Saddler10, Cabot and Egg

[saddler10]

Hi all, I already have a thread covering this, but now that this account has been sold onto Cabot, and having read a lot on the forums about the way that they behave, I have decided to start a new thread where I can summarise what happened pre-Cabot and where I am now with this. Some of what I have been reading I find very worrying!

I have just received a 'final reponse' from Cabot, basically saying they don't accept my dispute, I will scan and post all of my correspondence from them, but first of all the background...

 

The first DCA that I had dealings with concerning this account was DLC, they were demanding 2k immediately. At this point, I sent a CCA request to Egg, who couldn't supply the credit agreement within the time limits and the account became unenforcable in August 2007. DLC then passed this to their solicitors, Aplin, but when I wrote to Aplin informing them that the account was in dispute, I didn't hear from them again.

 

All went quiet for a while, then Egg passed it to another DCA, ARC. Again I informed the DCA that the account was in dispute. ARC then sent me a statement of account and a copy of the terms and conditions as they were when agreement was signed. They informed me that Egg were unable to locate the Credit agreement at present. Again this went as far as a solictor, Trevor Munn, again I informed the solicitor that the account was in dispute and all went quiet again for a while.

 

I did make a complaint to Trading Standards in January 2008. I never heard anything from them, but interestingly it was around this time that I had my last contact with ARC/Munn and didn't hear anything else until my first contact with Cabot in November 2008.

 

I will start posting my correspondence from Cabot shortly, but feel like I need some really good advice now as I am reading about Cabot taking people to court and winning with the dodgiest of cases!

 

thanks, Saddler10

[saddler10]

Right, this is my first contact from Cabot from last November. Note at this time I had not been supplied with a credit agreement following my CCA request in 2007.

 

Also, on the letter enclosed from Egg informing me that the account has been sold on, this on Egg headed paper, is signed by CAHOOT/ABBEY NATIONAL PLC! How could this happen? Cabot sent me a notice of correction shortly after.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2009 by saddler10
letters

[Fred Bassett]

What a cock up. This proves beyond doubt that Cabot are printing their own notice of assignment letters.

 

Fred

[saddler10]

Thanks Fred, will try and get the rest of my correspondence up over the next couple of days.

 

Saddler10

[lickthewallfatboy]

What a cock up. This proves beyond doubt that Cabot are printing their own notice of assignment letters.

 

Fred

 

 

ditto here as well

 

is there any comeback against Cabot for doing this?

[saddler10]

After a couple of weeks I got the following from them;

 

 

 

 

 

So, in the notice of correction, Cabot apologise on behalf of Egg PLC. Are they seriously saying that someone at Egg forgot who they work for?

 

Saddler10

Edited October 19, 2009 by saddler10
letters

[spamheed]

FFS they aren't even trying to hide it now, I got letter 1 yesterday so am pretty much following in your footsteps. it's 2 years since I CCA'd Moorcroft, they dropped it and then there was Freds, who did the same, now 12 months later we have Cabot.

 

If you look closely at both letters, off to the right hand side there is a tiny reference strip, it clearly states 1 of 2 on the Cabot letter and 2 of 2 on the Egg letter.

[Linus]

Why not write to Egg and ask them to confirm, suggest to them you are concerned about Fraud, and you think this may be a Police matter,

 

Also inform the idiots you can no longer discuss until Egg have confirmed the points you have raised, but send Egg letter now and send idiots letter on the postal strike.

[spamheed]

I have posted a complaint to Companies House, who I believe are the relevant body, but I will contact Egg this evening to check it out

[spamheed]

have also contacted trading standards who seemed quite interested in the possible "criminal nature" of their letter

 

we shall see

 

Mine own thread, just to link the two is here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/225933-spamheed-cabot.html

[balster]

My letter from Cabot (Egg) arrive yesterday.

There were 2 letters in the same envelope. One from Cabot with the usual saying that they own the debt and another with Egg titles, saying that they had sold on the debt.

How strange that they should both be in he same envelope. I would have thought that Egg would have told ME in writing themselves, rather than proxy.

[B3rty]

This is all good stuff to include in a court bundle just in case it goes that far to to show the incompetence of PLCs and then link that to their incompetence in composing valid CCA agreements as some judges assume they must be OK because they are PLCs with sophisticated systems (See the Rankine Judgement)

[spamheed]

I just heard back from Companies House, despite earlier interest they have made it plain that this is not within their remit.

 

They suggested the Police and Trading Standards as effe3ctively we are looking at Fraud and /or Misrepresentation.

 

Balster I would suggest contacting trading Standards, the more complaints we get the more likely they will realise this is a deliberate ploy to mislead and not a single admin error

[martin g]

Section 2 of the 2006 Fraud Act specifically deals with fraud by misrepresentation

The act is small as it contains only 16 sections plus 3 schedules.

 

All Theft Act deception offences are abolished to be replaced by 3 new fraud offences: fraud by misrepresentation.......f raud by failing to disclose information and fraud by abuse of position..

 

Under section 1 a person is guilty of fraud if they are in breach of any offences in sections 2,3,4.

