Tweet
Hello everyone,
I am hoping to get some guidance on a consumer credit dispute with Cabot Financial regarding an MBNA credit card account. I will set out the full picture as clearly as I can.
Background
In June 2024 I sent Cabot Financial a Section 78 CCA 1974 request regarding an MBNA credit card account (balance £9,713.28). They acknowledged the request on 8 July 2024 and on 21 July 2024 sent a further letter explicitly stating the account was unenforceable and that they were not permitted to obtain a County Court Judgment against me whilst they could not provide the agreement.
I heard absolutely nothing further from Cabot between July 2024 and March 2026 — a period of approximately 18 months — at which point they resumed contact following correspondence from me disputing enforceability.
They have now sent me a document pack which they claim constitutes valid Section 78 compliance. The covering letter within the pack is dated 9 September 2024, suggesting it was prepared at that time but apparently never sent to me. The pack contains a reconstituted true copy of the credit agreement, a statement of account, and Part B terms and conditions.
Issues I Have Identified
1. Two conflicting versions of Part A
The bundle contains two completely separate versions of Part A of the alleged credit agreement, each showing materially different standard interest rates — one version shows 20.0040% and the other shows 24.2540%. That is a difference of 4.25 percentage points. I am aware from my original application email dated 09/06/2022 that the rate I agreed to was 20.0040%, which means the second version showing 24.2540% does not reflect the terms I originally agreed to. I understand from Carey v HSBC Bank Plc [2009] that a reconstituted copy must contain the correct information present when the account was opened. Can two conflicting versions of Part A with materially different interest rates constitute a compliant reconstituted true copy under the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983?
2. Pervasively corrupted text
Throughout both Part A and Part B of the document pack, text is visibly garbled with letters missing and words broken. This is consistent across multiple pages. I understand the 1983 Regulations require any copy to be clearly legible. Does pervasively corrupted text affect the validity of the reconstituted copy?
3. Non-compliant statement of account
The statement of account provided is a single page produced by Cabot Financial simply asserting an outstanding balance of £9,713.28. It contains no transaction history, no record of payments made, no breakdown of interest applied and no breakdown of charges. Section 78(1) CCA 1974 requires a statement showing the total sum paid by the debtor, the total sum which has become payable but remains unpaid including dates, and the total sum which will become payable. I am also aware of McGuffick v Royal Bank of Scotland [2009] which confirmed that enforcement action cannot be taken until a compliant statement is provided. Does what Cabot have provided meet the Section 78(1) requirement?
4. Suspicious document reference codes — key question
This is perhaps the most important point I need clarity on. The documents in the pack — including the statement of account which is dated 09 September 2024 — all carry an internal reference code in their margins in the format CAB211_310326. If the numeric string 310326 represents a document generation date in the format DDMMYY, this would indicate the documents were actually generated on 31 March 2026 — not September 2024 as stated on the letterhead. This would mean the entire compliance pack was produced recently in direct response to my March 2026 correspondence and backdated by 18 months. Has anyone seen Cabot Financial documents with similar reference codes and can confirm what format these codes take? And if 310326 does represent 31 March 2026, what are the implications of a backdated compliance document?
5. Notice of assignment
No notice of assignment has been provided demonstrating that this debt was legally assigned from MBNA to Cabot Financial. Under the Law of Property Act 1925 I understand a debt purchaser cannot pursue a debt in its own name without a valid notice of assignment having been served. Is Cabot required to provide this as part of their Section 78 response?
6. Doorstep threat despite active correspondence
Simultaneously with sending the document pack, Cabot sent a separate letter dated 2 April 2026 stating they had not heard from me and threatening a doorstep agent visit. This is factually incorrect — I have maintained written email correspondence with them throughout, to which they have responded, and the document pack itself was sent in direct response to my emails. Does this constitute a breach of FCA CONC rules on misleading communication?
Current Position
I have drafted a response to Cabot disputing the validity of their document pack on all of the above grounds. Before sending it I wanted to seek views here, particularly on the reference code question in point 4 as this is something I cannot verify independently but which could be highly significant if 310326 does represent a generation date of 31 March 2026.
Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
I am hoping to get some guidance on a consumer credit dispute with Cabot Financial regarding an MBNA credit card account. I will set out the full picture as clearly as I can.
Background
In June 2024 I sent Cabot Financial a Section 78 CCA 1974 request regarding an MBNA credit card account (balance £9,713.28). They acknowledged the request on 8 July 2024 and on 21 July 2024 sent a further letter explicitly stating the account was unenforceable and that they were not permitted to obtain a County Court Judgment against me whilst they could not provide the agreement.
I heard absolutely nothing further from Cabot between July 2024 and March 2026 — a period of approximately 18 months — at which point they resumed contact following correspondence from me disputing enforceability.
They have now sent me a document pack which they claim constitutes valid Section 78 compliance. The covering letter within the pack is dated 9 September 2024, suggesting it was prepared at that time but apparently never sent to me. The pack contains a reconstituted true copy of the credit agreement, a statement of account, and Part B terms and conditions.
Issues I Have Identified
1. Two conflicting versions of Part A
The bundle contains two completely separate versions of Part A of the alleged credit agreement, each showing materially different standard interest rates — one version shows 20.0040% and the other shows 24.2540%. That is a difference of 4.25 percentage points. I am aware from my original application email dated 09/06/2022 that the rate I agreed to was 20.0040%, which means the second version showing 24.2540% does not reflect the terms I originally agreed to. I understand from Carey v HSBC Bank Plc [2009] that a reconstituted copy must contain the correct information present when the account was opened. Can two conflicting versions of Part A with materially different interest rates constitute a compliant reconstituted true copy under the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983?
2. Pervasively corrupted text
Throughout both Part A and Part B of the document pack, text is visibly garbled with letters missing and words broken. This is consistent across multiple pages. I understand the 1983 Regulations require any copy to be clearly legible. Does pervasively corrupted text affect the validity of the reconstituted copy?
3. Non-compliant statement of account
The statement of account provided is a single page produced by Cabot Financial simply asserting an outstanding balance of £9,713.28. It contains no transaction history, no record of payments made, no breakdown of interest applied and no breakdown of charges. Section 78(1) CCA 1974 requires a statement showing the total sum paid by the debtor, the total sum which has become payable but remains unpaid including dates, and the total sum which will become payable. I am also aware of McGuffick v Royal Bank of Scotland [2009] which confirmed that enforcement action cannot be taken until a compliant statement is provided. Does what Cabot have provided meet the Section 78(1) requirement?
4. Suspicious document reference codes — key question
This is perhaps the most important point I need clarity on. The documents in the pack — including the statement of account which is dated 09 September 2024 — all carry an internal reference code in their margins in the format CAB211_310326. If the numeric string 310326 represents a document generation date in the format DDMMYY, this would indicate the documents were actually generated on 31 March 2026 — not September 2024 as stated on the letterhead. This would mean the entire compliance pack was produced recently in direct response to my March 2026 correspondence and backdated by 18 months. Has anyone seen Cabot Financial documents with similar reference codes and can confirm what format these codes take? And if 310326 does represent 31 March 2026, what are the implications of a backdated compliance document?
5. Notice of assignment
No notice of assignment has been provided demonstrating that this debt was legally assigned from MBNA to Cabot Financial. Under the Law of Property Act 1925 I understand a debt purchaser cannot pursue a debt in its own name without a valid notice of assignment having been served. Is Cabot required to provide this as part of their Section 78 response?
6. Doorstep threat despite active correspondence
Simultaneously with sending the document pack, Cabot sent a separate letter dated 2 April 2026 stating they had not heard from me and threatening a doorstep agent visit. This is factually incorrect — I have maintained written email correspondence with them throughout, to which they have responded, and the document pack itself was sent in direct response to my emails. Does this constitute a breach of FCA CONC rules on misleading communication?
Current Position
I have drafted a response to Cabot disputing the validity of their document pack on all of the above grounds. Before sending it I wanted to seek views here, particularly on the reference code question in point 4 as this is something I cannot verify independently but which could be highly significant if 310326 does represent a generation date of 31 March 2026.
Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Comment