Cabot and Vanquis card scotland

[seriously fed up]

A debt with Vanquis has been sold to Cabot who are now looking to collect.

 

 

I did have contact with Roxburghe on behalf of Vanquis over the summer and CCAd them.

In response

- in May

- I got the usual load of T&Cs without a signature, or even an account number in sight.

 

 

I wrote and told them what I thought of it and heard no more till Cabot came into view.

I have advised them that I have not seen anything that I consider to be enforceable

- prescribed terms and sig

- and until then they should forget it.

 

 

However, got a letter today which besides asserting that Vanquis have assured them that what they sent in May is ok (would they say otherwise?) that the court will take into account whether I have suffered any prejudice due to their contravention, so even if the agreement has not been properly executed they would argue i have suffered no prejudice and would expect the court to enforce.

 

This looks to me like a consequence of the repeal of s127(3) by the 2006 Act (and it would apply in this case, the account being 2008, I think), BUT that notwithstanding they havent produced anything that has my signature on it.

 

 

Any words of wisdom on what the 2006 Act would allow me to do here?

Thanks

Edited November 2, 2009 by seriously fed up

[PGH7447]

how did you apply for the card, was it online?

[seriously fed up]

Dont quite remember - think it might have been. However what they sent me has no tie to me at all - not even an address - just photocopied T&Cs with a notice of variation

[hungrybear]

You need to SAR not CCA them and specify what you want otherwise you'll get a ream of statements and nothing else.

 

Unfortunately they have to provide very little to comply with a CCA request in this case and quite possibly have complied with what they sent.

 

Tell Cabot that the matter is in dispute and you do not acknowledge their role unless they can provide definitive legally enforceable proof that they have a matter to discuss and that for the avoidance of doubt that would include a properly executed CCA and defaults/termination notices as applicable and notice of their assignment.

 

Make them prove that there is a debt and they are able to collect it.

 

What I have done in this situation in the past is get REAL ballsy with them and say either prove there is a debt, take me to court and prove to a district judge there is a debt or sod off. BUT you have to mean it to say that!

[seriously fed up]

Had a letter from Cabot this morning in response to a s78 request that I made of them at the end of last year (pdf attached).

 

 

This concerned a Vanquis card that I took out at the end of 2007/ early 2008.

Cabot have included a letter from Vanquis confirming that I applied on line (see pdf 02)

 

 

what they have is a set of T&Cs along with a screen print of my personal details,

which is headed "Digital Signature Application".

 

 

So far so bad. BUT ....

Before the account was flogged by Vanquis to Cabot

- pretty sure with a default notice though there was a notice of assignment

- I had done a s78 on Vanquis and that time all they sent was a copy of "the executed agreement",

 

 

which is no more than a copy of the T&Cs (unsigned it goes without saying)

and no mention of how I might have applied for the card online (pdf 03).

 

 

am I right in thinking that they have to stand by what they sent the first time

(which doesnt mention any online application and has no signatures

- just a list of T&Cs), and does this make any difference?

 

Any advice welcomed - suppose someone who knows about online applications

SFU:)

[seriously fed up]

this pdf has the "notice of variation" and t&cs that Cabot sent today.

Then there are the T&Cs that Vanquis sent in reply to my s78 request back in March (they replied on 1st May).

 

The two sets of T&Cs look identical to me and the prescribed terms are in both right up front.

 

 

I suppose what I am really asking here is whether the variation in responses

- and in particular the failure to refer to the application having been made online

- makes any difference to their position.

 

 

I THINK I read somewhere that when they respond to a s78 that is what they have to stand by?

Is that wrong? If its not, does it make any difference?

Edited February 5, 2010 by seriously fed up

[IdaInFife]

no they don't have to 'stand by' what they sent

 

normally and online agreement is a basic printout/screenshot of your application and has little tick boxes rather than sigs

[seriously fed up]

think what i will do is sar them, as i dont recall a default or termination notice on this one - just the notice of assignment to Cabot. Who would I write to? Is it the original lender or Cabot (who own the debt)?

Thanks for your time. Appreciate it

[IdaInFife]

no probs SFU

 

the original lender

 

Ida x

[seriously fed up]

another little development.

As I said I am going to send Vanquis a SAR,

i was looking about my documents to find another SAR request (and just change the names, dates etc) and guess what popped up?

 

 

Yep a SAR that I had sent to Vanquis back on 4th November last year that they have never responded to.

 

 

Any words of wisdom from anywhere about what to do about this?

 

 

I really dont remember them ever doing a default notice or a termination notice

- that's what I am focusing on here.

