Hi Steve, I issued a s78 and they did not send a copy of the T&C just hold a copy of the application dated 2000. The other two come with application/confirmation form and original T&C 1996/2001. I've read so much about the auditing and enforcement of the s61/65, but everything seems to be so contradictory. I thought that the T&C had to have the name and address at the time, plus a cancellation form for starters to be enforceable - but, from what you say, auditing is simply a waste of time whether they are legally unenforceable or not as the courts a re more likely to come down on the side of the creditor. Re: Prescribed terms are given in schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 - I've just had a look and it is hard to make sense of in essence they could be unenforceable, but it's the take on the judge. On your unenforceable page on... Summary 2. An agreement that is not properly executed and was signed before 2006 is not enforceable unless it has the debtor's signature and the prescribed terms in the same document. 3. The enforceability of an agreement that is not properly executed, signed after 6 April 2007 and not having the debtor's signature and the prescribed terms in the same document may not be enforceable but it's enforceability has to be argued on a case-by-case basis (you cannot use section 127(3)). What advice would you give as a course of action? is it worth looking at the T&C at all? Regards, SSS

Hi All... Have just received an encrypted CD SAR from Cabot. I was worried as to how much they would go into, but am surprised that it's less that I thought. They have not provided as requested copies of recordings and transcripts there of - but have very vague notes written down about the conversation. The main defence was going to be Statute Barred - In the initital trapping on the phone I agreed to let them take £10 from a Monument Card. But I don't remember and they don't have the records of the conversation to prove that I gave them permission to take £10 from each of two accounts. There a re some vague emails and am not sure if I fully hang myself in them. So it may be possible to defend as statute barred but not for sure. In terms of the agreements - the Alliance and Leicester never provided a copy of the agreement. So is unenforceable under s77, s78. The have however continued to add interest. The Abbey terms and conditions do not contain a signature - but I know that that isn't necessary, However it does not contain my name, but does contain the address at the time. I haven't had the agreement audited properly - would it be worth doing asap? If so does anyone know where to go to get it done for a relatively small charge. The Monument is the one I know I agreed to them taking £10 over the phone. So no quarry with that - The terms and conditions though does not contain my name or address at the time. I haven't had the agreement audited properly also. I have have asked for 28 days to respond - what do you think is the best way forward? As a Postscript - Lowell have at last given up on Statute barred and said they will take no further. action. Hope to have someones thought on the way through as to what would be the best policy. Regards, SSS

Having sent the letter which includes requesting their Complaints procedure. Lowell are also in breach of the CPUTR 2008 by threatening action which they know they cannot legally take and also by breach the guidelines of their trade organization the CSA. I can prepare various complains to OFT, CSA, FOS and DPR - have download their forms and they all ask you to call before writing. So they have the package and I can prepare and research the complaints procedure. So unless they come up with some amazing piece of evidence against me I have plenty of ammo if they don't call off the dogs. Many thanks for your information - it's such a minefield and though we treat these DCA with contempt the understand when people are just taking a letter template here and there from the internet without thinking it through.

Thank you TM for that. This is information I have gleamed from a number of sources and have seen the Administration of Justice Act 1970 quoted on every letter template I have seen. Quoting as you said Protection from Harassment Act 1997 makes more sense. I have already sent the letter - which is a shame. But will see what comes back. Cheers for that excellent information which I will employ in the future and will be good to have out there for others in the same SB situation. Hi BD - Cabot and Lowell are two separate companies. Lowell of Leeds, hides behind 4 company names in one building - Lowell Portfolio who buy the debt - Lowell Financial is the second desk to get you to pay - RED is there third desk involved in escalating their attack and the the forth is Hampton for when your account is very serious. Cabot are in West Malling and don't bother with desks as they are a bunch of vampires that will bleed there own dry.

Totally agree, I have decided to send the following SB second letter below. Then thanks to some useful information found at http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...dit/oft664.pdf and http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/..._creditors.php I think that this letter gives the perfect springboard for complaining - I have been polite and replied to each letter and assuming it will be a continuation of the same computer generated/time based letters - Will be a formal complaint must be made to The Leeds Losers, my MP, The Credit Reference Agency concerned, The Data protection Registrar, The Financial Ombudsman and the OFT... And Uncle Tom Cobbly 'n'all if he'll listen. Letter going today: This letter does not admit liability nor does it acknowledge the alleged debt. Thank you for your letter 31st March 2010 contents of which have been noted. I refer you to my letter of 1st April, in which my position was clearly described. To reiterate, you were informed that this alleged debt is Barred under Statute in accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. I have included a copy of this original correspondence sent to Lowell for your perusal and ease of reference. As your letter contests that this is the case, it is now your legal obligation to substantiate your claims and to prove that this alleged debt is indeed enforceable and not barred by statute. Please note that at no point have I been received a Default Notice and have never received any proof of acknowledgment in writing or payment. You should be aware that I am fully familiar with the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance, which states that it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations by falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally recoverable and continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred. I also refer to 2.5 of the guidelines regarding Physical/psychological harassment You should also be aware that if you are unable to substantiate your claims then your behaviour will be considered harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and may result in my choosing to pursue action against you. In addition, I hereby demand that you now supply me with information regarding your complaints procedure. Failure to comply will result in the complaint being escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service, who will charge you for investigating my complaint. Finally, I expect no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide clear evidence as to my liability for the debt in question, or your written confirmation that this matter is now closed.I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you in writing. Yours faithfully,

