Hope that helps. Start your own thread and folks will help.

No!!! Under no circumstances contact them. Certainly not by phone anyway. You MIGHT like to send a letter to Peter Anderson, confirming receipt of his letter, and demand to know why they have not yet satisfactorily responded to your CCA request. Good Grief!! It's been over a year now!!! Remind them that you do not acknowledge any debt due, but will be happy to communicate further should a valid CCA magically appear. But until then, the only thing you want to hear from them is that they are ceasing all collection activity.

Cabot tend to buy a LOT of Barclaycard debt. Very cosy the pair of them are, too. If they were people rather than companies, I'd suspect them of sharing the same duvet. And the chances of Cabot managing to pull an actual agreement from the Barclaycard corporate hat is minimal. But do bear in mind though, that if you DO take the advice, and tell BC to shove it, you'll then be lumbered with having to deal with Cabot, or someone very similar. Who MAY try to chance their arm with you in court. That in itself CAN be fun, though.

Cabot no longer phone me. But my last email to them went something like this... well, EXACTLY like this, to be honest... Strangely enough, I've not had a reply

Implication is, they CLAIM they are right, but it doesn't make it so. Just don't bank or cash the £1, or it might be construed that you agree with them.

I see a lot of companies deny that they are liable for supplying a CCA when you request it, and bleat on about Law of Property Act 1925, only aquired the rights but not the duties. Bovine excrement, the lot of it. However, if they ARE right (which they insist they are), why do they keep hold of your £1 statutory fee? Surely, if the CCA does not apply to them, they have no right to your statutory fee. (OK, Cabot. Keep yer hair on... I know you lot return the fee. I'm talking about the others here. ) It might be an interesting exercise if thousands of demands for repayment were to hit their doormats on Tuesday morning, wouldn't it? Some of you will remember I questioned Cabot about this some considerable time ago, and they now automatically return your fee. Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of the industry did likewise? Just a word of caution though... I wouldn't cash or bank any of the returned payments. (If it happens, of course.) That might be construed as agreement on your part that they ARE right. And we all know what nonsense THAT is, right? Go to it, boys and girls.

Anyone having a problem with Link might like to complain to everyone they can think of (OFT especially) that their website appears to breach OFT guidelines regarding debt collection. Maybe tip the wink to the FOS too? Specifically... Quote: 2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows: b. pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further borrowing or to extend their borrowing. I say this, because their website has on their customers page, this wee nugget... Quote: If you are a new customer of Link and would like to settle your balance please call us on our freephone number 0800 064 44 99. We accept payment by credit card, debit card, cheque or bank transfer. Alternatively, you may wish to discuss secured loan or remortgage options with us. Looks pretty damning to me. They HAVE been asked nicely to remove the potentially offending sentence, but have ignored me. So I've seen fit to report them to the OFT myself, even though I'm not a "customer" of Link myself. Chancers, the lot of them.

Anyone having a problem with Link might like to complain to everyone they can think of (OFT especially) that their website appears to breach OFT guidelines regarding debt collection. Maybe tip the wink to the FOS too? Specifically... Quote: 2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows: b. pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further borrowing or to extend their borrowing. I say this, because their website has on their customers page, this wee nugget... Quote: If you are a new customer of Link and would like to settle your balance please call us on our freephone number 0800 064 44 99. We accept payment by credit card, debit card, cheque or bank transfer. Alternatively, you may wish to discuss secured loan or remortgage options with us. Looks pretty damning to me. They HAVE been asked nicely to remove the potentially offending sentence, but have ignored me. So I've seen fit to report them to the OFT myself, even though I'm not a "customer" of Link myself. Chancers, the lot of them.

