Cabot Returned my £1 Cheque

[Mister Twister]

I have 3 accounts which were set up years and years ago when I had a thriving business (When things were good the banks were throwing money at me!). Unfortunately when my business folded I was left with the debt on the cards. I considered bankruptcy but instead opted to try and deal with my creditors although this is a decision I now regret since I had already lost my house and car and owned nothing. I contacted the Consumer Credit Counselling Service and they set up arrangements with my creditors and I had to pay £210 per month for six years. I made every payment on time for almost three years and then hit on hard times again when I lost my job. After falling one month in arrears I received statements from MBNA and CitiCard and they had both applied late fees and interest to the account which amounted to more than £220. I fell further and further in arrears while looking for work and the debt mounted very quickly undoing almost all of the previous three years payments. Eventually things settled down again, I got re assessed by the CCCS and continued to make regular payments. In October 2007 I received a letter from Cabot Financial telling me they now owned the debt that once belonged to CitiFinancial and enclosed a statement. They had added £190 in interest! I contacted them and explained that I was on an arrangement to pay and asked why they did not honour that. They informed me that they now owned the debt and said unless I could provide in writing the agreement for the reduced payments signed by CitiFinancial they were not going to refund the interest. I have now stopped paying the CCCS and all my creditors – enough is enough! I am sure the idea of these companies was to keep me in debt for ever – I feel like they have made their money out of me over the years and now just want blood.

 

 

I have now made a CCA request to all of them. Cabot have written back to me and stated they are not obliged to provide the information under sections 77 and/or section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and have returned my £1 cheque.

 

 

What next?

[Rhia]

Do not deal with them on the phone at all. Put everything in writing and send registered if you can afford to do so as you need to track everything. Write and tell them you do not acknowledge any debt to them and that you will not deal with them until they produce a true copy of a properly executed agreement as your previous letter requested. Then sit back and wait for their next move.

[Mister Twister]

Thanks for the advice.

 

I am concerned that in the past few months I have spoken to them on the telephone and have maybe admitted that I owe money since I was arguing about interest and payments. Can they use a telephone recording of my conversation if it gets to court?

[Edz11]

Cabot are in effect saying that they are not the creditor (as defined by the CCA) when they say they don't have to supply your CCA. What they are saying is that they have the rights, but not the duties, of creditor and the definition of "creditor" has to cover them both. "so we're exempt!".

 

So, they must be the equitable assignee of your debt. But, if they meet the requirements of S136 of the LAw of Property Act then there's an absolute legal assignment and they are in fact the creditor. Doesn't matter if they like it or not. You got told about them owning it and I bet they got the debt as a result of a written agreement - so it's absolute. I must admit that assignment by deed isn't necessary (which diverges from some thought on here) but there are enough cases to back up that view. So, Cabot having so kindly having written to you to tell you they own the debt is sufficient as the written agreement with the assignor will almost certainly exist.

 

And they have continually overlooked one particular point - S173(1) of the CCA;

 

Contracting-out forbidden.

— (1) A term contained in a regulated agreement or linked transaction, or in any other agreement relating to an actual or prospective regulated agreement or linked transaction, is void if, and to the extent that, it is inconsistent with a provision for the protection of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety contained in this Act or in any regulation made under this Act.

 

So they may have a cute little agreement which makes them able to say "it's an equitable assignment because of this particular sentence in the assignment". Sorry, but if that means you've put that in to avoid Section 77 onwards )and the responses that they've provided so far indicate it has), then I'm afraid S173 (1) voids it.

 

In equity, Cabot own the debt and S173(1) is the means of recognising that in law. The Act was not designed to give a creditor rights but leave the duties as an "orphan". (Just imagine - the original creditor has assigned the rights to Cabot but the OC then goes bust. The "duties" can't be left to go down with the ship..).

 

When is the 12 working days + one calendar month from the date Cabot received your CCA request up?

[Seahorse]

I know this is going to sound as if I'm picking on you Mister Twister, but I have to say this on someones thread and it might as well be yours. So try not to take this the wrong way:

 

It has become increasingly apparent that exactly the same questions are being asked over and over again, until it gets to the point where folks would be just as well having a standard Cabot-like template handy to copy and paste in reply.

 

So can I just ask, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take the time to have a read of at least a few of the existing threads, where the self same questions are being answered repeatedly, and almost daily.

 

This isn't meant to be a rant even if it comes across as one. But I surely can't be the only one getting just slightly annoyed about this trend.

