Dear Fellow Caggies, GREETINGS After plumbing the depths of my very own personal livelihood, I have resurfaced! I said I would continue posting, if I came across anything worth posting — and I have. For any of you who happen to know (or who are able to surmise at a glance) what's what, I would say skip down to WHERE THINGS STAND to get the latest scoop; otherwise, check out the RECAP. Apologies for the rather tedious and dry tirade (is that possible?). I didn't spend enough time to chop this down. Fluvio *** A RECAP After a strange beginning, Cabot contacts me "out of the blue", claiming I owed them money for a debt that they acquired from Barclay's.* (This was the first time I'd ever heard of Cabot or the debt.) I tell them I will look into the matter, but acknowledge no debt to them. Cabot claims they acquired this debt in 2007 and that it relates to an account closed in 1999 (making the debt 9 years old — and counting). I check my credit rating with the three credit reference agencies. I see that nothing is/has been/was ever posted concerning this alleged debt. I note that I have never received any correspondence from Barclay's or Cabot concerning this debt. I inform Cabot that I consider that, unless they can provide evidence that I acknowledged or made a payment towards this debt within the relevant period (6 years), the debt is statute barred and legally unenforceable, however incurred or regardless of who the debt may or may not belong to. Cabot then claims I made a payment on this debt in 2003 (in effect, attempting to invalidate my statue-barred defence, as a payment by me within the six-year period would make the debt enforceable). I tell them (in writing): prove it. I also tell them not to contact me by phone ever again and ask them to acknowledge this in writing (which they don't do). Cabot then bombards me with telephone calls and futile messages over many months. In the meantime they send various letters (not always from the same person, and therefore pursuing different lines of communication): telling me they have traced me to my home address (where else would I be?), asking me to call them, urging me to arrange a payment plan, welcoming me to Cabot and sometimes (as the letters come from multiple sources) duplicates of these —*all of which elicit the same response from me, only with increasing admonition and warnings that I will pass on the matter to the relevant authorities: unless they can provide evidence I made a payment towards this debt within the relevant period (6 years), the debt is statute barred, etc. Lastly, I also ask them for a full description of their complaints procedure. WHERE THINGS STAND After all of the above, they then send me . . . two more letters (one from each correspondent). Which prompts me to send them one final, strongly worded letter, telling them that they have effectively ****ed me off royally (for starters) and that now, with or without their acknowledgment in writing, I consider their unbroken series of disjoint responses to date negligent and practice unbecoming of professional managers, both of which I highlight to [i name the authorities] as I pass the matter on them, starting with the police. This last point, I would say to anyone listening, is very important, for two reasons: 1) establishing total control over the situation, first professionally, now morally; and 2) ensuring that it will appear, at some later stage (assuming it will all go pear-shaped), that I have availed myself of every means to communicate fairly and reasonably. Thus I remind them: * that they have not once explicitly acknowledged receipt of any of my letters; * that they have not once explicitly indicated that they have noted the contents of any of my letters; * that they have not once agreed to desist from calling me by phone (as I requested, citing statue and act); * that they have not once confirmed that they will remove from their records any contact numbers they have for me on their system (as I requested, etc.); * that they have not once agreed to communicate with me in writing only (as requested, etc.); * that, importantly, they have consistently failed to produce or deliberately ignored producing any evidence of payment from me as required by law (as I have stipulated they do from the word go, citing statue and act) [i make a point of urging them to note and resolve the sheer difference between saying I made a payment and proving I made a payment]; * that they have continued to presume that this debt is owed to them by me when it is clear that the debt, however incurred, by whomever, is clearly in dispute and that their responses have failed to reflect this; * that I consider continued claims, whether in writing or over the phone, that I owe them money plus interest for a debt that has yet to be established as legal, let alone mine, not harassment but libelous; * that they have failed to provide me with a detailed description of their complaints procedure (as requested); * that having two people contact me separately, sending different letters as if pursuing two separate lines of communication, is professional misconduct; and * that their abject failure to cooperate with me and resolve the matter is no accident considering that a very reasonable 150 days has elapsed since they began this ordeal; * that they have failed to offer me so much as an apology for the hernial inconvenience of it all; And then I tell them, that because of all this, I will send my detailed and tedious account of their woeful conduct first to Financial Ombudsman (who may charge them, etc.) and then to . Cabot went quite for about 10 days. WHAT CABOT DID Cabot then sent me a letter. They conceded that they would agree to stop calling me [?!] and continue to write to me [?!] provided I diligently cooperated with them [?!]. They also mentioned, that they have written to the original creditor (Barclays) to get that evidence of my having made a payment within the six years, that it may take more than 21 days and that they would appreciate my patience in this matter. WHAT DO I DO NOW? Obviously I have to wait and see what they come back with. I should say, I'm not worried; not at all, in fact. But I do wonder what they could possibly send me. What would be legally valid? And how long do they have to get this info? (They say 21+ days, but surely they can't wait forever, especially as 2009 is around the corner: ah, 6 years from the alleged day I made a payment! Is there such a thing a doubly-statute-barred? ) Have they exceeded their time limit to produce this evidence already (150+ days so far)?