Anyone having a problem with Link might like to complain to everyone they can think of (OFT especially) that their website appears to breach OFT guidelines regarding debt collection. Maybe tip the wink to the FOS too? Specifically... Quote: 2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows: b. pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further borrowing or to extend their borrowing. I say this, because their website has on their customers page, this wee nugget... Quote: If you are a new customer of Link and would like to settle your balance please call us on our freephone number 0800 064 44 99. We accept payment by credit card, debit card, cheque or bank transfer. Alternatively, you may wish to discuss secured loan or remortgage options with us. Looks pretty damning to me. They HAVE been asked nicely to remove the potentially offending sentence, but have ignored me. So I've seen fit to report them to the OFT myself, even though I'm not a "customer" of Link myself. Chancers, the lot of them.

Anyone having a problem with Link might like to complain to everyone they can think of (OFT especially) that their website appears to breach OFT guidelines regarding debt collection. Maybe tip the wink to the FOS too? Specifically... Quote: 2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows: b. pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further borrowing or to extend their borrowing. I say this, because their website has on their customers page, this wee nugget... Quote: If you are a new customer of Link and would like to settle your balance please call us on our freephone number 0800 064 44 99. We accept payment by credit card, debit card, cheque or bank transfer. Alternatively, you may wish to discuss secured loan or remortgage options with us. Looks pretty damning to me. They HAVE been asked nicely to remove the potentially offending sentence, but have ignored me. So I've seen fit to report them to the OFT myself, even though I'm not a "customer" of Link myself. Chancers, the lot of them.

Anyone having a problem with Link might like to complain to everyone they can think of (OFT especially) that their website appears to breach OFT guidelines regarding debt collection. Maybe tip the wink to the FOS too? Specifically... Quote: 2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows: b. pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further borrowing or to extend their borrowing. I say this, because their website has on their customers page, this wee nugget... Quote: If you are a new customer of Link and would like to settle your balance please call us on our freephone number 0800 064 44 99. We accept payment by credit card, debit card, cheque or bank transfer. Alternatively, you may wish to discuss secured loan or remortgage options with us. Looks pretty damning to me. They HAVE been asked nicely to remove the potentially offending sentence, but have ignored me. So I've seen fit to report them to the OFT myself, even though I'm not a "customer" of Link myself. Chancers, the lot of them.

Anyone having a problem with Link might like to complain to everyone they can think of (OFT especially) that their website appears to breach OFT guidelines regarding debt collection. Maybe tip the wink to the FOS too? Specifically... I say this, because their website has on their customers page, this wee nugget... Looks pretty damning to me. They HAVE been asked nicely to remove the potentially offending sentence, but have ignored me. So I've seen fit to report them to the OFT myself, even though I'm not a "customer" of Link myself. Chancers, the lot of them.

Oh, and Barclaycard? Cabot? Equitable assignment? See you BOTH in court? You KNOW it makes sense.

Absolutely, PT. But if your agreement pre 2006 IS enforcable? Well, you have another little weapon in your aromoury. You might not win completely, but as you say, the judge has discretion. And if you can prove unfairness, even in the way you have been treated, is the creditor likely to win completely either? Take my case for instance. An example of unfairness might be, a lender is irresponsible in their lending criteria. Say, for instance, a credit card company has a mass pre-approved mailing campaign to all and sundry. That might be taken as an example of an unfair practice, as they really should have taken into consideration the debtor's ability to pay. Dipping into the electoral roll and banging off pre-approved application forms hardly constitutes due diligence either. So, why is it such a gamble for a creditor who is faced with being challenged? Well, I was rather encouraged to read... So if your agreement is enforcable, but perhaps isn't quite totally kosher, I'd say this section gives a little bit more hope. Especially if, like Cabot, they fancy chancing their arm in court anyway, even if all they have to support their case is a dodgy application form. The thought that they might have to end up with not only costs, but also REPAYING back money, should make them think twice, unless they are absolutely 100% convinced they can win. Thank to Debt Mountain by the way for the little extract above.

OR whip cream. Yes, I'm back. I can't keep away after all.