 

Under Section 2 representation must be made dishonestly which is established under the two-stage test as set out in Rv Gosh (1982) QB 1053, 75 Cr App R 154 in which the defendant was dishonest by the standards of ordinary people

 

 

Subsection (1) (b) requires that the representation is made with the intention of making a gain for himself or causing a loss or risk of loss to another. Loss and gain are defined in section 5 as being money or property

 

This section is very wide ranging & could criminalise a lie. Furthermore there is no need to show that the victim was even aware of the lie for there to have been a crime committed. It would not matter to whom, if anyone the representation was addressed nor the eventual effect, if any.

 

Fraud by failing to disclose information

 

Section 3 provides that where a person dishonestly fails to disclose to another information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, & intends to make a gain or cause a loss or the risk of a loss an offence has been committed.

 

Fraud by abuse of position

 

Section 4 makes it an offence for a person who occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not act against the financial interest of another person, to abuse that position dishonestly and intend, by means of the abuse, to make gain or cause a loss or risk of a loss to another. This creates a very broad offence.

 

The origionator of the deception faces a lengthy jail sentence and/ or a large fine if convicted before a Crown Court.

 

The Act is well drated and simple to understand ( unlike the CCA 1983) and is easily accesssed through Google if you want to read it.

 

Of down the police Station?

 

Martin g

[Linus]

Nice piece of info Martin g, stick that in a letter, Im sure that will make a few eyeballs pop out of sockets....

[spamheed]

I know that Trading Standards get a bit of a rough ride on here, but my last complaint through them put 1st crudit and CONnaught right back in their boxes, so I figure I'll give them a chance and see what they come up with.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but pretending to be something you aren't and then demanding payments afterwards has to be a fraudulent act by any standards.

 

Cabot are not Egg and never will be, even if Egg authorise and accept the deception

 

even if the persons you are impersonating has given their permission to the deception, this would simply make them equally guilty of consipricy to defraud in my book.

[saddler10]

Some interesting stuff here, shame I have to go to work today! Just to try and get things up to date, following Cabot's first contact almost a year ago, I wrote back straight away informing them the account was disputed. They then sent me a letter to say they would contact Egg regarding my 'query'. I wasn't really making a query, I was telling them the account was in dispute.

They said they expected to get a reply from Egg within 21 days but due to archiving could take longer.

I then heard nothing for about six months, when Cabot sent the 'agreement'. I will scan the letter and agreement for my next post.

 

Saddler10

[martin g]

Following my post above I found this on our "neighbours" at Bailiffs and Sheriffs Officers, posted by Happy Contrails- Thanks Happy

 

 

20 Apr 2007

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

 

Whether a bailiff who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter.

 

 

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal):

 

A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.

One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

 

Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and by doing so obtains a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter.

 

 

Baroness Scotland of Asthal:

 

The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is by false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss. It is immaterial whether they actually obtained a payment or goods from a debtor.

 

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

 

Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and intends by so doing to obtain a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter.

 

 

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss.

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

 

Whether bailiffs who illegally obtain entry to a debtor’s premises with the intent of obtaining payment from a debtor, or of taking possession of goods, commit a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter.

 

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The basic rule regarding the powers of entry for bailiffs is that there is a right of entry that may be exercised into any relevant premises. In circumstances where a bailiff illegally obtains entry to a debtor’s premises, their conduct will amount to fraud only if they dishonestly, and with the intent to make a gain or to cause a loss, make a false representation, fail to disclose information or abuse their position. While an illegal entry may be made with the intention of making a gain or causing a loss, it may well not involve the other elements necessary to commit a fraud.

 

Whilst the references are to Bailiffs, who are meant to be certificated and respect the law I would suggest that the same answers would apply to Debt Collectors who are meant to be regulated and respect the law and that the same principles apply.

 

Anyone know a Noble Lord who would like to put the above questions to Baroness Scotland with a few words changed?

 

Martin g

[saddler10]

So, after about six months this is the letter and 'agreement' that Cabot sent me, I will try and post the reply I sent them shortly;

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2009 by saddler10
correct link

[Fred Bassett]

'Please provide a copy of your passport .....'

 

Sure, so they've then got a copy of your signature. They are quite happy to write threatograms to your address, but for this piece of information, strangely, they require some further proof.

 

I trust you won't fall for this one.

 

Fred

[debtsurvivor]

Hi Sadler

 

Subbing I just got a very similar first letter from Cabot regarding Egg too. Will post up seperately but look in to see how you get on good luck. Seems as if you're OK so far.

 

Best Wishes

 

DS

[Yellow160]

and on 1 of the forms it clearly says at the bottom near the barcode 'Application Form'.. they need to make their minds up.

[spamheed]

Saddler you need to take down and amend the images of the letters you have posted, the refs running down both sides of the letters will enable Cabot to identify you

[Fester Tester]

Ignore the last bit of the letter. You are neither denying or accepting ownership of any debt whatsoever. That is not the basis of your dispute.

[shirei12]

Look Familiar???