Aside from Cabot Lowell Portfolio/Financial/Red have one office with lots of desks with different names. They contacted me re a Capital One - I sent a s77/78 and Capital one eventually sent me a copy of the T&C July 2010. The last recorded payment to C1 was Oct 2004, there next contact to me was Dec 2010. I sent an SB letter to them - they said it wasn't SB because the date of DN was 19/03/11. I sent a follow up SB. They passed it from Lowell Portfolio to Lowell Financial and back and back again with various letters demanding payment. On 21st March 2011 I get a Letter from RED another Lowell desk. Now it's past the DN - so I sent the third SB... But to my surprise Red have sent yet another in reply to the SB threatening that they are now going to pass the account to there Special Recovery Team to 'Assess' my account and their best course of action for recovery. They are so insane. Should I really now just leave it to them or send a letter for my time and and ask for their complains procedure? Seriously Cupid Stunts.

Cabot bought the first two from MBNA - abbey and A&L then Monument. They are very aggressive and have never given up - why should they of course. It come down to the last showdown. So If they have the recording and they have the proof I agreed. The only question is if they are unenforceable.

Hi BD - I think your point is very interesting and very will thought out. I think that the SAR will be telling. If they provide the transcription I will ask for a copy of the recording - if they can not provide a copy of the transcript in recorded for it actually counts for nothing. That is what they would have to produce in court to prove that they are right and they were right to take the money. The 3 payments are separated and they have sent me copies for each of the accounts they hold against me to prove they have taken against each account. On my bank statement it is just three separate transactions. This give me enough time to see if there is any room in the unenforcabilty of the agreements. Thanks SSS

Hi, I thought of that already and have a copy of the statement showing three transactions on the same day for the same amount of £10. I have already sent an SAR to Cabot and will wait to see the results. If there transcript of the conversation comes back and it is as you say a question of whether they have written to suit or not. I will ask for a copy of the recording. If they have it and they are right, it that's fair play to them. In the meantime I just want to establish if the T&C - CCA's that they have sent are enforceable or not.

Hi vj No they haven't issued proceedings. there is no signature on either agreement and the signature only appears on the reply form for Monument and application form for Abbey.

Thanks BD - I think I understand. What I have been sent is the CCA/T&C in response to the s77/78. Correct they don't have the signiture as refered to in Wakman, but also referred to in Wakman was the need for it to contain the name and address at the time. Both the CCA for Monument and abbey are without a name and the Monument doesn't have an address either. According to VJ they are in breach in breach under s65 and 127. In the issuing of my s77/78 to them they have complied and produced documents! whether the ones I have uploaded are properly executed is the question. I uploaded them via photobucket if you would care to take a look. I sent the SAR yesterday to see what the content was of the phone payment made in October 2009. The SAR I sent that I never got a response to last time was in August 2010 and I sent a PO so no access to my account details on it. Re PriorityOne posts have downloaded CPUTR2008going to print and read today.

No the agreements are as you have seen just T&C. No signature on them. The wakman case - he said it's not necessary to have a signature - which has been a big blow - but it must contain the address and name in the CCA. This is the BBC link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8435867.stm

VJ No, I sent an SAR with a PO not a cheque in August 10 and didn't get a reply. The phone payment was made 10/09. As this is only to do with one DCA which is Cabot. I will send them an SAR in respect of all the accounts they have on me and see what transcripts are returned. Then if they don't have a copy of the telephone call from 10/09, then it can be assumed that they cloned the Monumet payment to the other two accounts. Having said that I think that the unenforceablilty under the CCA/T&C sent to me may well be enough. As said after looking at the information on both the NDL and other similar sites. It is unlikely that they will bankrupt me unless it's just for the hell of it. What say you?

