Cabot-Their response.....

[keelclose]

Hello. sent of all letters following everyones great advice, have not recieved this..what next

 

thanks

http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo114/keelclose/ca.jpg

[vjohn82]

On your photobucket site... click on the share link on your photo and then "get link code".

 

Scroll down to IMG for bulletin boards and forums and then post that link here... the picture you have posted will not zoom in for me to look at.

[keelclose]

[ashmk]

Your problem lies with the size on the image on photobucket and not the link. You need to upload it again but larger this time. Or try imageshack.

 

 

But on the letter, its basic layout looks like a default template letter I recieved replying to a CCA request and why the law does not apply to them because cabot are above the law.

 

In other words its the basic cabot hot air that should be ignored and reported to the powers that be.

[vjohn82]

Who is best to start reporting to? I have been going around in circles with Cabot and established that the agreement is unenforceable... what next?

 

p.s. sorry to hijack!

[keelclose]

the letter was in response to a cca i reciebd and ongoing from advice from here- telling them by return there errors and not a true copy of cca etc

 

what should be my response to them

[keelclose]

bump--anyone

[keelclose]

[keelclose]

bump..anyone..what shall i do next

[keelclose]

sorry to bump again, need advice on next step

thanks

[vjohn82]

Hi,

 

Still can't read the letter but it looks like a regurgitated company line sent to everyone who writes in.

 

PM me and I will give you my email to send it to... will see if I can view it that way

[vjohn82]

I think you may have to follow the advice above by rescanning the image actually... just tried saving it to file and zooming in but it's not working

[keelclose]

http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo114/keelclose/CCI00009-1.jpg

[vjohn82]

Hi

 

Ok it's practically the same as the letter I received... I sent this back... don't necessarily use every point and seek further advice if you are unsure because I do not think it is perfect by any stretch...

 

I am writing in response to your letter dated 23 March 2009, the contents of which have been noted.

 

I am pleased that you have quoted the appropriate sections of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in highlighting why you think the “credit agreement” supplied meets the requirements of legal enforcement. It is precisely this Act, and the letter you have sent, which I will use to demonstrate why the agreement is unenforceable.

 

You have written:

 

“The terms and conditions have set out all the prescribed terms as required under the Consumer Credit (Agreement) Regulations 1983 and therefore there can be no argument as to the validity of the form and content of the agreement”

 

I will quote your own letter in dealing with this point:

 

“Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act, which deals with the “signing of document” states

 

A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless

 

(a) A document in the prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to the regulations... is signed both by the debtor [or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner]”

 

We both agree that a document has to contain the prescribed terms to be enforceable; this is because you have stated this point of fact in your letter and I have no reason to disagree. An agreement is indeed enforceable if it contains all of the prescribed terms. You have stated that the agreement contains...

 

“All proper legal and regulatory provisions, including prescribed terms”

 

And that because of this you are “perfectly in our rights to enforce the debt against you as your arguments are clearly unfounded and you have no basis for your dispute or claim for failing to pay the outstanding balance under the credit agreement”

 

 

For the purposes of s.61(1) and s.127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and sch.6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreement) Regulations (1983/1553) the prescribed terms must be present; the exclusion of one of these renders the agreement unenforceable. The following are the prescribed terms required to make an agreement enforceable:

 

A Amount of credit

A term stating the amount of credit

 

B Repayments

A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following-

(a) Number of repayments;

(b) Amount of repayments;

© Frequency and timing of repayments;

(d) Dates of repayments;

(e) The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable.

 

C Rate of interest

A term stating the rate of interest to be applied to the credit issued under the agreement

D Credit limit

This may be a term or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit.

 

For running credit account agreements, such as credit cards or store cards, B C and D apply.

 

The document fails to provide B (d), as there is nothing on the document to suggest a payment date, and C, as there is no APR or indicative interest rate percentage on the credit limit quoted. The document you have supplied does not meet these prescribed terms and therefore is unenforceable. Whether these prescribed terms are present on another document is besides the point, in order for a credit agreement to be enforceable it needs to have the prescribed terms on it and signed by both the debtor and the creditor.

 

You also made the assertion that:

 

“Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act has now been repealed due to the Consumer Credit Act 2006, however, this is not retrospective to agreements commencing before 6 April 2007”

 

This is incorrect. Schedule 3 s.11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 states that the repeal of s127 (3) “has no effect in relation to improperly executed agreements made before commencement of section 15 of this Act”.

 

Now, it has been established that the agreement is not enforceable because it does not meet all of the prescribed terms. It has also been established that while s.127 was indeed repealed by the Consumer Credit Act 2006 it does not include agreements concluded before 6 April 2007. Therefore my position is the same was it was from my previous letter which you have referred to. I do not acknowledge this debt and I do not acknowledge the right of your company to hold this data about me. In addition, the right of your company to hold such data and present it to the credit reference agencies is a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 as there is no implied right for you to be able to process my data.

