Well let's see shall we? The devil being in the detail and all. And Shaarn if you are indeed a real person then do accept my apologies and ask the site team to merge the numerous threads you have started.

Trite law means it is so basic they don't have to explain it. Have to say there are a number of cases almost exactly the same as yours on CAG with this nonsense about no DN needed. If the account hasn't been terminated it is still live - even if it is arrears. I see Andrew1 has given you some good advice it's back to SAR and if they have a CCJ against you then you need to see if you can get it set aside. I have to say that half an agreement and/or "not easily legible" and if created before the 2006 amendments then the court has to follow the 127(3) as you have been prejudiced in that you have not had a fair trial. Any redacted details must be revealed for you do not know what is beneath the black ink. This also raises the prospect of the dreaded Human Rights Act for Article 6 it says quite clearly that you are entitled to a fair trial and Morgans can twist and turn all they like with the law as they see if but the HRA underpins all our law now - for better or worse. Post up the agreement and we can see what's going on. BTW you were prejudiced so that nonsense re the DN is even more nonsensical. P.S. Just a thought but the Brandon case they are referring to is under Appeal I think. Have to confess I am not up to speed on exactly which points of law are being contested but if you can find it you may be able to get the CCJ set aside at least until this case is heard. If your agreement didn't have the s61-63 prescribed terms it is unenforceable and it was pre 2006 then 127(3) kicks in. The Carey judgement just said that they could reconstruct info simply as a temporary measure in request under s77/78 for information.

Sometimes manchesteruni posters are not what they appear to be and Cabot and other DCAs regularly monitor these forums and pretend to be genuine seekers of advice. However, the Fan Club has all its antennae twitching and can spot 'em a mile off. They are often trying to trap you into giving details away or posing with a similar case to one that's at a vital stage to see if you can give them some idea of the argument. We're onto them. And Shaaan here may or may not be one such and we are very happy to be proven wrong which is why DonkeyB has asked "what are the issues"? Their modus operandus is to post details of supposed cases, asking for help. Sometimes they even add the odd document but, let's be honest anyone can add a document with personal details edited out (or redacted as we all now like to say) and pretend to be that person. The Cabot Fan Club frequently gets PMs from such and we are happy to give them the same advice we would give anyone on open forums. However keep your wits about you as they're here, they're there, there every flipping where. So stay alert! Shaaan please give us details of your case and we'll be happy to help you as much as we can.

If you are at ease with accepting their offer then that's your own personal decision. Each has to work out what is right for them and if you think this is a good resolution then you must do what you think is right. I beleive we are just seeking fairness in these matters even though some accuse people of debt evasion it's not that it's just working out if these DCAs are legally entitled to what they are claiming and is it a fair amount.

Funny you should ask this DonkeyB I was thinking the same. Close encounter of the Cabot kind?

Was anything of interest revealed in court? It also might be useful to post the POC on here so we know a bit more what we're looking at and try and help you further.

HIUTH - flooding. Oh no! Get dry soon.

If the OC has registered a default that's OK but if they assign the debt to a DCA the original default has to come off before Cabot can start to regsister it. In other words you can't have two defaults for one debt. And yes pabrmu agree check if it's live or not.

Get the site team to merge this with your other threads with regard to this one case. I have posted on the other one.

Have PM'd you but the illegible document is likely to be unenforceable and s127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act kicks in. The Act says the document should be "easily legible" that doesn't mean under a magnifying glass it means for a person with reasonable sight with or without glasses. If it's illegible they're stuffed. If there's a Default entry on your credit report print it off -fast. This is absolute proof that a DN was issued and that should bugger them up nicely. Also what rate of interest have they charged you on top of the arrears. Not sure of this but I think they can't charge you unless the agreement has been properly assigned to them (and is also enforceable which if it's illegible it's not and that's before you check full terms etc under s61-63 of the CCA); they now have to prove it was properly assigned so you need to see the deed of assignment and the sales document. I would push for an adjournment and tell the Judge you cannot form a complete defence without Cabot supplying this ifnormation. That's if it gets that far as your discovery of the Default entry has mightily queered their pitch.