Dear fellow Caggies* Nothing to report since posts 39 and 29, I am afraid. Nothing material, that is. Cabot continues to call me, usually three times a day, leaving that familiar message on the third try: "Hello, can I speak with... Hello? HELLO? H-E-L-L-O?". This is in direct contravention of my explicit request not to contact me except in writing. Cabot & Co. continue to pretend not to know (else they are truly butt heads and really do not know) that they are leaving a message on an answering service. I've cleverly disguised mine, you see. It says, Hi. please leave a message after the tone and I'll get back to you as soon as possible. BEEP. But I'm thinking of employing something a little more . . . sporting? Ah, dear butt heads! (You know who you are, don't you?) You continue to flout the law and ignore what I have warned you not to do anymore. You bang on and on and on against what is clearly a stone wall, and I fear you are about to do some serious self-harm... You should know I cannot take any more responsibility for your own slipperiness, which, if I am honest, is starting to irk this little fishy. You couldn't just keep to your own waters, could you? No, no, no. You guys just had to shoal up where you aren't supposed to. Tut, tut, tut. Don't say I didn't try to warn you. That little message I sent you a while back? The one pointing out all those things you should be careful of now that you are out in open waters? Well, you should have paid attention! The nets are laid out. I won't be able to untangle you if you get stuck in them. I know, I know. You have trouble writing, what with your awkward fins and all. But you can't just froth at the mouth like you have been and expect not to make a splash. You know what they say: you blow air out of your gills, you make bubbles! I don't want you to flounder unnecesarily (I am a fair-minded sort of creature), but you should know that your silly sound-offs won't get you anywhere except into hot water. Yes, all that slurping, sipping and squelching you leave me to listen to; all those sea-sounds in the background; that poor bendsy-voiced Mr Anderson -- it's time it all went into the conch, so to speak. And you know what they say about the conch, don't you? "He who holds the conch, rules the reef!" Ok, so he who holds the conch rules the island, not the reef: but you're not in your little fish tank anymore, are you? And down here, in the water, it's fish-eat-fish.... ["BUBBLE" SOUNDS IN PLACE OF "BEEP"] I will keep you posted if I get anything worth posting. (I'm not holding my breath...) Thanks for listening. Fluviomarine * Caggies = Consumer Action Groupies?