Ta

SFU

[IdaInFife]

template 2

 

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/48-bank-templates/129-data-protection-act-non-compliance-template-letters-

[seriously fed up]

it looks somewhat more complicated than I had thought.

 

 

Tbh, I hadnt remembered sending them a SAR but came across this in my letters directory and have cross referenced that date with the £10 fee going through the bank.

 

 

I have an acknowledgement from Vanquis (dated 5 days after the request would be made) but they dont refer to is a SAR - they dont actually refer to it as anything other than an enquiry.

 

At the same time,

I wrote to Cabot (4th November) advising them that I put a SAR into Vanquis,

but also making reference to never having received a letter of assignment.

 

 

Sure enough later on I got a letter of assignment from Vanquis dated 20th November for an account that they had sold on to Cabot on the 1st October (ie more than 7 weeks earlier).

 

What they sent me on friday is

 

 

1. a letter from Cabot headed Information under the Consumer Credit Act saying that the information they were sending satisfied the Act's requirements and that they would now recommence collection
   
2. digital sig application - i have not put this up as if i take out the personal data there woudlnt be anything left.
   
3. a set of t&cs for Vanquis
   
4. a print out - which I have to assume is from Cabot as it runs from 2nd October to 2nd February, showing that they are adding £3.21 to the total every month.
   

What they seem to have done is accidentally (or accidentally on purpose????) treated my SAR as a s78.

 

 

This is despite the fact that in both letters (the request to Vanquis and the copy to Cabot) I think I made it pretty clear to them what I was after.

 

The letter to Vanquis is set out below;

 

removed template - dx

 

The covering letter (with a copy of the above) sent to Cabot reads

 

I ACKNOWLEDGE NO DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

I refer to your letter of 29th October,

from which I note that you are approaching Vanquis re certain documents appertaining to the above account.

 

 

However, please be advised that I have today written to Vanquis with a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

 

Vanquis will have forty days to respond to this request and until such time as they do respond I consider the account to be in dispute.

 

I also note from your correspondence your assertion that Cabot Financial purchased the alleged debt from Vanquis on 1st October 2009. However to date I have not received

· Any default or termination notice from Vanquis.

· A notice of assignment from Vanquis to Cabot, or anyone else.

 

I therefore have no evidence that the account has been either terminated and/or transferred to anyone else.

Therefore, unless or until,

I receive information which proves (rather than asserts) this,

I am not convinced that Cabot Financial has any locus in this matter whatsoever.

Therefore, it appears to me that at the moment, there is nothing to be discussed between us.

 

Until you are able to produce this evidence, whether or not you can prove that I have been disadvantaged, Cabot are unable to show either that the alleged debt exists and that they have legal authority to collect this.

Yours faithfully,

 

I think its pretty hard for them to say that they didnt know what I was after.

This is particularly so as in a letter of 20th november from Cabot, they tell me

 

 

 

• there is a copy of a notice of assignment from Vanquis confirming that they own the debt (there was!) - so at least they had read it.

  

  
  

• that there is no requirement under s78/77 of the CCA to provide a copy of a default notice, which of course is true, even I know that. BUT, I THINK there is a duty under a SAR request? Yes?

  
  

It seems to be here that things go wrong - and I should have noticed

- as they refer to my request for a copy of my credit agreement under the CCA.

Anyhow, the situation seems to be that

 

1. I made a SAR request of Vanquis

   
   

2. this somehow was morphed into a S77/78 request, even though I think it was made clear to them what was wanted and Vanquis got a tenner

   
   

What I am not sure about is how to proceed

 

1. I could - as you suggested Ida - hit them with the non-compliance letter; OR

   
   

2. write to them pointing to the error of their ways ("no not a s77, but a SAR, please respond")

   
   

Comments on this?

 

Secondly, they have sold the debt without notice of assignment

- never been involved in one like this before

- does it matter to a material degree or now they have corrected it, everything is fine?

 

Lastly,

I am practically certain that they never sent either a notice of default or termination but went ahead and sold the account anyway.

I seem to remember that there are pretty serious consequences from this?

 

As always, advice is very welcome

SFU

[IdaInFife]

go via non compliance - then that way if they still fail you then make a complaint to the ICO

[seriously fed up]

Thanks Ida - letter being sent off to both Vanquis and Cabot pointing to their failings

 

Here's a funny one.

Got an automated call today from AIC (nothing to do with this one) telling me that I should phone "Miss Black".

 

 

Strange thing is that I got a call from them about 10 days ago telling me that I should phone "Mr White". Perhaps, if I hang on in long enough, I might get to speak to Captain Scarlet.

 

Its actually an old MBNA one that I know they wont have an agreement for

- I have asked them any number of times for it.

