Thanks for looking at this Chris.... you were the very person that sprang to mind when I read the post. CPR request to view the original executed agreement I believe, knowing that Citi in the past has doggedly resisted parting with them - even to companies who have purchased accounts from them. Certainly 1st Credit weren't able to obtain it for love or money, despite the fact that Trading Standards were able to furnish me with it months earlier. Could possibly do with finding out a bit more detail, i.e. when the account was opened etc.

The plus side of this situation is that Citi aren't giving out copies of executed agreements to anybody - not even DCAs that have purchased accounts form them. For a period I thought this maybe due to there being a lot of defective agreements, which was certainly the case with mine which Trading Standards helped me obtain (third gen photocopy).... absent prescribed terms making it unenforeceable. However we are talking an American bank here, and Citi have a long list of bad deeds under the belt including laundering drug money, dismantling the glastegel act etc. US banks are notorious for securitising loans/debts, bundling them in bonds which are sold internationally to other financial institutions, pension funds, private individuals. So the sticky part in this scenario for Citi is without possessing the original "executed agreement" how can they prove ownership.

Understandable, the last thing the you need is some little odious company giving you hassle at a period like this. It's funny these companies don't like looking in the mirror. I had a DCA chasing me over an amount they said was due to a big bank I detailed that their job was to harass, intimidate and try to instill a sense of fear in the customer - that plus detailing the true nature of money (essentially it's akin to monopoly money as the BoE produces it from thin air). Needless to say I haven't heard from them again. (might PM it to you in a couple of days). If you are really being hounded, I would contemplate getting Watchdog involved, even the mention of it to Cabot might make them back off - especially considering any such coverage would be really bad for them considering your husbands condition. Citi and Capital One are a special breed of their own, American Banks. They believe they can ride roughshot over the law, laundering drug money, complicit in the collapse of Enron, helped in the dismantling of the glastegal act that caused the current financial crisis... it goes on. Then go begging bowl in hand to ask for a bailout when as a company they get onto sticky ground.

Yep, thats harassment for you. I don't know if you've ever made contact with your local trading standards. Remember this is their tactic, to continually try to wear somebody down, don't let it get on top of you. When you know how they play (dirty) it can put things in perspective, don't get angry.... if it continues i'll write a letter for you as have done quiet a few.

Thats the thing, it hasn't been as blatant beforehand but the priority will always be to funnel money to the top of the socio-economic tree - normally at the expense of the rest of us.

Comes out 8th March in US, 13th June in UK on retail. For an equally good breakdown of the fraud that occured, and how this was engineer ex-financial regulator and now university professor William Black details what happened:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/ 'Inside Job' provides a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse. Through exhaustive research and extensive interviews with key financial insiders, politicians, journalists, and academics, the film traces the rise of a rogue industry which has corrupted politics, regulation, and academia. It was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China

You are correct in saying that. These letters are about instilling a sense of maximum fear in you, hence why they state that worse case scenario. What they don't state is the flip side of the coin, that being that Citi are not giving out copies of executed agreements, even to those companies that have purchased accounts from them. In the very unlikely event that a claim was filed, they would be seeking an enforecement order on the basis of the "executed agreement" (where the alleged debt is not acknowledged). A CPR 31.16 request forces there hand to produce it for inspection should they instigate a claim. The more interesting thing is the money itself. Central banks have been able to create money/credit out of nothing since 1933 (when we came off the gold standard) including the Bank Of England, commercial banks such as Citi are also able to do likewise to an extent thanks to fractional reserve lending and leveraging against their assetts. I have an American bank, and Deutsche Bank documents that allude to this.... as the English banking system is the basis for the majority of systems worldwide it stands to reasons that they can do likewise here.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/

You can always trust a banker (the financial collapse and criminality).... INSIDE JOB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/

It's very unlikely that the DCA would go to court..... as with all these things a lot of it is hot air expelled in an attempt to instill fear and get a person to cough up. If your husband/partner is unable to physically attend court, i'm sure a judge would take this into account. Additionally no companies, not even Cabot want bad publicity as such action would take. Yep, the allowance of Terms & Conditions to fulfill s78(1) CCA is certainly annoying, however financial institutions wield a lot of power. That said, we do know that Citi agreements have many problems though.

Citi were sending out copies of their Terms & Conditions from the get go, referring to them in some letters as the executed agreement - which blatantly is not the case. The recent test case clarified that companies can fulfill a s78(1) CCA request by posting such material... though obviously this is of no use to a customer in trying to ascertain whether their agreement is legally compliant. The only bonus is that Citi to date have not been sending out copies of agreements - not even to those who have purchased accounts from them. I believe this is because they have lots of issues with them, certainly prior to 2006 this is the case, and the older the executed agreement the more likelihood there will be problems. Part of the reason they are not letting go of them I believe, certainly mine that Trading Standards helped secured is missing prescribed terms making it unenforceable. In the event that Cabot were to commence legal action you would have the opportunity to view and take a copy of the "executed agreement" that you've been after all along by submitting a CPR 31.16 claim to court. Cabot would be looking to make a claim on the basis of it. I think it is standard practice for accounts to be sold and shuffled round the system like cards, however it has got to the stage where they don't bother checking or exchanging the necessary paperwork.

Oooppssss, yep my mistake.

Just had a look through your thread, and it appears that they have now purchased the account from Citi. As such, they are duty bound as the now creditor to provide you with a copy of the documents you have requested. Asserting that Citi have provided you with these is not sufficient - they have to comply with your legal request. It sounds as if you have received a template letter, their reference to "further collection proceedings" is most likely a threat. It may be worth noting in any future correspondence that you "withdraw the implied right of access for Cabot or any agent on it's behalf to set foot on your property, any such contravention would be an unlawful tort of trespass". (that should settle doorstep visits, Cabot can be sued for trespass if they ignore it). It's unlikely that they would proceed with action, however if they were to there are lots of area of attack most noteably a pre-action request to view the original executed agreement. Out of interest when did you apply for your Citi account?