Well, I WAS going to refrain from making any more posts. But this is just too juicy NOT to share. Apologies if it's been covered elsewhere though. Right. The CCA 2006. Retrospective or not? Well. Yes. And no. NO need to worry that the repeal of section 127 of the CCA 1974 will impact anyone having signed an agreement prior to CCA 2006 coming into force. That is NOT retrospective. SO what IS retrospective? Why, little old Section 19. And THAT little nugget, dealing as it does with the new Unfairness Test, should have the DCA's, debt purchasers, and all their hangers on, quaking in their boots. Here's why. . . Note, that this means that even if you signed an agreement PRIOR to the 2006 act, you CAN challenge an agreement on the basis of it's fairness. UNLESS that agreement has already been settled. This also means that, should an unfair agreement be assigned, then you can challenge the NEW creditor. Now. Your homework for today should be, "Is my agreement, or the way any of the owners of my account has behaved, unfair in any way?" Discuss.

Just popping in to remind folks of what has been learned in the past to avoid pointless repetition. So. . . BUMP!!!

Just popping in to remind folks of what has been learned in the past to avoid pointless repetition. So. . . BUMP!!!

Just popping in to remind folks of what has been learned in the past to avoid pointless repetition. So. . . BUMP!!!

Just popping in to remind folks of what has been learned in the past to avoid pointless repetition. So. . . BUMP!!!

Oh, aye. I see there's no signatures either. What's THAT all about?

Don't care one way or the other at the moment. I'm jussed tee'd off that one of my threads has been CAGbotted for NO REASON AT ALL. It was in the Bear Garden, it was (hopefully) humerous, didn't attack anyone, wasn't libelous. All it was, was a spoof letter to DEFRA that had been emailed to me, about free money. Farm subsidies for not rearing pigs to be more precise. Now call me childish if you wish, but just don't pick my toys up for me. I've thrown them out of the pram for a reason. I've been as loyal as I can to CAG for as long as I can stand it, but this decision, and my thread being Botted is just one step too far. Yes, it may be petty whining about one wee thread, but it really is the straw that broke the Camel's back. Perhaps if I'd had a reason given, I wouldn't be so p1ssed off, but I wasn't so I AM p1ssed off. I am also led to believe that at least one MOD is not so happy that my blog contains links to other self help forum. WELL, IT'S MY BLOG SO I'LL LINK TO WHO I WANT. You're not gods here you know. There ARE alternatives, even if you wish there weren't. I'd suggest that some of the MOD's get over themselves. If I thought they'd listen. But being so self centred, I hardly think they would. I'm off. I MAY be back. But the possibility is pretty remote at the moment, the way I feel. I wonder if this post will get CAGbotted? Quite probably. But do I give a toss? Hardly. Eejits.

HAHA. So young, and so innocent. NO!!!! By the way Markus, I have heard that Amberloan have pulled out of the market, and dumped their customers (a bit like Egg are doing now apparently) Although if there is now a DEFAULT registered against you, I wouldn't even bother with a complaint about it, I'd send a letter straight off to the FOS outlining exactly what has happened. OFT, TS, might be similarly interested in Amberloans' shenanigins. I'm stumped as to how they think they can get away with dumping debts just because they don't fancy trading any longer. I wonder if the taxman would be interested too?

That's only part of it. Complain to them that they are chasing a debt which they have as yet been unable to prove either exists, or to which they are entitled even if said debt did exist, which you are not admitting. Then also complain that as you have reasonably asked for that proof by way of a CCA request, Cabot appear to be deliberately obstructive, as evidenced by their reply to your request. Tell them you don't think it unreasonable to expect them to have all the necessary paperwork in place BEFORE pursuing a debt, otherwise how do they themselves know that the information they have is accurate? That will do for starters.

I can see Hodsons and Cabot dropping another clanger in the near future. I'd like to be able to say that when challenged like this, they back off. But they don't always. So do be aware that this may go to the wire. Sit back and enjoy the ride.