[Struggling_Simon]

I concur - I personally stuck to the approach that Mr Seahorse suggests above, and my dealings with Cabot so far have been plain sailing(pun intended). At least, I've had no suprises.

 

Just follow the steps laid out. There is a definite pattern if you look at any arbitrary 5 threads on here.

 

I just get frustrated waiting for the days to roll by until I can follow through with the next actions.

 

Stick to the time limits laid out and be vehement with these people , oh and invest in a diary if you can manage it.

[Mister Twister]

I have a day off work today so got plenty of hours to read through the threads.

 

12 Days is up a week today so it is a waiting game until then. In the meantime I hope to recieve something from my other 2 creditors.

 

I will keep you posted.

[Mister Twister]

Here is the latest letter. My feeling is they are never going to find the agreement (if it exists).

 

[rnscotch]

In the light of CFC being blown all over the forum i will try and advise.

 

Basically they have not got it and never will get it i am assuming it is by the 12 day marker? if so it is now in dispute.

 

Once you get to day 42 they are breaking the law and that's where you start sending angry grams to fos, trading standards etc etc also i am sure seahorse said it is better to exhaust Crapbots complaint procedures first so i would do a search for his post as most info you would need is in there.

 

I am sure if anything i have said is wrong someone will correct it.

[rory32]

What exactly would you be reporting them for? Admitting that they haven't supplied a copy of the agreement and stating that they are not pursuing you for payment?

 

It is best to wait until they send out the threatomatic demanding payment when they are over the 12 working days plus calendar month before reporting them. Then you can make a far more weighty complaint to TS. You can not make complaints to the FOS without first going through Cabots complaints procedure, they would then have 8 weeks to resolve the complaint to your satisfaction.

 

This procedure is the same for all DCA's.

 

Basically they have not got it and never will get it i am assuming it is by the 12 day marker? if so it is now in dispute.

No the account is in dispute from the date that they receive your CCA request stating I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE...After the 12 working days they are in default and may not enforce the account.

[rory32]

In the light of CFC being blown all over the forum

You are very lucky to have any forum at all to post in after the crash at the weekend.

[rnscotch]

You are very lucky to have any forum at all to post in after the crash at the weekend.

 

uhuh... lets stick to the facts of the thread and try and help people which is what i am trying to do in the absence of the more experienced cfc people.

 

If you would rather i shut up and not answer unanswered posts then so be it. :-|

[rory32]

In the light of CFC being blown all over the forum i will try and advise.

 

uhuh... lets stick to the facts of the thread

Such remarks have nothing to do with the facts of the thread.

[shifnal]

With regard to Cabot, I am in dispute with them over a debt. I did as per the recommendations, and requested a copy of my CCA. They failed to send it, then about three weeks later, sent a letter in which they returned my postal order for £1 and as above, claimed that they were not liable under the legislation to send me the information requested, but out of courtesy (!) would see if they could get my original CCA from the owner of the debt.

 

I then wrote back informing them that they were over the statutory 12 day limit, that they were now in breach, and that I was sending them Statutory Notice pursuant to section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1988 requesting them to cease storing and processing my data.

 

Today (23rd Sept) I have received a letter which states:

 

 

What I would like to know, is where I now stand? Cabot are denying that they are liable under the CCA 1974, and that they do not have to remove my details under the 1988 Data Protection Act.

 

In other words, they are telling me that whatever I do, and no matter how long it takes them to find my original CCA, they will still pursue this debt and don't care about the law.

 

Can they do this?

 

What should my next course of action be please? Thank you.

Edited September 23, 2008 by shifnal

[Rosie_123]

With regard to Cabot, I am in dispute with them over a debt. I did as per the recommendations, and requested a copy of my CCA. They failed to send it, then about three weeks later, sent a letter in which they returned my postal order for £1 and as above, claimed that they were not liable under the legislation to send me the information requested, but out of courtesy (!) would see if they could get my original CCA from the owner of the debt.

 

I then wrote back informing them that they were over the statutory 12 day limit, that they were now in breach, and that I was sending them Statutory Notice pursuant to section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1988 requesting them to cease storing and processing my data.

 

Today (23rd Sept) I have received a letter which states:

 

 

What I would like to know, is where I now stand? Cabot are denying that they are liable under the CCA 1974, and that they do not have to remove my details under the 1988 Data Protection Act.

 

In other words, they are telling me that whatever I do, and no matter how long it takes them to find my original CCA, they will still pursue this debt and don't care about the law.

