**DISCONTINUED** Cabot Financial Court Summons ( Scotland )

[Ruby]

Re: Ok, its now my turn - Cabot Financial Court Summons

bump please

[Ruby]

Re: Ok, its now my turn - Cabot Financial Court Summons

If I could get some reassurance that I am on the right track with this. I shall be posting a letter to Cabot tomorrow.

Gut feeling thus far is that Vanquis is unenforceable (due to lack of documentation) and Aqua due to wrong reconstructed CCA is enforceable too ........

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Ok, its now my turn - Cabot Financial Court Summons

Vanquis (post 85) only got generic t & c's in 2010 and yesterday same ones with paper stapled to front as attachment in post 85

Not read the whole thread but I notice the attachment on post 85 says "digital signature application". You have blanked everything out including the application date but if this was an online application made from 2005 onwards, a tick box would have fulfilled the role of a signature stating your agreement to the terms, and you wouldn't have been able to proceed with your application without ticking the box. In those cases it would be difficult to argue you did not sign an agreement containing all the prescribed terms.

If you applied before 2005 they should still have sent you an agreement to sign. The terms I saw uploaded appeared to be from 2006, is that when you took out the card?

[Ruby]

Re: Ok, its now my turn - Cabot Financial Court Summons

I hear what you are saying FP but, even with a digital signature (TBH I can't remember it being an on line application!) surely there must still exist a CCA agreement between the two parties in order to enforce?

[Ruby]

Re: Ok, its now my turn - Cabot Financial Court Summons

Under section 61 (1) it defines what constitutes a properly executed agreement. Although I hear what you are saying about the digital signature bit, when does a piece of paper headed 'Digital Signature Application Details' constitute a properly executed agreement? Can they really get away with that???

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Ok, its now my turn - Cabot Financial Court Summons

Under section 61 (1) it defines what constitutes a properly executed agreement. Although I hear what you are saying about the digital signature bit, when does a piece of paper headed 'Digital Signature Application Details' constitute a properly executed agreement? Can they really get away with that???

As discussed on the other thread, the account couldn't have been opened without ticking the box saying you agreed to all the T&Cs of the account. The terms would have been presented to you, probably in a separate window. There may have been an option to print them. There would be no requirement for a properly formatted paper agreement for an application submitted online in 2006.

How true!! Very difficult to challenge as it is plain that the box was ticked because the account was opened.

IMHO, it would be difficult to argue that the prescribed terms were not all there at the time of the application (s.127) because they could just produce a printout of their applicable terms from 2006 and you couldn't dispute that those were not the ones you'd agreed to unless you happened to have printed out and retained the T&Cs presented to you when you ticked the box and they were substantially different and incomplete.
It would also be difficult to argue they have not complied with the CCA request (s.78) because there was no need for a paper agreement in 2006, so you couldn't expect to get something that never existed.

I stand to be corrected, if someone can come up with something that could be argued in court, it would be lovely to be able to challenge Crapbot! :grin:

[mystery1]

Re: Ok, its now my turn - Cabot Financial Court Summons

It would also be difficult to argue they have not complied with the CCA request (s.78) because there was no need for a paper agreement in 2006, so you couldn't expect to get something that never existed.

It doesn't matter which medium was used to create an agreement, for s78 the true copy requirements are exactly the same.

M1

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Ok, its now my turn - Cabot Financial Court Summons

It doesn't matter which medium was used to create an agreement, for s78 the true copy requirements are exactly the same.

Indeed, but how would you argue this is not a true copy? :noidea: Unless you had printed off (or PDFd/saved) the terms supplied at the time, and retained them. :ohwell:

[mystery1]

Re: Ok, its now my turn - Cabot Financial Court Summons

Indeed, but how would you argue this is not a true copy? :noidea: Unless you had printed off (or PDFd/saved) the terms supplied at the time, and retained them. :ohwell:

Statements, address issues, wrong legislation, wrong affiliation pretty much the same as a paper one really.

M1

[Ruby]

Re: Ok, its now my turn - Cabot Financial Court Summons

Thanks for your input M1 and FP. Have you both read what Cabot sent me regarding Vanquis? FP going back to an earlier post where you pointed out the details of what constitutes a properly executed agreement. What Crapbot sent falls WELL short! Are you all saying that section 61 (1) is not relevant to digital applications for credit?:tinysmile_cry_t:

- Does NOT contain the name and address of both parties (as T & C's are generic and could belong to the pope!)
- NO mention of credit limit
- APR - it gives examples of various APR that's it
- No tick box/signature box at all

Several pages of mambo jumbo. The hardiest of folk would have fallen asleep two pages in!!