Thats the problem, they are charging the internet connection owner with the offence without establishing whether they are personally liable. I know my elderly friend whom I am help out with ACS/GCB is in the position where she positively hasn't commited the offence, no Bit Torrent software or previous trace of it on her PC. The offence was committed at a time she had a lodger who used the connection and is most likely the culprit. So there are many instances where demands are being made on people where they are not liable.

Best to clarify this with them, and get the matter corrected.... because you know this will count against your credit file if you are trying to wait things out.

Yep, they're trying to extended the Statutory Barred period. I would be inclined to ask them to return the fee, and not credit it to your account as it was not intend to be a payment towards the account but in payment of a statutory request.

Just Citi following procedure and farming this out to a DCA, who will send out a series of letters and make a number of phonecalls in an attempt to gain their commission. As far as I am aware DCAs work purely off of commission. If you enter a payment plan with one, they charge administration and other fees which tie you up for a long time. But essentially what you choose to do is up to you, the contract is between yourself and the creditor - not this third party.

Seen it time and time again, an ever increasing level of threats in the hope that people cough up and Clarity obtain their commission (as that's normally all they work on). Citi have been reluctant in the extreme to part with executed agreements even to DCAs, essentially I believe because there are lots of problems especially with their earlier ones. There is also the interesting aspect, that companies such as Citi are able to create money from thing air (after all it's all digital)..... why else would they accept 10-15% when selling on accounts.

http://www.clickliverpool.com/business/business-news/1212254-illegal-file-sharing-consumers-to-launch-harassment-case.html

Interesting that they are referring to Citi as their client, which essentially means that they are a DCA who is not party to the contract - i.e. essentially there role is that of being a threat monkey. It's unlikely that they will proceed to court, however in the event that they did they would be seeking to obtain an order on the basis of the signed contract -- at which point you could CPR31.16 them to view and make a copy of the documents that have been at issue here all along.

I've probably dealt with something like 20 DCAs in my time – accounts get passed round on a virtual merigoround. A lot of what these companies do is to pressurise and generally be unpleasant as possible in the hope that they will unnerve someone to the extent that they will cough up money. Breaching various laws and so forth normally don't stand in the way, but certainly they begin to take notice if complaints are sent to The Office Of Fair Trading, or your local Trading Standards become involved if they overstep the mark (and the DCA is informed of such action). Essentially though what is at issue here is effectively monopoly money with purchasing power. Central banks have the power to create money from nothing (the UK came off the gold standard in 1933, post the Gold Standard Act 1925), commercial banks likewise can create money from nothing similarly through their ledgers. With regards to whether I am advising, ultimately any decisions are upto you. I know people that have gone bankrupt, and despite societies view on it there is no shame, it's just bits of paper. Standard practice is to discharge someone after 12 months, but there is a mark on your credit file for 11 years..... that said you'd probably be reluctant to borrow from any of these sharks again. Though it's obviously wise to weight up all the options, and consider the effect on your property ownership (if you own one) etc etc. Citi played underhand and breached their own internal guidelines with regards to a customers right of access to information (re s78(1) CCA)).... but then again from previous experience I didn't expect them to play fair when faux money was at issue. And I love a bit of mental combat. With regard to Hillesden i'd be tempted to keep any correspondence to a minimum, maybe ignore this letter, the more you feed this beast the more they are likely to continue against you if they believe you are rattled. -- I have something of an interesting video, an interview with a US bank regulator, which certainly demonstrates that banking is rotten to the core:

Firstly don't worry. The number one job of a company such as “Hillesden” is to instill a sense of fear, to threaten and intimidate in the hope that people cough up. Don't fall for it, and don't let it worry you. Having read McGuffick v RBS it would appear that up to the point that a claim is in front of a judge it is not considered enforcement. That said for a company such as Hillesden to pursue a claim without a compliant executed agreement would be somewhat fool hardy, or an admission of the alleged debt being due would be foolhardy. Quite simply you could request to view the original as part of pre action protocols, and at that point take a copy. Citi are simply not releasing executed agreements, and there is a reason for that which is there are many problems with their documentation. i.e. Missing prescribed terms, incomplete executed agreements and so forth. I know personally 1st Credit have been requesting a copy of mine which Trading Standards secured me – obviously I have not provided them with in, as know DCAs are famed for their photoshop skills and I don't want to provide a copy for other customers to receive a doctored/compliant version. Summary here: http://www.stonechambers.com/cases/phillip-mcguffick-v-the-royal-bank-of-scotland-plc--2009--ewhc-2386---consumer-credit.asp It's been covered on CAG, but I think the definitive response of this is summed up nicely on Money Saving Expert: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2137759 The real fire cracker though is that commercial banks such as Citibank are able to create money out of nothing. With money being digital, commercial banks are able to transfer funds that never before existed. As long as their ledgers balance and this faux credit returns, plus the banks obvious profit the money supply doesn't increase to ludicrous levels. I've got an American bank document and a Deutsche Bank pdf which illude to this fact. Needless to say when I raised this fact with an odiouis DCA that represented RBS, they disappeared in a puff of smoke.

Formulating a reply, will be up in a mo.

The first main thing is not to worry. These companies are normally a nasty bunch, but the onis is on them to prove that a debt is outstanding. If you suffer any problems I would suggest contacting your local trading standards to gain their assistance, especially if you are receiving problemaic phone calls from Cabot. You can get the details of your local TS department by enterring your postcode into here: http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/advice/index.cfm They are part of the council, and should help fight your corner if your have a DCA that steps out of line.