 

Can they do this?

 

What should my next course of action be please? Thank you.

 

Bump.

 

I am in exactly the same situation - they returned my Postal Order and said they have no legal obigation to supply this information to me. So what do I do now?

[ODC]

Rosie what was the alleged debt for.

[Rosie_123]

Rosie what was the alleged debt for.

Goldfish Credit Card - or Morgan Stanley as the card was when I took it out. I don't dispute the debt to them, but having recently won a case against HFO Services who never provided proof of their ownership of the debt, I always thought it was a legal requirement. Maybe I'm wrong!

[ODC]

Goldfish Credit Card - or Morgan Stanley as the card was when I took it out. I don't dispute the debt to them, but having recently won a case against HFO Services who never provided proof of their ownership of the debt, I always thought it was a legal requirement. Maybe I'm wrong!

 

Just checking that it was for a credit card. As usual Crapbot are talking utter tripe. The are a Creditor as defined by S 189 of the CCA 1974. They claim to have bought the rights but not the duties of the alleged debt. Again this is utter tosh. They are obliged under S 175 of the CCA to pass your request on to the original Creditor. As it stands now they will be in breach of the CPUTR 2008. If they send you any more begging letters then make a formal complaint against them.

[ODC]

Here is a copy of the CCA that I use. As you will see it eliminates all their excuses before they make them

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY OR ANY COMPANY YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT

 

Re: Account no: xxxxxxxx

 

This letter is a formal request pursuant to s.77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I require you to provide me with a true copy of the credit agreement relating to the above account, together with any other documentation the Act requires you to provide.

 

I expect you to comply fully and properly with this request, within the statutory time limit. You are reminded that should you fail to comply with my request, the provisions of s.77(6) will apply.

 

If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties.

 

Your attention is drawn to ss.5(2), 3(b),6 and 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR).

 

I enclose a postal order in the sum of £1.00, which is the statutory fee. Note that these funds are not to be used for any other purpose.

 

If you are unable to comply fully and properly with this request, you should confirm this in writing at the earliest opportunity, and certainly within the statutory time limit for compliance, and return the fee.

© 42 Man

[ScabHunter]

Crapbot do seem to be doing some strange thing lately.

 

In my case, they put the £1 towards the balance of the alleged debt, but still sent me letters acknowledging my CCA request. How are they going to convince a court that the only £1 I ever sent them, at exactly the same time as they have replied quoting "Your request", is in fact a payment towards the alleged debt?

 

I wonder what their "algorithm" is in deciding what to do. In my case, I assume they put the £1 towards the alleged debt in an attempt to start the clock again on statute barring, although it is nowhere near that point.

 

That letter in shifnal's post is pointless. In the first full paragraph, below the three single lines, they acknowledge having received the request. What is the point of coming out with all of the other drivel that everyone knows is false?

 

What are Crapbot trying to achieve?

 

SH

[ScarletPimpernel]

Cabot's business model depends upon the people they target being ignorant of the law and thus not being able to defend themselves.

 

Cabot's infamous 'we are not obliged to provide this information' letter is both wrong (for the reasons subsequently explained), and designed to mislead. However, until the OFT, FOS or TS does something about it I suspect they'll keep churning it out.

 

Companies like this know that their industry is poorly regulated, and so they know that they can get away with telephone harassment and misleading letters in the majority of cases. In the absence of meaningful regulation and enforcement, only when the number of people aware of the law and who assert their rights exceeds the number of people who do not will Cabot et al change their behaviour.

[Rosie_123]

OK thanks guys.

 

They have already returned my PO with their letter saying they have no legal obligation to provide me with a copy of the credit agreement, so would it be worth sending them a copy of ODC's letter in the post above or not? Thanks.

[ODC]

Cabot are the so called professionals and as such should be aware of their LEGAL obligations. Its your call but personally I would wait until the 12 working days are up and then if they continue with their begging letters report their sorry asses to TS, the OFT and your MP. You should also write and make a formal complaint to CABOT. They obviously think that everyone is as stupid as them.

[Rosie_123]

Cabot are the so called professionals and as such should be aware of their LEGAL obligations. Its your call but personally I would wait until the 12 working days are up and then if they continue with their begging letters report their sorry asses to TS, the OFT and your MP. You should also write and make a formal complaint to CABOT. They obviously think that everyone is as stupid as them.

OK thanks. 12 days is up on Wednesday so I will do something then:)