Cabot returned stat fee.

[pebs]

Sent a cca request on behalf of my partner who claim to have bought a debt from capital one.

 

They are claiming debt is £449 although his cap one card only had a £200 credit limit.

 

Recieved letter back today saying they do not accept statutory fee`s

They go on to say they have requested the cca from cap one and when they have it they will send it on but there may be a delay as the vendor may have to retrieve it from their archives.

 

Any advice on what we should do next please?

[Curlyben]

WAIT and see what Cabot send in response to your CCA.

[pebs]

Thanks, we will.

 

Just thought they were trying to fob us off by sending the £1 PO back

[andrew1]

No, they do this as they say they buy the Rights to the debt ( ie what you allegedly owe) but not the Duties under the Agreement ( which eliminates their responsibilities under the Consumer Credit Act) when they purchased the debt from the Card Company. They buy the debt under the Law of Property Act 1925, so they have no right to keep the money and therefore send it back.

 

They have the hang of this now. Before we all came along they used to put the £1 against the account balance as they didn't know what a CCA Request was

 

Keep an eye on what they do - and we ( in the Cabot Fan Club ) will keep an eye too.

[NailPost]

Bear in mind their answer does not absolve them from the timetable. If they go beyond the 12-working day limit they are in default and cannot continue pursuing the debt until they find the docs.

 

If the default continues beyond 30 days they commit a criminal offence. This could be useful if they start playing silly beggars.

 

The most important thing to remember is that without any documentation there is no debt. And they would be very foolish to try and enforce this without paperwork. If they do there will be plenty of people on this thread who'll help you tie the stupid idiots in knots.

[pebs]

Thanks, do you think I should send them a letter to remind them of the timetable?

 

Just so they know, we know our rights!

[Curlyben]

As ever Cabot are telling porkies as under LoP 1925 s136 they own the ENTIRE debt, so rights, duties, everything.

 

There is no need to remind a DCA of CCA timelimits, they know the law.

[andrew1]

As ever Cabot are telling porkies as under LoP 1925 s136 they own the ENTIRE debt, so rights, duties, everything.

 

There is no need to remind a DCA of CCA timelimits, they know the law.

 

So that makes them have to abide by the Consumer Credit Act then "whether they are the original creditor or not" ?

 

 

In your opinion? - the more opinions the merrier..

[Curlyben]

This is a classic Cabot tactic with the rights but not the duties cobblers.

 

The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed sum credit, within the

prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and

payment of a fee of 15 new pence, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed

agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a

statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information

to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor;

(b) the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but

remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the

date when each became due: and

© the total sum which is to became payable under the agreement by the debtor,

and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of

determining the date, when each becomes due.

 

Now s77-79 refer to the "creditor", this term is defined in s189.

“ creditor “ means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or

the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by

assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit

agreement, includes the prospective creditor;

Same applies to s78 and s79 aswell.

 

Now if they are saying that they aren't the creditor as defined by the Act the you cannot possibly be the debtor

“ debtor “ means the individual receiving credit under a consumer credit agreement or

the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by

assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit

agreement includes the prospective debtor;

Therefore there is NO debt to pay.

[Seahorse]

the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by

assignment or operation of law

 

'Tis what we've been saying all along, but don't expect them to say, "Oops, how silly. Of COURSE you're right. We'll just go away now."

 

[Curlyben]

It gets even better when you read what LoP s136 has to say on this matter:

 

(1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice-

(a)

the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b)

all legal and other remedies for the same; and

©

the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

 

Now an

absolute assignment

conveys the entire account to the assignee. They basically become the new owner of the debt, lock, stock and barrel, EVERYTHING !

[andrew1]

It gets even better when you read what LoP s136 has to say on this matter:

 

 

Now an

absolute assignment

conveys the entire account to the assignee. They basically become the new owner of the debt, lock, stock and barrel, EVERYTHING !

 

Forgive me doing this, but it's helpful (I think! ) to get it spelled out on forum..

 

Okay: Playing devils advocate:

 

Originally Posted by CCA74 189 (1)

" debtor " means the individual receiving credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement includes the prospective debtor;"

 

 

..But Cabot say, " we didn't buy the duties - only the rights"

 

 

Read in a slightly different way, the meaning changes - No?

