Gemini v Cabot

[Gemini566]

Re: Gemini v Cabot

Good afternoon,

I finally managed to get enough time out of a quite busy day, so far, to write the following two letters. Will they suffice do you think?

To the ICO:


And to Catbot:-

[Gemini566]

Re: Gemini v Cabot

As no one has made adverse comment on my proposed letters of complaint, I am assuming they are OK, so sent them off this morning.

What do I do about the other rubbish they have sent which DOES concern my a/c? Do I send CB's non-compliant CCA letter? I did after all send the £1.00 fee (I can hardly be held to account just because they sent it back, can I?). As can clearly be seen, the Quick Reply Card is definitely not an acceptable credit agreement, since it contains none of the prescribed terms.

So, what now please?

[hellhasnofury]

Re: Gemini v Cabot

As no one has made adverse comment on my proposed letters of complaint, I am assuming they are OK, so sent them off this morning.

What do I do about the other rubbish they have sent which DOES concern my a/c? Do I send CB's non-compliant CCA letter? I did after all send the £1.00 fee (I can hardly be held to account just because they sent it back, can I?). As can clearly be seen, the Quick Reply Card is definitely not an acceptable credit agreement, since it contains none of the prescribed terms.

So, what now please?

Hello Gemini,

Your letter were fine, so await both of their responses

I would now alert them to the fact that the said credit agreement they have sent you is infact a pre-contractual application form and where is the credit agreement for the alleged account.

Others more knowledgeable will be along soon

I would be smiling if I were you

[Gemini566]

Re: Gemini v Cabot

Thank you Hell. Sound advise, as always.... :thumb:

[Curlyben]

Re: Gemini v Cabot

Yesh, what Hell said

I wouldn't bother with the precontract angel as yet, just a plain old Non-com..

[Gemini566]

Re: Gemini v Cabot

OK, CB a nice polite, "Sorry but you have sent the wrong agreement...blah, blah), will be in the post tomorrow.

Don't forget the clocks go forward an hour at 0200 in the morning!!!

[Gemini566]

Re: Gemini v Cabot

I have at last received a response to my "Non- com" letter of 31st March 2009.

They are adamant that the document they sent initially will suffice (see # 39 of this thread to remind you), and give the following reasons ( I have scanned, cropped and copied etc., from the actual letter)......



Does this mean I have to pay them?

Their response to my questioning the validity of their Notice of Assignment is to sent me another "Representation of a letter dated 24th December 2004", with the following comment:-



I have concerns regarding the amount I am supposed to owe and I questioned them regarding that too, but I think that is best left for now.

I also told them, AGAIN, that I wanted everything in writing and stressed that they should not telephone at all, EVER, to which they replied.......



Is that right? Are they allowed to start the telephoning again, despite my request to them to refrain?

I would like to say, again that I appreciate that I owe some money here, but it is nowhere near the amount they are asking for.

I should also like to point out that they have not once mentioned or even alluded to the other debt with Barclays Bank that they told me they had purchased at the same time as this Monument CC. I find that kind of strange, considering how adamant they have been for most of the last 5 years. I also recall that I did in fact pay them money that was intended to reduce TWO debts. I hope this is not complicating matters too much, because I feel it is relevant

P.S. I have 14 days in which to arrange repayment of this debt!!

[Gemini566]

Re: Gemini v Cabot

Oooops, mistake....sorry

[Emtec]

Re: Gemini v Cabot

I wondered whether anybody was able to advise Gemini on the latest letter from Cabot? Or does it appear in another thread? I'm interested as I've had a similar letter (not trying to hi jack the thread just want to know what the advice is).

[Sapphire]

Re: Gemini v Cabot

Basically until they provide a TRUE copy of the agreement there is NOTHING they can do about it, so its best filed under I for Ignore.
If they start writing again then we will address that when the time comes.

[Gemini566]

Re: Gemini v Cabot

Just to update..I still have not heard back from them. It is getting on for quite some time now. Is this usual?

[Curlyben]

Re: Gemini v Cabot

Sounds about right from this shower.
Well until they do there's nowt to say, so sit back and enjoy the peace.

[Gemini566]

Re: Gemini v Cabot

Good morning,


The "peace" has been shattered!!


Catbot are back to the threat letters. No telephone calls, as yet, but a letter on Saturday to tell me that my account has been escalated to the Pre Litigation Department (about where we came in I believe).

What do I write to them now please, before the...
Warrant of Execution;
Charging Order;
Attachment of Earnings (on IB?);
Order to Obtain Information
or, God forbid, an External DCA/LA call on me??

I trust you all had a good weekend in the sun?

[Curlyben]

Re: Gemini v Cabot

Well without a compliant agreement they CANNOT do any of that and even then they would need a court judgement anyway..
File it under I for now..

[StoneLaughter]

Re: Gemini v Cabot

Hi Gemini

I'm with Ben... no need for any action at all until they actually take some themselves. Then hit them with both barrels. However - I believe that holding your breath that long may prove difficult...
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
p.s. don't forget that there's always the Harrassment Order - such an order forbids them from contacting you except in the circumstances allowed by the Court making the Order (usually none). It's worth considering applying for such an Order if they make this difficult. Non-compliance of such an Order could be an imprisonable offence...

"1. The Defendant harrassed the Plaintiff with frightening and distressing demands for payment of alleged debts

2. The Defendant has not proven as required by the CCA 1974 that the alleged debt exists in a lawfully collectable form

3. Plaintiff requests that an Order be made under the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997(?) prohibiting the Defendant from contacting the Plaintiff in any way except following a countermanding Order to be issued by the same Court; such Order not to be granted unless (i) new evidence satisfying the requirements of the CCA 1974 comes to light or (ii) a new debt with attendant proofs is demonstrated to the Court and satisfies the requirements of the CCA 1974."

Just an idea...