Mrs Bigandy -V- Cabrot

[LuggerBugs]

Re: Mrs Bigandy -V- Cabrot

As Amy says, it would be an idea to find out how much of the alleged debt is penalties and unlawful charges, so obviously a SAR to the OC will be in order.

What you do with the figures that you come up with is up to you. But you should be aware that, should you decide to prove to Cabot that the debt they are claiming should never have been sold to them, chances are they won't care a jot, and will continue pushing for payment.

I'm lucky in that Cabot have failed to produce a properly executed agreement, so I don't need to worry about reclaiming charges back. Which is just as well, as Barclaycard have conveniently "LOST" all my statements, bar the past 6 years worth. Otherwise, I'd be doing what Amy has sugested and be chasing Barclaycard.

Consider too the "IF ANY" arguement regarding the compliance of a CCA request. In the event the document they've sent you is invalid, and nothing else is forthcoming, Cabot CANNOT be in default of a CCA request, as "if any" means precisely that. They can't send an agreement that doesn't exist.

But that being the case, if they produce a valid agreement later, THEN they are in default, as quite clearly the "if any" becomes null and void. They are in a bit of a catch 22 situation. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

By the way. How many signatures are on there? Just yours, or have they signed somewhere too?

[Curlyben]

Re: Mrs Bigandy -V- Cabrot

I'm sorry guys, but I tend to disagree.
Cabot have supplied a completely unenforceable "agreement" and as such are NOT legally entitled to make any demands for payment.
It is well known that Littlewoods and to some extent Barclays, agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on.

The T&C as a seperate document is completely unacceptable under SI 1983/1553.

Now it may get a little heavy with legal stuff here, but here's why they don't comply:

This is taken from another thread;

Under SI 1983/1553 the prescribed terms MUST be within the signature document to be valid, having them on a seperate sheet headed T&C or similar ISN'T acceptable.

SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms MUST be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6)

This applies to all agreements pre May 2005.
So basically this is unenforceable, under 127(3).

Just to add to my comments re terms witin signature doc.
This was covered off in Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated
consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not. Contrasting
the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said

33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the
agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and
backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be
orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated.
As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and
the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which
are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the
minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1.

So you see Cabot, as ever, are barking up the wrong tree

[LuggerBugs]

Re: Mrs Bigandy -V- Cabrot

ALl you say is true, CB. Which is why when they go to great lengths to insist that an unenforcable agreement IS a properly executed agreement.

Really, their stance is contradictory in itself. They insist that "application forms" and the like consitute an enforcable agreement, but by their own emphasis on the "IF ANY " argument, they hope to stave off any critisism that they have failed to comply with a CCA request. But by doing so, they virtually admit that they HAVEN'T produced a valid agreement, as in almost every case, what they DO eventually produce arrives well after the timescales allowed.

In other words, their arze covering exercise tends to backfire on them.

As has been mentioned before, Cabot try to have it both ways.

That's the rumour anyway.

[bigandyuk1]

Re: Mrs Bigandy -V- Cabrot

I am guessing that LuggerBugs is an certain Aquatic Equestrian from CAG.

If so I hope you don't mind me using one of your posts to create a template response to Cabot on this matter. Please CB and others make any additions and reccomendations and I will send the finished article on Monday.

Re: Cabot Ref No. XXXXXXX

Thank you for your letter of 11 April 2008. I shall reply to the points you have raised in order, if I may.
I thank you for the copy of the application form that I signed and returned to Littlewoods. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be a properly executed agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as was my request that you supply. I am sure that I do not need to explain to you why it is not so, as your legal background will no doubt allow you to determine for yourself that the document supplied falls far short of that which would be relied upon in a court of law to enforce any purported debt. I am surprised that you have offered it as such.

You note that I am concerned that Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited has no legal right to share my data. This remains my belief, and nothing that you have said causes me to change my mind regarding this. I have AT NO TIME authorised Barclaycard or any company within the Cabot Financial Group of Companies to share or otherwise process my personal data. You mention that in particular paragraph 6 of Schedule 2, permits disclosure of such information to and by credit reference agencies without the customers’ consent. I am afraid that I make a totally different interpretation of that paragraph, which states

“6. - (1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order specify particular circumstances in which this condition is, or is not, to be taken to be satisfied. “

I invite you to explain to me why you feel you have a legitimate right to process, contrary to my rights and freedoms and legitimate interests. Failing that, please show me where the Secretary of State has specified any particular circumstances which allow you to process my data.

Accordingly, I am again unable to acknowledge that any debt exists. I would suggest that all that you have said and produced to date in support of your claim that I owe anything to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited would fail if used to support any attempt at enforcement through the courts.

Yours Faithfully

As I said any additions greatly received.

Regards
Bigandy

[LuggerBugs]

Re: Mrs Bigandy -V- Cabrot

Flippin heck, I'd forgotten all about that one. :tinysmile_aha_t:

Mind you, if anyone is master of the "understated" but effective letter, it's CB.

[Sapphire]

Re: Mrs Bigandy -V- Cabrot

Oh guys you don't know how happy I am to have the 'old team' and 'new team' together at last on one happy site, onwards and upwards we go :grouphug:

[Amethyst]

Re: Mrs Bigandy -V- Cabrot

:high5:

[WendyB]

Re: Mrs Bigandy -V- Cabrot

"Aquatic Equestrian". I like that one !

[LuggerBugs]

Re: Mrs Bigandy -V- Cabrot

Yeah, we play water polo.

[bigandyuk1]

Re: Mrs Bigandy -V- Cabrot

Well here we are two years on and all we get these days are one or two threat-o-grams per month ! Crabrot and sLink are still there doing nothing but we now have the likes of Phillips to deal with (Saying that they don't even reply to my taunting letters).

Regards
Bigandy