 

 

But - according to Mr White

- they have written to me, but

- HONESTLY

- i have not had a word from them, so could be interesting.

 

 

I just wonder in what roundabout way they will ask for an address

- though they have a phone number. Very odd!

Thanks again for the advice

[seriously fed up]

had a response from Cabot which,

even by their standards looks pretty remarkable (copy attached).

 

 

Main points seem to be

 

I wrote to them in October with a CCA request.

I did

- it was a reminder that in my view what they sent me in March following a CCA request was not compliant.

 

 

However, that notwithstanding,

the SAR was sent in November,

and, if you check above,

 

 

I think you would have to agree that I couldnt have been clearer about what this is about.

 

 

Cabot are clearly trying to make out that the SAR has no implication for them,

though

- see fourth last paragraph that while I am in correspondence with Vaquis they will endeavour to collect. As the owner of the debt (though see below) can they do this?

 

 

more remarkable is the notice of assignment,

which is dated 25/2/2010, but someone at Cabot has written in pencil on top

"sent originally 5th October 2009".

 

 

Yet their letter to me today says that Vanquis didnt terminate the account till 31st December 2010.

 

 

Cabot have been trying to collect on an account which they claim was assigned to them on/before 5th Octber 2009,

but which wasnt terminated by Vanquis till 31st December 2009.

 

 

I dont think they can do this?

Am I right?

If so, what are the consequences for them?

 

 

Cabot's "hello" letter (also sent on 5th October) includes as its first term that this letter acts as a notice of assignment!

 

 

I think that is about it,

but what I would REALLY appreciate comment on

- in order of importance

- is

 

 

can Vanquis sell an account (on/before 5th October) which has not been terminated

(till 31st December)?

I have this in writing from them.

 

 

If they cant,

what are the consequences for them of doing so?

Are there any?

 

 

they didnt reply to the CCA request

(NOT the SAR - that hasnt produced anything yet) till 5th February,

but I note from the papers that they sent that they have been adding interest since October.

Can they do this?

 

 

while Vanquis get their act together with the SAR,

can Cabot engage in collection activity?

 

 

As always, comments (or better still answers/ povs) are very welcome

SFU

[IdaInFife]

yes, they can pass the account on , it's just that they cannot ask for the full balance unless the DN has been sent and the agreement terminated.

 

above

 

re interest depends if the agreement allows interest to be added after termination

 

 

yes they can, as sar is not a dispute of an account- you certainly could write to them requesting to hold action on the account until you have the account info your require

[seriously fed up]

In that case I would probably look at doing a F&F.

 

 

Never done this before

 

 

. Any good advice/ letters/ places to look - esp re Cabot?

Ta

[seriously fed up]

Very gentle and polite bump.

I have found these two letters and was going to "amalgamate them". Are there any points I should correct in either of them?

More pertinently, bearing in mind what they have - see thread - any suggestions about

 

1. what level to start at?
   
2. what level they are likely to be looking for?
   

Cheers

SFU

 

[Your Address]

 

June 28, 2006

 

The Loan Company

Company House,

Church Street,

Newtown,

Kent,

R1 7HG

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Account/Reference Number 4563210025897412

We write with reference to the money which you are claiming on the above account.

We can confirm that we are unable to offer to pay the money which we owe in full. However, by relying on the good will of other family members, I can raise and I want to offer this as an ex−gratia payment in full and final settlement of the account. This offer is made on the clear understanding that, if accepted, neither you nor any other company you may be associated with or have dealings with, will take any other action to enforce or pursue this debt in any way whatsoever and that we will be released for all liability.

We also request that, if accepted, you will make an entry on a credit reference agency file relating to the above account as "satisfied" in full.

Payment can be made within 1 m onthof receiving your written agreement of this offer and method of payment.

We look forward to receiving your reply.

Yours faithfully

 

 

While admitting no liability for the account and the sum claimed as owing, I am willing to offer the sum of £xx as an ex-gratia payment in full and final settlement of the account.

This offer is made on the clear understanding that neither you nor any associate company will take any further action to attempt to enforce or pursue this debt in any way whatsoever and that any and all liability on our behalf will be fully discharged on receipt of the above stated monies.

This offer is made on the condition that of all adverse entries regarding this account are removed from our credit files with the credit reference agencies.

Payment can be made within 2 weeks of receiving your written confirmation of your agreement of this offer and the subsequent terms of the offer. Please also identify your prefered method of payment and the details of making said payment.

Please note this offer will expire on (date - give them a couple of weeks) if no letter of unconditional acceptance is forthcoming and may not be repeated. This offer is not open to negotiation.

We look forward to receiving your reply.

[IdaInFife]

any default notice yet?

