has been repealed, so we might as well just ignore it now even in cases where it still applies." The matter of who they go after in court is an interesting one. I have seen a couple of threads on these boards where they have just continued to send out threat letters for over a year, and even offer discounts for full and final settlement. As far as I can see there is nothing which marks these cases out as different, except that it was obvious that the two alleged debtors were married women with low incomes. It wasn't even possible to ascertain from the thread whether they owned a share in any property or not. I have certainly seen cases where Howard Cohen and Bryan Carter have launched claims against people who were living on benefits and had no assets whatsoever. Even if they did get judgment and get awarded £1 a month, the alleged debtor can now move straight for a Debt Relief Order and wipe even that out. Cohen and Carter are not Cabot, though. I will certainly be keeping some statistics based on the Cabot cases which come on here, to see if any pattern does emerge. I have noticed that the people who have not been taken to court have kept replying to the Cabot threat letters. Still, the situation is strange, because it must be obvious to Cabot that they have no chance of getting a single penny unless they do litigate, yet the longer the cases drag on the greater the chance there is of a report going to the FOS costing them money. I agree totally about the need to keep bombarding the authorities with complaints, so long as they are genuine and not manufactured for the sake of numbers. We don't want to get the authorities angry with us. One thing I would like to know is exactly what the trigger is for the OFT to launch an immediate investigation. I believe it is based on weight of numbers, but I can't find the exact figures. There may be a case for coordinating valid complaints so more of them arrive in the same month. FOS complaints also need to be analysed, because they cost Cabot money whatever the result. We need to find a clear pattern of what the FOS will investigate and what they will not. We already know that they are not interested in enforceability and leave that to the courts. The issue of Cabot's "professionalism" is an interesting one. As you say, they are making an effort to appear professional, yet anyone who looks deeper than the surface will find the exact opposite. Look at the pathetic PoC on every Cabot court form. Why do they do this? If the courts actually followed the CPR, every Cabot claim would get struck out as an abuse of process because it declares no cause for action, yet that never happens. Cabot know this and play on it, making the PoC as skinny as possible to limit the information the defendant can request under CPR 31.14. It looks unprofessional, but they clearly know what works and what doesn't. They know which parts of the law are always just ignored, even by the judges who are paid to uphold it. Similarly, with Notices of Assignment. There can be nothing less professional than a blatantly forged NoA on poorly created fake headed notepaper. Yet, as the courts totally ignore the Law of Property Act 1925, there is no reason for Cabot to attempt to comply with it. The letters which are sent to alleged debtors are another case of being professional when it suits them, and not when it doesn't. Blatantly misquoting the CCA 1974, and quoting from the wrong parts of the Act, is not professional, it is just deceit. I have taken the position that when this happens it is necessary to write directly to the executive office pointing out exactly where their staff are being deceitful. These letters may well end up in front of a judge. That's a long post so I'll leave it there. I'm sure there will be more to come. SH

It shouldn't be. If this was a new agreement signed in 2008 it would be regulated under CCA 2006, no matter what the loaned amount would be used for. SH