Thanks for the feedback, one and all (see my individual responses below). I will keep you posted, as I await news of Cabot, which could be a while, although I won't hold my breath. If, however, Cabot does "decide" to test my lungs, I am minded to continue to post, not quite regardless, but fairly mindful of the fact, in the form of a divertimento: a mock play on the subject of my waiting, a redaction of an already famous Becket play, but renamed "Waiting for Cabot" . . . (In which I would hope to capture the same chronicle of wasted time that Becket has in his work - but for a slightly more - ah - modern audience?) Thanks again to all. *** Fuzzgin, ODC: true, I am getting curiouser and curiouser about the goings on here and so I will defend myself!. I shudder to think what depths I would plumb to in the waters of the many issues found across this (and so many other) forums out there, let alone in my tiny rivulet of a thread. (If I am honest, the only relish should like to take, when all's said and done, is the one I would put on my hotdog on a summer's day unbogged by all this. So much whistled breath through slightly parted teeth I fear I am giving...) ODC, apropos making payments to keep debts in bounds: I can't believe DCAs would even attempt this , as it is such an obvious risk to take. In my case, however, the claim was that a £20 payment was made invalidating the 6-year rule. Would you gamble £20 to win under £300 before any cards are shown, especially without any kicker cards in hand to help you through the first round? I wouldn't. But if it's something they would do, I suspect there must be consolidated odds at work here: £20 on my sub £300, but £5 on another's £800 — that sort of thing? Hmm... Percival: I believe you are correct: establishing the debt is not STABD thanks to a payment would presuppose that the debt wasn't STABD to begin with! (In answer, yes, I could request a CCA. But I have yet to have anything from them that warrants my taking that next step - or the one after that, when they fail to deliver it on time, fail to produce the proper paperwork (they seem to like sending their own system-generated documents on their own headed paper. I.e. I want to keep holding the big stick behind my back.) locutus: for your peace of mind, I have done so and checked my records, and nothing showing. I will keep checking, though. Thanks. citizenB: style is a state of mind, which is to say: I simply refuse to have any DCA comport themselves as if anything I brought up were anachronistic. I shall overcome! Sol: thanks for this. You and ODC are singing from the same hymn sheet. I won't ignore the chorus when it comes round again! itsamo, babybear39: pray tell, what's a "sig"? *(This a graveyard of lost souls or sorts? If so, sounds like most won't be able to hold a candle to yours, babybear39!)

Just an update for those of you who are interested: no news since my last action on this issue. But silence in these matters betokens anything but a reprieve, I'm sure. So, to recap: THE PROBLEM In a nutshell, the DCA (qua Cabot) claim I owe them money (sub £300) from a Barclay's account closed over 9 years ago, which Cabot "acquired" over 7 years after closure and, after "locating me" at my home address this year (where else would I be?), decided I should pay for. They decided to do this with a fanfare of letters (that have taken a strange chronology [see my post #25]) and with a barrage of telephone calls, most resulting in adenoidal messages left on my mobile phone answering service that heared the caller pretend as if they didn't know they are leaving messages on an answering service: "Ah, hello? Hello? HELLO?" (Click.) WHAT I DID In effect, I claimed that the accont attributed to me is statue-barred (STABD) and that unless they could prove it wasn't (i.e. that I'd made a payment on the account or that I'd communicated in writing that I acknowledged the debt) I considered legally unenforceable. I decided to do this because: a) the debt in question (sub £300) is older than 6 years (the DCA itself only picked up the thing 7 years after the fact, and the account it relates to, a Barclay's account, closed 9 years ago, 1 year after it was opened); and b) there is nothing in any of the big three credit reference agencies against my name for this debt. Rather than toil with establishing whether the debt could ever have belonged to me at all (I have no paperwork for the account in question or for the debt from the original creditor, Barclay's), I decided it was STABD as it wouldn't matter whether or not the debt once applied to an account in my name or not if it was out of bounds. THE ISSUE The DCA decided to ignore my response and then suddenly claimed that a payment was made on the account by me in the period in question and so it was no longer STABD and therefore I had better pay it. (More letters and more soporific phone calls and messges.) WHAT I DID I took action a second time (see my post #6) as the DCA in question, qua Cabot, failed to provide the evidence that I had made that payment. I also insited they refrain from contacting me by phnoe and warned them that if they continued to contact me by phone after this very final request (I'd already told them once before) and/or continue to claim that I was liable for a debt they have yet to prove is not STABD and then continue to press for payments, or if I have any reason to suspect that fraud was/is involved in anyway, I would contact the relevant authorities, starting with the police. I gave them seven days to provide proof that I had made the payment, considering it a reasonable turnaround time as they were able to tell me almost immediately after I'd claimed the debt was STABD that it wasn't and that I'd made a payment on the account. COROLLARY I gave them a week to respond - 11 days ago. So if I hear anything more from them, this fish won't be a happy shoaler, at all. WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE Nothing. WHAT I WILL DO NOW Is wait for the next (scabrous tenesmus?) communique on their part. Oh, and thank anyone out there for "listening". . . "Hello? Hello? Hello?" (Out.)