[seriously fed up]

Sorry to be dim about this, but what is the consequence of no default notice.

I am still waiting on Vanquis to treat my SAR as a SAR and not a s78 CCA, but Cabot are enforcing their legal right to get some money out of me - phoned this afternoon apparently. So something useful to fight them off for now would be most useful. Thanks

[IdaInFife]

if they terminate an agreement onthe back of a faulty of no default notice then you would only be due to pay the arrears at that time:

 

night time reading lol

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2166205.html

[seriously fed up]

I think I can see how this works

if the creditor issues a DN that is faulty in some way

- for instance they serve on on me today,

and at this time the arrears are £x so all they can get is £x.

 

But,

its not that Vanquis served a faulty DN on me,

followed by a Termination Notice.

 

 

I dont remember that they did either of these things,

how does it work then.

 

 

What they APPEAR to have done is to have sold the account to Cabot without either a DN or a Termination Notice.

 

 

Could Cabot

- who now seem to own the debt

- just issue a DN now, when the arrears are probably about the whole debt so we end up in the same place anyway?

 

 

I dont see anything either in the Act

- i have looked the section on default and termination,

as well as the Regs and they dont seem to advise.

 

About the best I could find was this

- My OH jas had a similiar situation with a Morgan Stanley account,

see my post' Morgan Stanley- Cabot question' don't know how to provide link.

 

 

in which Pinky69 has similiarly explained fact Morgan Stanley didn't issue default notice prior to sale to Cabot makes this rescission of contract.

 

Checked this with the legal helpline on my insurance and they have confirmed what the posters on here are advsing. ie if original creditor didn't issue a default then there is no debt for Cabot to chase.

 

It is down to Cabot to prove that the original creditor issued a valid default notice.

Neither can they claim they aren't enforcing just collecting arrears.

And in your case if Cabot were slippery enough to try to persuade a judge that they had the right to issue a Notice under Section 87 then they've mucked that up as well

 

Pasted from

 

[veryweary]

Pinky69 has a long thread called' Invalid Default Notices', and an update on another thread called 'Cabots Latest Ploy on DN's' -Warning' with info on Cabot trying to justify claiming arrears only ,where they know DN's are invalid or weren't issued prior to sale. Very informative and with all the detailed whys and wherefores.

 

In my case Cabot helped confirm the OC hadn't issued a Default Notice by issuing one themselves on their lovely Cabot yellow banded paper:eek:

The SAR info you requested from Vanquis should show when a DN was issued by Vanquis. If it doesn't then you can challenge the fact they issued one as far as I am aware.

 

The legal helpline I checked with said that if the OC hadn't issued a properly prepared DN prior to sale then Cabot would be very ill advised to try this out in court. Whether they do or not remains to be seen.

 

Making a F&F just now might affect your claim at a later date of unlawful rescission, if Cabot don't accept your F&F offer and go after the full amount. Pinky or Ida will know considerably more on that.

 

Cabot are renowned for twisting everything including facts. The solicitor told me to be very careful, frugal and to the point in anything I put into writing to them. It also prevents Ms Moore going into inventive overdrive in her responses:D:D

[seriously fed up]

"Oh how I wish this had come up a couple of days ago.

 

 

Last week,

I had a really remarkable letter from Cabot which included a "template" DN from Vanquis

(or I assume it was and not just a Photoshop job)

which lacked any connection with me and referred to a debt that was about 500 (I kid you not) times what I might be said to owe them.

 

 

I have written back asking them what this is supposed to prove,

as their argument seemed to be

"this is what the DN they were supposed to send would have looked like, so pay up".

 

 

I wrote back telling that it proved nothing,

BUT

- and this is why I wish this had come up a couple of days ago

- suggesting

" as I am sure you are,

I would prefer to bring this matter to closure,

but in such a way as to recognize the dubious enforceability of the alleged account .

 

 

Therefore, we reach an agreement on the amount you claim is owed and I will make a token payment, without prejudice and without admission of liability, of 10% of this amount, in full and final payment of the alleged account."

 

Referring specifically to the points in your post - which is very helpful and if they come back and say "no" will still be very helpful -

 

 

1. Cabot havent accepted there is no DN (very honest of them!)
   
2. Vanquis havent responded to my SAR
   
3. as you can see the offer I have made is prefaced with "look, this is a pain - how much do you want to go away"- ie convenience - and surrounded by legal caveats (without prejudice/ admission of liability), but I take your point that if I go down unlawful recission, it could pose a problem. We live and learn.
   
4. Ms Moore? Cant remember the name of the drone I am dealing with - Jamie something.
   

I will look for Pinky69.

Thank you for taking the time to post.

SFU