Hi VJ. I have so much correspondence from Cabot you could wallpaper your bedroom with it! So I think that you are referring only to the Monument and the s65 is the section regarding the none inclusion of address and name. As a point does this being under 5k make any difference? Did you have a chance to look at the other one from Abbey - that's the heavy duty on at 31k. As said - they caught me on the phone and I made payment through a DC. They have taken £10 via phone for the Monument and then the same for their other accounts. I am posing an SAR today to find out if they have a transcript of that conversation. If I agreed unwittingly then they have me on that but if I didn't agree for all three on the phone or the cannot prove that I agreed, then they could have cloned the payment and I could contest that. However I feel with both these that they fall short under s65 & s127 and if you agree that is probably the reason they haven't taken me to court. If they prove I agreed payment over the phone, I think the best way forward to be under the breaches suggest that they write the debt off.

Hi vjohn. That is what they have sent me in total. The Reply Card and T & C along with a statement that shows they have taken £10 from my current account on 12/10/09. In addition - Here's one to think about. They have at last sent me a reply to my Statute Barred for the Abbey and they have sent me a transaction sheet stating payment taken of £10 on the same day as the Monument. So it's not SB. What do you suggest. Send an SAR for all information and see if there is grounds to say they have activated it themselves? The other thing I have is the copy of confirmation and CCA. On this CCA it does include the address but not my name according to the Waksman: • a copy of the loan agreement must contain the name and address of the borrower as it was at the time it was signed • if an agreement has been subsequently varied by the lender, then the lender is obliged to supply a copy of both the original agreement as well as the current one. This is definitely the original CCA I have left it at photobucket http://s1132.photobucket.com/albums/m567/sevenhorsestakes/CABABBEY/ So in light of the above - what is the best course of action? SAR as a matter of course and then see if the CCA can be challenged? Advice appreciated.

Here's the link to the agreement/reply and breaches http://s1132.photobucket.com/albums/m567/sevenhorsestakes/

The situation was that I closed down everything. This was a monument card taken out around 2000/1 - the debt sold to Cabot. The found me after 5 years, because a managed to get a job back in the UK and had to have a bank account. That was it - they got me on the phone I panicked and paid with the new bank card. If they don't have the payment details - I would think they have - then I would do the SAR. But think it sense as said to SAR and find out exactly what they have.

Hold your horses!!!! What creditor friendly post 2007 rules? I am stumped, lost and now frothing at the mouth with antici....pation. Please explain?

Very Interesting, very scary. I think I will dump my loyalty cards for ever!

They were a new account card so not the case. I agree I think that maybe it would be a good idea to SAR them and see what they have. I do know that from this and other forums you have to keep fighting Cabot as they never give up unless they have no option. But it is obvious they make a lot of mistakes. And would not surprise me in the slightest if the don't have all the documentation. I think a combination of the lack of documentation and the possible breaches could be enough. If not then a F&F arrange would have to be considered.

Here is the monument agreement and audit. The current situation is that, the DCA there last letter July 26th 2010 after the letter regarding breaches I heard nothing until 24th Jan/3 Feb then 28th Feb - all by emails. I have not replied to date. I thought I'd try and find out if they know they can't win but are trying anyway. I thought it prudent not to write until I was sure. I definitely don't want to have another audit as I simply can't afford one and the BBC suggested caution. I have looked for stock letters that can be adapted - but to no avail. Thanks. SSS

Hi - Attached is a copy of the agreement sent from Monument - according to the Manchester case as sited on the BBC article it should contain the address at the time - which it doesn't. I have managed to attach the agreement. Am having problems posting the other information which is The application form. I have also attached the audit I received. Will try load again and put them up shortly

Gentlemen thank you. The reason I asked is that they just don't seem to be getting to the point of... Oye you - pay or court! Fact is they got me over the phone. fact is they never started a DD. I think you are right... face it out as long as possible until they have the balls to go for it and then ask them to prove it. If they can provide my bank details I am right royally - if not, SB. I have had the agreement audited and it is supposed to have breaches - but this according to the BBC website seems like clutching at straws. Is it worth posting the agreement here and seeing if it's agreed about the breaches?

I just want to go back to this statement here about payment - If a payment was made over the phone does that count or not? Or has the payment to be agreed in writing? I maybe clutch at straws here. But as I have previously said it's sometimes hard to be sure exactly where and what is payment and acknowledgment. The first time they called me - they harassed me and not having a clue they took a payment over the phone - I signed nothing and they took nothing after - that was Sept 2009 - Any thoughts?

DCA's can't come to your house and they can't send a bailiff as only the court can do that. That's what I believe to be true anyway. So bailiff threats are empty. And as regan11 said if they come to your door, get your phone out and dial the police on the grounds of trespass.