Thanks, ODC. Will do and will keep posting.

I have now posted my next letter to the DCA (Cabot), and am following my plan of action as set out in my last post. (You can catch a refresh below, if you're a glutton for punishment.) But I would like to bring something else up here. In my correspondence with the DCA in question a disturbing pattern has emerged - trickery or tainting with due process? You decide. (Note the order of events...) 1. First letter: going on a fishing expedition? This DCA sends its first letter to me "out of the blue". It arrives at my home address, addressed to me, but the letter does not: * introduce the DCA; * relate why it has contacted me; * inform me what it is about or in relation to; * explain why it thinks this relates to me; or even * invite me to contact the DCA to find out any of the above. The only info on this letter besides DCA's letter head? My last name, an account number (claimed to be mine), a date it would be calling, a request to call if the time is inconvenient and then someone's name and (electronic) signature on the bottom. 2. I contact DCA by phone, a long exercise in futility and can you just here that money rolling in? Though the DCA rep was courteous and soft-spoken, she explained the letter received was in relation to a debt with a Barclay's account opened in 1998 and closed in 1999. Persistent calls to pay the debt now (kerching) would ensure the account got settled, she said. I refused to pay anything on a phonecall and insisted that I would look into the matter, especially as I'm not aware of any debt and nothing has showed on my credit reports (I then checked them again after the call and still nothing showed). After much toing and froing ("you must pay", "I won't pay", "only a full payment now", "I won't pay anything now", etc.), the rep admitted the debt would have been wiped off my records after six years. (Kerching!) I end the conversation saying that I would look into the matter and, before I got off the phone, the rep agreed to make a note of this in the account (annoying as it made me feel that we were dealing) and would hold off pursuing for one week (kerching!). The rep stated, furthermore, that it was important I paid as they could call me, legally, up to 6 times a day (Kerching!). A junkyward dog deep down in my soul bore its teeth as I stated that I would be looking into the matter legally. 3. DCA renegs: not three days go by before I recieve another letter Miffed that my week's grace had been eaten into, I found the next letter from the DCA, with the same lack of information in 1 above, this time stating that my name had been linked with this address (my home address) and that I should call immediately to speak with a rep about the account quoted - this before the agreed hold for a paltry week. 4. I strike: sending a letter claiming the debt is statute barred Deciding not to muck around in particulars, as I have no info on the debt, its supposed creditor (Barclay's) or agent (the DCA, Cabot), I claim the debt to be statute barred. Why bother to hunt for info and toil with the DCA if the debt is legally out of bounds? Plus, there's nowt on my Experian or Equifax files and the account in question was closed in 1999, 7 years before DCA acquired the debt (in Nov 2006), by the DCA's own admission (over the phone). My statue-barred claim included the proviso for the DCA to offer evidence of payment or written communication from me in the relevant period. 5. "Hello, it's the DCA calling..." (A longer exercise in futility, this time with a minor exchange of words.) A few days after I claim the letter is statute barred, I answer a phone call that interrupts my working day: hey, it's the DC-A! I give the account number, explain that I've sent a letter to deal with the matter, mention I don't want to hear from them over the phone as the account is statute barred (a mistake, I now realise: never give your reasons for anything over the phone - never discuss such matters over the phone, at all!) - the rep interrupts and claims the account is not statute barred. I ask why. He states that a payment was made on the account in 2003 (3 years before the DCA acquired the debt). Unfazed, I state it doesn't matter: I'm not paying anything. You have my letter and I'll await yours. I need proof of this paymet, after all. He claims he can provide such immediately: he'll print off a letter right