MoonHawk vs Cabot cap1 debt

[MoonHawk]

A slightly modified version of the letter is on it's way along with a copy of the application form they sent with all the relevant points making it an application marked with a highlighter pen :D (amused my wife no end).

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[MoonHawk]

maybe this will help CAP1 decide "which" of their CCA's are enforceable agreements cause mine is totally different to this little gem - it's more of an application form that has been trimmed a little.

One problem (which is not exclusive to Cap1) is that they have so many different versions, probably designed by m arketing guys trying to get the consumer to respond, or designed by people trying to cust corners and not have two documents. Very messy and hard to sort it all out. But words ... bed .. made .. lie .. come into mind.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[elizabeth1]

One problem (which is not exclusive to Cap1) is that they have so many different versions, probably designed by m arketing guys trying to get the consumer to respond, or designed by people trying to cust corners and not have two documents. Very messy and hard to sort it all out. But words ... bed .. made .. lie .. come into mind.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

 

 

I do have a few "versions" to show Judge when I go court again soon - Judge isn't impressed at all so far. After the last hearing and seeing my skeleton argument Judge wants to know "why" they insist this is a CCA when my argument differs so much - next hearing maybe they'll have answers to this?

[MoonHawk]

Simple answer. They insist because they have to. If they agree it is not, then it will soon change from a number of CCA requests and non-payments to a major disaster for them.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[elizabeth1]

Simple answer. They insist because they have to. If they agree it is not, then it will soon change from a number of CCA requests and non-payments to a major disaster for them.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

 

My CAP1 stuff just got more interesting - I saw my credit report last night and Lowells (who cap1 sold this account to while in dispute) registered a default and are calling this a "revolving account" !!

 

I already have ICO looking at this with CAP1 who denied they'd sold account while in dispute - so yesterday I parcelled the Lowell's "hello letter" showing the erroneous account number to ICO and CAP1's letter showing they had sold this account - all stuff sent to me a long time after I issued court claim against them.

 

Now this default I found last night issued by Lowells even shows erroneous account number. I had issued S10-12 notices to Lowells and Cap1 and they still won't remove this rubbish from my CRA files.

 

I am sending a copy of this default to ICO am will issue a separate complaint against Lowell's - if they are big enough to write this rubbish - then they can take the flack I intend to see they get. If they call me once more I shall issue a court claim against them too and let the Judge get them!!

 

I have tried being reasonable with these people and they just cause me more problems - so it's time they paid for the damage they caused me?

 

These companies are really going to be in a mess once this CCA stuff starts biting!! It's like these companies have gone mad?

[MoonHawk]

Beggers belief. Go get them You may even be able to ask for compensation.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[elizabeth1]

Beggers belief. Go get them You may even be able to ask for compensation.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

 

I am so Cheesed off with this as it was on the annual credit report website where you can ask for a free credit report site Free credit report every year, no credit card details required - annualcreditreport.co.uk - I never knew about this place till last week.

 

So then CAP1 also writing rubbish to Experian and equifax etc.. - NOT BAD FOR A COMPANY WITH NO CCA??

 

I will get them for this - how spiteful is this? and it's illegal what they are doing as they have no right to be writing anything about me.

 

I will get them for this!!

[MoonHawk]

Do not let them get you upset. Just go get them. You may call it spiteful, but they would use the law to the full extent and every bit they could to get you to pay, so I belive they should in that respect stay within the confines of the law themselves. As such they are fair game when they do not.

 

The important thing from my point of view (and I know it is hard sometimes) is not let them effect you emotionally as that will make you suffer in your health.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[elizabeth1]

Do not let them get you upset. Just go get them. You may call it spiteful, but they would use the law to the full extent and every bit they could to get you to pay, so I belive they should in that respect stay within the confines of the law themselves. As such they are fair game when they do not.

 

The important thing from my point of view (and I know it is hard sometimes) is not let them effect you emotionally as that will make you suffer in your health.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

 

 

Thank you - I know you are right!!

 

I shall just go get them

[MoonHawk]

No answer to my last letter yet. Kind of disappointed as I want to see their response to my use of highlighter pen Got to give them an extra week because if the postal strike I guess... aren't I nice

 

And now getting calls from them logged on my call logger a couple of times a day. Not had time to make Seahorse's day yet by answering one

 

Best Wishes

moonHawk

[tomterm8]

this section is also useful:

 

196.

Regulations respecting notices.

— (1) Any notice required or authorised to be served or given by this Act shall be in writing.

 

(2) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served on a lessee or mortgagor shall be sufficient, although only addressed to the lessee or mortgagor by that designation, without his name, or generally to the persons interested, without any name, and notwithstanding that any person to be affected by the notice is absent, under disability, unborn, or unascertained.

 

(3) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall be sufficiently served if it is left at the last-known place of abode or business in the United Kingdom of the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, or, in case of a notice required or authorised to be served on a lessee or mortgagor, is affixed or left for him on the land or any house or building comprised in the lease or mortgage, or, in case of a mining lease, is left for the lessee at the office or counting-house of the mine.