 

Therefore my next step will be to write to the Information Commissioner and Financial Services Authority with a formal complaint about your conduct unless you cede your position and remove my data from your records.

 

Please let me know by response as soon as possible. Please note you are still in default of my original request for a copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement 1974 as the document you have supplied does not contain the prescribed terms. Therefore I do not acknowledge the debt because this was an application form for credit and not an executed credit agreement. This means my data should already have been ceased to continue processing and information removed from my credit file.

 

I trust I have set my position clearly and I look forward to hearing from you forthwith.

 

Like I said seek further advice if you are unsure but this has already been sent so I will update when I receive a response if you want to hang on and see what happens?

 

 

[pecky1]

Hi very good letter vJohn82 having the same with cabot and Argos keeping an eye on this one may use your letter.

Pecky1

[keelclose]

many thanks, will hold on to see ur response

 

thanks again

[vjohn82]

I hope they reply soon... it was sent yesterday and they have been fairly quicl; so far I have had 3 letters from them since my original CCA request on 26th Feb - they were arguing over minor points previously and obviously think they have me in a corner with their most recent letter.

 

Hopefully the letter above will show them I am not giving in and that they do not hold a proper CA.

 

Will update as soon as I receive anything!

[count orlok]

I don't understand their response, they are playing on the meaning of the word embody, not even sure what they are on about it is very hard to understand, they say the word does not mean contains but means it is refering to another document? wtf! it means one of 3 things, none of which is what they say; it means to make something tangable, or to personify something or incorporate things into organized whole.

[vjohn82]

It's something called semantics... basically wordplay.

 

It's a way of trying to confuse people they believe are illiterate and obviously par for the course with this company as I received an extremely similar letter.

 

It's desperation basically... they are ignoring the fact it does not contain the prescribed terms which is what a judge is there to rule on; he isn't going to launch into a diatribe about the merits of a particular term if they are failing in their legal obligations.

 

Stick to the plan I say!

[shredder10]

Yes stick to the plan. no perscribed terms no enforcement, as for the argos so called agreements they are not worth the paper they are printed on

[keelclose]

thanks all, should i fire off vjohns letter, or any help with a new one

 

many thanks again

[ashmk]

Im in the same boat with cabot and argos and to be honest I just ignor them now.

Ive sent the CCA request and and few follow on letters but cabot dont seem to grasp it so I just file there crap ranting templates now and get on with my life.

Other than the default on my file I couldnt care less about theres nothing they can do.. ever.. period.

 

Personally if they have not sent a enforcable CCA I wouldnt waste the ink in my biro on the cowbow outfit. Cabot are a joke.

[vjohn82]

I'm trying to get them to a point where they admit the debt is not enforceable; if you look over my letter I have used their argument about the Consumer Credit Act to switch in my favour regarding "prescribed terms" - they stated in a previous letter they needed prescribed terms for a contract to be enforceable... by pointing out the agreement they sent does not have a particular prescribed term I have essentially turned their argument around.

 

Therefore it is more amusement to see what they will try next to get out of it. Plus I don't see why a default should remain on my file because a Consumer Credit Agreement is only enforceable if it contains prescribed terms; equally it is invalid if it does not ergo how can they supply information to credit reference agencies for an agreement that does not exist legally? Part of a credit agreement gives permission for a company to record information with Credit Reference agencies; if the agreement is invalid where is the permission? You can't report a negative surely?

 

So basically that's why I continue personally... each to their own of course but I've started so I'll finish!

[davey77]

Keelclose.. what exactly have you received in response to the CCA request (application form whatever)?

 

Cabot seem very quick to reply these days and their tone of 'we adhere to OFT Guidance' etc is merely to cover themselves later should the OFT take a close interest in them as they have done with 1st Credit.

 

Their letters, at first glance, seem educated but actually they don't know what they are talking pretty much all of the time. Take a look at my thread for similar responses:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/186913-davey-halifax-bos-cabot.html

 

As far as their view point on Prescribed Terms go they haven't a clue. For Pre April 2007 agreements the following applies:

 

They have failed to produce a document signed by the debtor that contains the prescribed terms as per section 61(a) and section 127(3) of the CCA 1974.

 

When an agreement does not include the prescribed terms as per section 61(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 then the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable.

 

Wilson v Hurstanger;

 

"...Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself:

they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them."

[spartathisis]

Davey might be as well highlighting the bit about "cannot be found in another document" as well. Cabot are bulls*itters.