now and, besides, that won't change anything as the debt is mine. He persists in selling me this "debt": "it's your debt", "you can't run from it", "it's not going to just disappear", "why claim its statute barred if its not statue barred", and on and on. I raise my voice (not necessarily a mistake if you don't let it faze you, I say ) and we tussle, verbally. Then I reach boiling point and ask him if he is a legal representative - is he a legal expert on debts? He says no but . . . I cut him off and say that in a minute I will put the phone down, and he continues to sell me this debt: "you are avoiding this debt" and "it won't go away just because you want it to . . . ". I then tell him that he has now hacked me off royally: if he had any professional decency, he would refrain from making any comments at all on what is now a legal matter, that he would make a note of my having sent a letter and my having told him as much and advise me that he will look into the matter. But he didn't, so I wasn't going to hang around. (Click.) 6. A week or so of telephone calls that lead me to believe my phone actually has a mind of its own... Since my last communication with the DCA, I have received from it 3 to 4 calls a day, sometimes from an automated spokesdroid (I can't say "spokesperson" now, can I). I have ignored the phone, but the strangest of things happens: every call from the DCA results in a message on my mobile. At first, I thought they were mistakes: "Mr -----, hi this is ----- from. . . Hello? Hello? Hello?" Click. But it happened every time! Even when their spokesdriod called! This got me thinking. I'm sure that there's a bog standard personal answerphone greeting on my phone, but maybe . . . Well, who else thinks that their phone is jealously overriding the answering service and answering these calls behind our backs? 7. We'll do as we do-do and there's no doing anything about it! The DCA's response to my not picking up the phone and my last letter was curt and so well thought out I couldn't find a single crack in it. It read (in effect): no, your account isn't statute barred, as you claim, because you made a payment on the account in 2003, within the past 6 years, so you owe the debt and you owe all interest on it since 2003, too; but you'd better call us now to make some repayment arrangements. (They'd not taken my proviso on board: to supply evidence I'd made tha payment they claim I'd made.) And then, two days latter . . . 9. "Welcome to Cabot" (Or, a slap on both sets of gills.) I didn't only have their last "no, we say you owe the debt so pay or pay more" letter, but something more interesting besides: I got my first Cabot letter! Ok, it arrirved weeks (and more than a few letters behind) after it should have, but my welcome letter had everything: my full name, the account number, the debt, the creditor, who Cabot (Europe) was, who Cabot (UK) was, the reason why it/they were writing to me, alternate means of payment, a tone pitched as helpful and reassuring - the lot. I thought that I'd won a free fitness centre membership; that I'd earned access to a special club; that I'd made it into the annals . . . of the Cabot files. Wow. And only after a few weeks! And I still have not paid a single penny for the pleasure! 10. In the trouper's proverbial words: they don't 'cabout, do they? Let's take odds on what their next response will include, shall we? How about . . . A Cabot ballpoint with a doodle pad? (For those idle moments on the phone, when they talk and we listen?) . . . A handsfree headset? (Why not have your hands free to do other things — nails, stir a pasta sauce, wave at the neighbours?) . . . A branded megaphone? (You could shout at the receiver while sitting in your chaise longue from the back of your garden?) . . . Lubrication? Is it me, or its this process completely bassackwards? (From a first letter, bare as an tiny wormed hook - for fishing, no doubt - to a letter advising me that I lived at my own address - as if I did not know this already - to a letter denying the debt is statue-barred (but not proving it isn't), to a welcome letter you'd think was long overdo - and all interspersed with some over-the-phone abuse!) There must be some due process they must follow - or can they send letters to people willy-nilly? Thanks for reading. If you haven't, worry not. You haven't missed much as I fear the best is yet to come.

