Tweet
This letter was received a few days ago by an acquaintance of mine and I find it most distasteful and do not believe that Cabot, or indeed any company dealing with consumers, should be permitted to write this tripe.
Notwithstanding the fact that it is littered with pseudo-threats regarding "options" that will "occur" the use of bold type is juvenile and unnecessary. In addition, adding superfluous capital letters to certain words is as inappropriate as it is gratuitous and demonstrates a woeful understanding of written English. It is only one small step from bold type and capital letters to blood-red ink and then where will we be?
According to Cabot, unless they are contacted "...one of the following options will occur"
a Warrant of Execution
a Charging Order
an Attachment of Earnings Order
an Order to Obtain Information
an External Debt Collection Agency or Legal Agency
Now, aside from the final entry, (which is ironic because what are Cabot themselves if they are not a debt collection agency?) they are all in fact meaningless without a County Court Judgment first being obtained.
Not only that, OFT guidelines on debt collection are explicit on the subject of unfair business practices. (Debt collection guidance, Final guidance on unfair business practices, July 2003 (updated December 2006))
Among other things, the OFT state that it is unfair to communicate, in whatever form, with consumers in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner including false representation of authority and/or legal position. It is unfair to falsely imply or state that action can or will be taken when it legally cannot. They must not state that they will visit the debtor without making the purpose of any proposed visit clear, for example, merely stating that collectors or field agents will call is not sufficient.
Given that this single letter alone breaches just about every unfair business practice that the OFT could find, I wonder if there is a case for an injunction against Cabot in order for them to cease pursuit of this alleged debt? In particular because in this case, a properly executed request for a copy of the agreement and deed of assignment was made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in July 2006 and to date, nothing has been received.
What is more, the above Act requires most businesses that offer goods or services on credit or lend money, or are involved in activities relating to credit or hire, to be licensed by the OFT. The OFT can refuse or revoke a licence if it decides that a company is not fit to hold one. A failure to comply with OFT's debt collection guidance, issued in July 2003, would call into question licence fitness.
I think it would be an interesting exercise to seek injunctive relief from harassment by Cabot, using the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in particular because the court will regard ignoring an injunction as amounting to a contempt of court, the ultimate sanction for which is imprisonment.
An injunction could be sought based on the premise that harassment is occurring given that no enforceable credit agreement has been produced (itself a criminal offence) and that these letters are deliberately written to cause alarm and distress. Furthermore, none of the actions described can be legally, or otherwise taken at any time until a judgment has been obtained, which cannot happen without the original credit agreement being produced.
Notwithstanding the fact that it is littered with pseudo-threats regarding "options" that will "occur" the use of bold type is juvenile and unnecessary. In addition, adding superfluous capital letters to certain words is as inappropriate as it is gratuitous and demonstrates a woeful understanding of written English. It is only one small step from bold type and capital letters to blood-red ink and then where will we be?
According to Cabot, unless they are contacted "...one of the following options will occur"
a Warrant of Execution
a Charging Order
an Attachment of Earnings Order
an Order to Obtain Information
an External Debt Collection Agency or Legal Agency
Now, aside from the final entry, (which is ironic because what are Cabot themselves if they are not a debt collection agency?) they are all in fact meaningless without a County Court Judgment first being obtained.
Not only that, OFT guidelines on debt collection are explicit on the subject of unfair business practices. (Debt collection guidance, Final guidance on unfair business practices, July 2003 (updated December 2006))
Among other things, the OFT state that it is unfair to communicate, in whatever form, with consumers in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner including false representation of authority and/or legal position. It is unfair to falsely imply or state that action can or will be taken when it legally cannot. They must not state that they will visit the debtor without making the purpose of any proposed visit clear, for example, merely stating that collectors or field agents will call is not sufficient.
Given that this single letter alone breaches just about every unfair business practice that the OFT could find, I wonder if there is a case for an injunction against Cabot in order for them to cease pursuit of this alleged debt? In particular because in this case, a properly executed request for a copy of the agreement and deed of assignment was made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in July 2006 and to date, nothing has been received.
What is more, the above Act requires most businesses that offer goods or services on credit or lend money, or are involved in activities relating to credit or hire, to be licensed by the OFT. The OFT can refuse or revoke a licence if it decides that a company is not fit to hold one. A failure to comply with OFT's debt collection guidance, issued in July 2003, would call into question licence fitness.
I think it would be an interesting exercise to seek injunctive relief from harassment by Cabot, using the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in particular because the court will regard ignoring an injunction as amounting to a contempt of court, the ultimate sanction for which is imprisonment.
An injunction could be sought based on the premise that harassment is occurring given that no enforceable credit agreement has been produced (itself a criminal offence) and that these letters are deliberately written to cause alarm and distress. Furthermore, none of the actions described can be legally, or otherwise taken at any time until a judgment has been obtained, which cannot happen without the original credit agreement being produced.
Comment