The above is just the very obvious I have spotted.

[nemesis45]

Re: Ok, its now my turn - Cabot Financial Court Summons

If you have received what is intended to be a "reconstituted " agreement it must have.
Your name and address as at the inception of the agreement.
The Creditors name and address at inception.
The T's & C's as at inception as at the inception and closure of the account.
Any material amendments to the T's & C's during the life of the agreement.
Any other documents mentioned in the T's & C's.

No signatures are needed.

AS others have said the T's & C's must be those relevant to the time the agreement was made all the " financial" data must be correct for that time.

[mystery1]

Re: Ok, its now my turn - Cabot Financial Court Summons

The act applies however the account was started. The point FP is making is that it's harder to say, with an online agreement, that there are discrepancies with the evidence they give because most people tick the box and don't read any terms and conditions. Of those that do it'll still be hard, not impossible, to recall the details. In essence, how do you say the evidence they submit in any court case is wrong ?

It's hard enough for a paper application. If you see in Wegmuller, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2012/19.html, he had memories of applying for the card. Most online applications will involve little or no memory beyond, i was on my computer when i applied. The CCA applies equally except a signature is presented by a different method. No more, no less.

If you have enough details to refute a claimants allegation of a true copy or that the prescribed terms were missing when you signed then you are at a significant advantage over many debtors and anyone who takes court action.

M1

[Ruby]

Re: Ok, its now my turn - Cabot Financial Court Summons


If you have received what is intended to be a "reconstituted " agreement it must have.
Your name and address as at the inception of the agreement.
The Creditors name and address at inception.
The T's & C's as at inception as at the inception and closure of the account.
Any material amendments to the T's & C's during the life of the agreement.
Any other documents mentioned in the T's & C's.

No signatures are needed.

Thank you - I thought for a while I was going mad, but then again I probably already am, lol.

If you have enough details to refute a claimants allegation of a true copy or that the prescribed terms were missing when you signed then you are at a significant advantage over many debtors and anyone who takes court action.-

I believe I do have enough details on the back of what I have received. I am just a wee person though in the scale of things and feel very intimidated by Crapbot and the court system, but then again that is what Crapbot are counting on......

[mystery1]

Re: Ok, its now my turn - Cabot Financial Court Summons

If you have received what is intended to be a "reconstituted " agreement it must have.
Your name and address as at the inception of the agreement.
The Creditors name and address at inception.
The T's & C's as at inception as at the inception and closure of the account.
Any material amendments to the T's & C's during the life of the agreement.
Any other documents mentioned in the T's & C's.

No signatures are needed.

Thank you - I thought for a while I was going mad, but then again I probably already am, lol.

If you have enough details to refute a claimants allegation of a true copy or that the prescribed terms were missing when you signed then you are at a significant advantage over many debtors and anyone who takes court action.-

I believe I do have enough details on the back of what I have received. I am just a wee person though in the scale of things and feel very intimidated by Crapbot and the court system, but then again that is what Crapbot are counting on......

You do know s78 and s127(3) are separate and distinctly different ?

S78 can be satisfied and at the same time an agreement is UE via s127(3) and that an agreement might be UE under s78(6) but be perfectly acceptable under s127(3) ?


If you sign an agreement initially which is spot on with the act and has your name and address at the time correct but request a copy vis s78 and the copy says your name is Jones instead of Smith (if for example you got married and changed your surname) it is not a true copy as it is the name AT THE TIME which is required. It'll never be irredeemably unenforceable though only temporarily until the manage to get a true copy.

If you have an agreement which you signed and it did not have a prescribed term it will be, and always will be, irredeemably unenforceable. They can still send a true copy which satisfies s78 though but that'd be the least of their worries. Of course having an irredeemable agreement is only of any use if a judge says it is UE.


M1

[Ruby]

Re: Ok, its now my turn - Cabot Financial Court Summons

All the talk about different sections of the act completely mess with the few brain cells I have!

If you have an agreement which you signed and it did not have a prescribed term it will be, and always will be, irredeemably unenforceable -I strongly believe this is the case in my situation. Of course having an irredeemable agreement is only of any use if a judge says it is UE - this is my worry!

When court papers are received, how accurate do they have to be, any idea? The pursuer was down as Cabot but with the address of a completely different DCA that I had never heard of before! (Marlin finance). If the courts are confused of who owns a supposed debt, how am I supposed to feel.