Indeed, gni03349. (And no, we won't.... ) Will pick up on this shortly. I will keep you all posted. Thanks again to one and all.

Quite possibly, BeauBrummie. But my concern here is that the DCA (in this case it happens to be Cabot) has failed to provide evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act after I invited them to do so. (A clear-cut case would be a clear-cut case, no? I suspect they have nothing - at least nothing legally tenable - on me.) Instead, the DCA wrote back to tell me that, no, I did acknoweldge the debt way back when with a payment - and that was that. I think this rather important for statute-barred claims: the burden of proof is an important, I dare say decisive, factor in the process, whatever the particulars of the case. (Ta for the update, gni03349, and for the well wishing.)

Thank you, sequenci. Good to know, I think. I wouldn't help Cabot by reminding them (like they don't know!). But, for my benefit, in this case would the creditor be the bank in question or the DCA taking up the debt on that bank's behalf? Or both?

For the record (feel free to intercept/interject at any point)... * As I am taking a statue-barred approach (regardless of who owes the debt), I think the imperative here is — as babybear39 and 42man have said — that Cabot PROVE I made the payment they say I made. I will invite them to do so. (Just what form that proof will take and how I can establish if it is valid and legally tenable is beyond me — does anyone know?) I will add that if I have any reason to suspect that fraud is involved in any way I will inform the police. * I will then reiterate that I do not acknowledge the debt (they keep referring to it as mine without any substantiation — remember, I have nothing on this matter, not even old account statements). * I will repeat that unless they can prove it as per S. 5 of the Limitation Act I maintain that it is statute-barred and therefore unactionable (and unrecoverable). And I will add that if they persist in making unsubstantiated claims and/or further press for payment contray to the Administration of Justice Act 1970, that I will report Cabot to the appropriate legal and regulatory authorities. * I will then remind them that I told them I would not deal with Cabot over the phone and, to make things clear once and for all, I will ask them not to make any more calls and remove my number from their systems. Any more calls will be regarded and treated as harrassment () and * I will remind them that persisting to call after a request from me not to call may constitute a criminal offence under S. 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and I will report Cabot to the OFT and Trading Standards, with times, frequency and content (they leave pointless messages on my answer phone when clearly no one but my answering services is answering — "Hello? Hello? Hello?" Doh!). * I will then sign off telling them I consder the matter closed unless they provide me with that evidence (is there a time limit I could/should impose?) The rest - pursuing damages or excess charges or whatever, including the CCA request and obtaining full account info, etc. - I will, like the proverbial bigger stick, hold behind my dorsal fin. I want to see what they will come up with. Sound reasonable? (Once again, thanks for any feedback. I will keep posting until I get to the end of this canard.)

babybear39 and 42man, many thanks for your swift responses. (I'm feeling better already...)