DonkeyB is correct accounts can be sold at any time - it's done all the time with business debts and what they call "factoring". You owe me £500 for some service or other. I am a small trader no time for sorting my invoices so I sell it on to a company who will collect it for me and take a percentage from whatever the invoice is worth. It doesn't have to be overdue or anything. With the DCAs they use the Law of Property Act to assign a debt and all they need under this is to assign the amount of the actual debt. However their problems arise when we ask for the agreement as all of these debts have been signed under the protection of the Consumer Credit Act. Many people won't know what we all know so they get away with it a lot. We chuck a spanner in the works by asking for the CCA.

Now I really don't know I would ask the court. It would be very amusing if the answer turned out to be a Charging Order over Cabot HQ.

I think he means that if you send £1 for a copy of the contract under the Consumer Credit Act they often take that £1 (think it's £2 now) and apply it to your account as a payment. This has implications if the debt is Staute Barred so you have to write on the back of the cheque that it is only for use in CCA request and send an accompanying letter stating the same thing (and keep copies). Even if they do this at least you have some evidence as back up. They do this with the £10 for a Subject Access Request too.

When it comes to court action they will have to produce the original or a copy of the original. The Carey Judgement only allows them to "reconstruct" information as a temporary measure in order to provide information. You need to look Civil Evidence rules too. I still think Goldfish debts are mostly toxic i.e. without any paperwork so even producing a Frankensteiner will be difficult.

Agree with DonkeyB. This is starting to get much more serious than trying to collect on a SB debt. Get the SAR into M&S and see what comes back from that. I wouldn't be unduly concerned about the 2007 DD if they set it up for you whilst putting the frighteners on. In any case if no payment was actually made (is that correct?) then the setting up of a DD is payment of the debt.

Cabot pulled this trick with a poster who is no longer around CAG and they got a Charging Order on the back of it. She had no statements to prove what they were saying but it was exactly the same - a single mysterious payment they claimed she made a day before SB would have kicked in. She won in the end though and CO was removed. Put them to strict proof of this. It's just too dodgy for words. Haven't read back but do I understand they set up a DD with you in 2007. Yes get that SAR from them as soon as possible and SAR M&S too.

:-d

Great effort ba but really too much effort required to sort these out - many others would give up. These cretins know exactly what they are doing.

Are these letters from Cabot complete copies of proper letters i.e. addressed to you with your name, account number and other personal details or are they "representations" in other words copies of blank templated letters they might have sent? If the sales doc is excessively blanked out I would demand to see an unredacted version as you need to see how this document is connected to you and will affect you. If the terms and conditions and/or the application form are not "easily legible" then the whole thing is unenforceable under 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - the 2006 amendments don't apply if your agreement is pre this period. What can they come up with? They have had so long to produce these docs and this is the best they can do. The Goldfish portfolio consists of "toxic" debts i.e. no paperwork and can't be proven.

hey don't worry that's what's so good about CAG we can all trouble shoot each other's posts.

8) They don't just monitor them we've found a few imposters posting.

Has Bo added this to a new Part 18 as you have been saying this for some time gh2008?

Yes it is. You can't request docs with Part 18 only info or, as you commented, clarification.

Yes Andrew1 you are quite right it's a new trick. They keep losing cases so keep twisting the law to suit themselves. Cabot has a couple of solicitors - one's a director and the other is Morgan of Morgan's fame and I suspect they keep hatching up novice ways to change the game. I think they are using contract law here to try to avoid the need for a DN but this agreement is regulated under the CCA 1974 (and as such the 2006 amendments on unenforceability don't apply). Have asked Bo to post up new POC so we'll see more when it arrives but I'm certain the OC would have issued a DN and if they have it will scupper these eejits. The Judge appears to be on to them too if his order is anything to go by. Which brings us back to the whole ethos of the DCA business. Someone really needs to expose just how a debt - which has been written off to UK tax - is then purchased for peanuts and the DCA thinks they are entitled to the lot plus even more invented interest. Furthermore these peanut debts are often assigned offshore for "tax efficiencies. They are just complete chancers.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?252689-Credit-Card-defence-****WON****