 

Sarah

[Curlyben]

As Cabot like to quote LoP s136 I thought I'd post that as well.

 

As this is an absolute assignment they are talking total Bovine Excrement.

You CANNOT purchase the rights without the duties.

In this type of assignment they are ONE package, ALL or nothing.

 

Following on the part you highlighted, and also what I posted earlier, if Cabot insist that they haven't purchased the duties the YOU cannot be the debtor as define in CCA s189.

 

Oh dear, so sad, what a shame.

 

I just wish I had a Cabot as I would FORCE them into court to argue this one

[pt2537]

yep, i concur with Curlyben, they purchase the debt and all of the duties that go with it.

 

other wise parliament would not have needed to include s127 CCA 1974 , think about it, all creditors would need to do is sell the debt and an unenforcable debt would become enforcable which is wrong

 

regards

paul

[Seahorse]

I'll maybe ask this as an aside when I get them into court. But I'd rather try not to get things bogged down in trivialities, as I think this all deflects from the true issue at hand... no CCA means unenforcable. As Elizabeth1 proved, you need to keep it simple.

[andrew1]

I'll maybe ask this as an aside when I get them into court. But I'd rather try not to get things bogged down in trivialities, as I think this all deflects from the true issue at hand... no CCA means unenforcable. As Elizabeth1 proved, you need to keep it simple.

 

 

That's very true Seahorse, but you and I both know that Mr Crawford has been writing articles stating the "we buy the rights, but not the duties" so, putting yourselves in his shoes ( god forbid ) for a minute, why and where do you think he feels he is coming from on that and going public with it? Even the DBSG have lectures on it so there must be something in this?

 

 

Sarah

[ScarletPimpernel]

That's very true Seahorse, but you and I both know that Mr Crawford has been writing articles stating the "we buy the rights, but not the duties" so, putting yourselves in his shoes ( god forbid ) for a minute, why and where do you think he feels he is coming from on that and going public with it? Even the DBSG have lectures on it so there must be something in this?

 

 

Sarah

 

On the other hand, there may be nothing in it. Mr Crawford might have been using a technique perfected by another world-class bullsh*tter, one Josef Goebbels, who said:

 

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”

 

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

 

It doesn't always work, however - 45 minute WMDs, anyone?

[Seahorse]

HAHA. How very true Scarlet.

 

Sarah, I hear what you are saying, but I'd like to get in there and NOT confuse the judge. Tempting as it might be to get them on record trying to justify themselves, I'd prefer to win. Unless of course, it could be mentioned near the end once I am sure Judgey has a grasp of my arguments. Hmmm.

[andrew1]

Like the CRA's do then?, "we are legally obliged to record your data for 6 yrs"

 

ah!, now I see, silly me!!

 

if I carry on like this I might get into the Cabot Fan Club - he he !

[Seahorse]

We're ALL members of the Fan Club. Some more than others.

 

Anyhoo, Laydees more than welcome. Well, someone has to inject a sense of decorum into the proceedings.

[andrew1]

We're ALL members of the Fan Club. Some more than others.

 

Anyhoo, Laydees more than welcome. Well, someone has to inject a sense of decorum into the proceedings.

 

 

 

Thank you for the compliment Seahorse, I didn't realise I had such an influence

 

 

Sarah

[pebs]

Cabot are currently in default it has now been 15 days since they signed for the cca!

[pebs]

Sent cca request 22nd Oct so it has now been 24 days.

Is the rule 12 days then an extra 30 (42 in total) or they have to supply it within 30 days?

 

What happens once the time limit is up?

[pt2537]

ok, 12 working days is the time limit to supply the documents.

 

when this expires they enter a default situation where they are not entitled to enforce the debt while the default continues

 

however if 5 months down the road they find the agreement they can apply to court to get the agreement enforced

 

once the 12 working days plus 30 calendar days pass and they have not supplied the documents they commit a criminal offense and can be prosecuted by trading standards

 

once 12 working days expire you can withhold payment until they comply should you wish and also if they send an agreement it should be checked to asses if its enforcable as many are not

 

i hope this helps

[pebs]

Yes it does, thanks!