 

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned [F1 by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned] undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

 

(5) The provisions of this section shall extend to notices required to be served by any instrument affecting property executed or coming into operation after the commencement of this Act unless a contrary intention appears.

 

(6) This section does not apply to notices served in proceedings in the court.

Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F1

Words in s. 196(4) substituted (26.3.2001) by S.I. 2001/1149, art. 3(1), Sch 1 para. 7

Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1

S. 196 extended by Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938 (c. 34), s. 7(2); applied by Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 (c. 65), s. 29(6)

C2

S. 196(3)(4) modified by Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (c. 31, SIF 75:1), s. 49

C3

S. 196(4) amended by Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 (c. 27), s. 1, Sch.

[MoonHawk]

Thanks Tom. Not sure what you have in mind. They have not at any point mentioned LOP to me.

 

No letter response as yet, but I am still logging calls from them.

 

I am busy for another week, but I think I will step this up the week after and look to taking it down the route of complaints to TS and also the course same as Elizabeth.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[MoonHawk]

OK still not letter, but daily calls which are logged by my telephone system and not answered (not too much bother as it either does not ring or rings once )

 

This letter going off tomorrow:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

No debt is acknowledged to Capital One or Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited.

 

You have failed to respond to my letter dated 1st October 2007, delivered by Royal Mail and signed for at your Kings Hill offices on the 2nd October 2007.

 

For the record, I re-iterate that you have failed to comply with request made under section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act in the following areas:

1. You have failed to provide a true copy of the alleged agreement (you have provided the original application form which does not contain any of the prescribed terms required and is prospective in nature)
   
2. You have failed to provide a statement of account, and also attempted to mislead by stating that providing a, incomplete set of statements is sufficient for this purpose.
   
3. You have failed to provide the terms and conditions applicable at the time of t
   

he start of the alleged agreement and the relating notices of variation.

Despite the queries raised in my previous letter, and your failure to either fully comply with my statutory request, or to provide a signed statement of Truth that you are in possession of the signed and properly executed copy of the alleged agreement, you have continued to attempt to contact me by telephone.

 

You have 14 days from the receipt of this letter, to either reply satisfactorally to this letter or to state your reasoning behind your continuing attempts to enforce the debt and harass me and my family by continual phone calls. It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’. You must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends.

 

Should you fail to respond to the letter and cease the phone calls, a complaint will be lodged with the Office of Fair Trading and the Trading Standards, along with copies of all correspondence and log of attempted calls.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[MoonHawk]

Finally after four and a half months a reply. They only went over the 14 days by a bit. :o

 

Our further response to your complaint

 

I understand that you believe Cabot has failed to comply with your request under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act.

 

We have investigated this matter and believe that your arguments are immaterial and unfounded. We have taken advice from our Legal Department in relation to this matter, more specifically regarding the enforcement of your agreement under the Consumer Credit Act t974, and we have set out the accurate position below.

 

Please note, that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 78 (1) there is no obligation to provide a true and complete copy of the credit agreement if there is no longer a true and complete copy of the credit agreement in existence. Nor is there an obligation upon us to provide a full statement of account. As a result the information we have provided to you, clearly complies with section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

With regards to your claim that we have failed to provide the terms and conditions applicable at the time of the start of the credit agreement. We have made several requests to Capital One, the original lender, for this documentation, which we have now been provided. Please find enclosed the relevant terms and conditions relating to your credit agreement.

 

You have stated that Cabot have continued to contact Mrs MoonHawk regarding this debt. However on reviewing her account I can confirm that the last telephone call made was in July 2007.

 

As a result of the above, your arguments are clearly unfounded and you have no basis for your dispute or claim for failing to pay the outstanding balance under the credit agreement. In conclusion, we are perfectly within our rights to enforce the debt against you and respectfully request that Mrs MoonHawk pays the outstanding balance on her agreement within the next 14 days, failing which we shall consider taking further action against Mrs MoonHawk for the recovery of the outstanding balance and we shall reinstate telephone communication as necessary.

 

I trust we have set out our final position and look forward to receiving the full outstanding balance within the next 14 days.

 

The letter was accompanied by a photocopy of a T&C page with th year in question written on it by hand. No other indication as to the period it applies to (lacks a document number also).

 

And to their claim about calls. The calls from '08009172225' stopped in July but calls from 0800 3289911 have carried on to the tune of 117 since July 2007.

 

I shall sit down over the weekend and draft a letter. Any comments or suggestions are welcome

[Seahorse]

Section 10 notice I think.

 

But at the very least, a letter to say that if they are convinced they will be able to enforce this alleged debt, they are more than welcome to chance their arm in court. Failing which, you expect them to inform you that they are ceasing all collection activity on this account, otherwise their activities will be reported to all and sundry.

[conar686]

Section 10 notice I think.

 

But at the very least, a letter to say that if they are convinced they will be able to enforce this alleged debt, they are more than welcome to chance their arm in court. Failing which, you expect them to inform you that they are ceasing all collection activity on this account, otherwise their activities will be reported to all and sundry.

 

Right on scalie MAC