My first post, and not a very cogent one at that! (I realise I should have taken more time to write a shorter thread, but I've got a sense of urgency here.) Anyway, let me test the waters. I know there is a sea of already very useful, probably germane (if gloriously painstaking) information on the theme out here. So let me get to the meat on the hook of the matter, up front, and deposit some background info for - and I use the term advisedly, if not with some pride - any bottom feeders. With any luck, things will go swimmingly . . . Thanks in advance to those of you who take the time to read this and who think it worthy enough to reply to. (Apologies, too, for droning on tedioulsy about what appears to be such a common, if sadly taxing, phenomenon.) The meat on the hook of the matter is . . . In response to a demand, from a DCA, for payment of a 9-year-old debt that the DCA attributes to me, I sent a letter claiming that as far as I was concerned any such debt, whether mine or not, would be statue-barred and that unless they could provide evidence of payment or written contact for me in the relevant period they wouldn't be able to take court action, redering the collection of the debt unenforceable. The DCA responded and claimed that I'd acknowledged the debt within the 6-year period with a payment on such and such a date and therefore the debt is not statute barred. Irrespective of the wobbly start to this (I already realise the errors of my ways and that at least I should not have claimed the debt was statue barred as, I imagine, a sharper-toothed creature might have been able to take it as an admission of owing the debt?), my question is: Saying that a payment was made on the debt and providing evidence that a payment was made by me on the debt are two different kettles of fish - what should I expect the DCA to provide, or what should I insist they provide, as evidence? And lastly, the preamble. . . (Well, this is an old story, isn't it?) Out of the (ocean) blue, Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited sent a letter addressed to me claiming that it would be calling on such and such a date (let's call it recently). As you'd expect, there was no introduction, no explanation of what the letter was about, in fact, no information on the letter whatsoever — besides my last name and address — to show how it related to me in any way. They were fishing — and I took the bait. I picked up my mobile phone, called, quoted the reference number given on the letter and heard what they had to say — much to my regret and dismay, as I should have known better (but never mind!). In any event, here begins the odyssey: The DCA claimed I owed it a debt for for under £300 on/for a Barclay's account opened in 1998 and closed in 1999. (Yes, nine years ago.) I acknowledged that I used to have a Barclay's account but that I had no knowledge, written down or otherwise, of any outstanding debt. The DCA ignored this and pressed for an immediate payment to stop further action. (Action?) Unfluttered, I stated that my credit files have not shown that I owed or owe any outstanding debt to Barclay's or to a company called . . . Cabot (quelle surprise!), to which Cabot admitted that the debt would have been removed from any credit history after six years. Again, I was told, only a full payment now would resolve the matter once and for all. Still unfazed, I asked Cabot how it came across my name and address for this debt. Cabot would only admit that it acquired the debt in November of 2006 (7 years after the fact, note) and that it had sent me a previous letter (which I never received). Again, Cabot pressed for payment, which I continued to ignore. Instead, I said that I'd never received a written communication from Cabot before today — ever — which was true. Cabot suggested that I might have changed addresses. I responded that most people change addresses, many times in fact, over the years, but who's to say how many times in nine years? (Nevertheless, Cabot's saying they sent me a letter doesn't mean they did send me one. Cabot would not confirm where they sent the letter.) Cabot pressed for payment again. I said I would definitely not pay anything to Cabot for a debt I knew nothing about, that I wanted to find out what was fact and what was fiction and that I would like Cabot to make a note of such in its records. Cabot responded that it would hold the account for a week, stop calling me and allow me to establish that I owed the debt (how considerate); but that unless I paid the debt, Cabot would continue to press for payment. It could legally call me up to 6 times a day, I was told. At that last comment, a junk-yard dog deep down in my gut bore its teeth: I stated that if it could LEGALLY call me 6 times a day, then I would LEGALLY consider my options. I put the phone down. The next day I sent a letter to Cabot, special delivery, stating that as far as I was concerned the debt was/is stature barred. (Why bother asking Cabot to show me what it has on record, where it got its info from or from whom, whether or not the debt is valid, etc., IF the debt is legally out of bounds?) I stipulated that unless Cabot could provide evidence that I'd contacted it in writing or made any payment in the relevant period, the debt was legally unenforceable. I asked Cabot to confirm this and not to contact me again except to confirm this — and by letter only. Cabot has since written to me to inform me that the debt was acknowledged by me through a payment of £20 made in 2003 (a "fact" that was not shared with me in my first call with them), and therefore the limitation period runs from that date. It asked me to call to make repayment arrangements. That's the bare bones of it, and I'm now miffed and prepared to drag them out of their fishing expedition. My next move will be to write to Cabot and tell it that its saying I made a payment and its providing evidence I made a payment (as I urged it to do) are not the same things... And so I ask you to look at The meat on the hook of the matter above.

rubbery

Loan Manager

Lone Wolf