Cabot disputing Statute Barred status - what next?

[pt2537]

Upon their argument,

the local authority could delay service of a demand indefinitely. Then, having served their demand long after the works

were complete, they would have a further six years in which to take proceedings in the High Court or the county court.

In Coburn v Colledge [1897] 1 QB 702 at 709, [1895-9] All ER Rep 539 at 542 Lopes LJ said

 

 

'There is nothing in the section, so far as I can see, inconsistent with the view that the cause of action arises when the work is

completed. It was urged that, if this construction were adopted, a solicitor would have a shorter time during which he may abstain

from bringing his action for work done than the rest of Her Majesty's subjects. That may be so; but on the other hand, if the

plaintiff's contention is correct, the solicitor may abstain from delivering his bill for twenty years, and then at the end of that time

he may deliver it and sue after the expiration of a month from its delivery. It seems to me that that would be a very anomalous and

inconvenient result.'

 

the above quote comes from the case of Swansea City Council v Glass. - [1992] 2 All ER 680 in the Court of Appeal

 

Do i really need to say any more?

[ODC]

the above quote comes from the case of Swansea City Council v Glass. - [1992] 2 All ER 680 in the Court of Appeal

 

Do i really need to say any more?

 

This really is all that need be sent to those silly DCAs who maintan that the 6 years start after a default is registered. Ctrl+C and into my files for nest round with CRAPBOT and CRAPQUEST

[harrystottle]

Hello All

 

Latest news on the continuing saga of Crap Pot and co:

 

I contacted Consumer Direct and they (after a bit of cajoling) finally got a Trading Standards officer from my Local Authority to contact me. The person I spoke to seemed rather reluctant to get involved saying that Crap Pot were not in breach of any legislation 'that they would normally enforce'.

 

I asked the TS officer if she was familiar with the Administration of Justice Act and she went a bit quiet and then said that she had heard of it. I asked her if that was a piece of legislation that TS would normally enforce and she replied that, in certain circumstances it might be!

 

I said 'well what about in the circumstances I have just described to you', or words to that effect.

 

After some conferring with a colleague she said that, although it was within their remit to enforce this legislation, it was her colleague's opinion that for behaviour to constitute harassment under Section 40(1) it had to be 'pretty severe' i.e. phone calls at all hours of the day and night, doorstep visits etc.

 

I pointed out that they had sent letters which were intimidatory and deceitful in nature, but they didn't seem all that fussed about it.

 

At the end of the day, they seemed fairly dis-interested and advised me to take it up with the FOS.

 

They did, however send me a link to this information, which I think is quite useful:

 

Debt Factsheets - Harassment of people in debt by creditors

 

The part about Malicious Communications Act 1988 is quite interesting, and it also directly refers to, amongst other things, Section 40(1) of the above act which states

 

A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract he…falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;

 

If you look back on this thread you will see a scan of the letter I received from their 'Pre-Litigation Dept' which clearly breaches this part of the legislation.

 

Also, there doesn't seem to be any reference to the harassment being 'severe' or otherwise.

 

I have left a message with the TSO I spoke to asking her for her opinion on this and will be interested to receive her response.

 

I now have a copy of the OFT debt collection complaint form, which I will be filing in due course.

 

All in all, it does seem to me that Trading Standards are trying to shirk their responsibilities, or at the very least it would appear that they don't seem overly keen to get involved; would appreciate some of your thoughts here...

 

Should I try to jolly them along a bit?

 

H

[Rhia]

Harry...TS have a real problem taking up CCA complaints. Most of them have little experience and it is such a minefield I think historically they have always fought shy of such things. I have come across one or two really switched on TS people but sadly not enough of them.

How about complaining to your MP and the Financial Services Association. Good move to complain to OFT they will send you a reply which states they don't investigate individual cases BUT behind the scenes they DO take action and can withdraw Cabot's consumer credit license.

I alos would check up on the Admin of Justice Act as I think it has been amended recently.

[harrystottle]

Thanks Rhia - that makes sense...they definitely didn't seem that clued up about it to me.

 

The MP is a good idea, I think if he's any good at his job he could make a lot of waves in Crap Pot's direction.

 

Sorry for brief reply but must dash!

 

Cheers

 

H

[bazaar]

Harry

I would send TS a complaint also that they appear to be unable to progress your complaint due to lack of experience etc etc. If they are accepting wages to do a job, they must produce at some stage.

Your earlier complaint to Crappysnots is perfect. I think a letter to TS on a similar level ( IE now children let me explain:D). Will sting someone at TS to escalate this further, or at the very least get them to admit they cant follow their own legislation. Which then leaves them open to official scrutiny from your MP. Just a thought, ( Sorry my blood is boiling today:-x)

[bobbysox]

Hi Harrystottle

Cabot have acknowledged mine is SB!! I have updated my thread if you want to take a look (link on post 44 above). I will PM you shortly

Bobbysox

[harrystottle]

Great news Bobbysox! Well done for persevering - although it does make you think we should not be getting put in the position where we have to do this but nevertheless good on ya!

 

H

[harrystottle]

Okay more developments!!!

 

Have been in touch with Consumer Direct again and finally got some sense out of them after speaking to a very nice lady who was a 'team leader'.

 

I had to speak to her as I was so p'eed off with the treatment I received from one of the advisors I had the misfortune to talk to earlier in the day. Now I'm not normally one to complain (no - really!!!) but this guy started off telling me in a very overbearing and patronising way that Crap Pot were perfectly entitled to pursue this debt, even though it may be statute barred, they just couldn't take me to court. Utter nonsense of course and I told him so but he then got very belligerent about it all. After I virtually got him to admit he didn't understand the legislation and so wasn't really qualified to give this sort of advice he said he was going to terminate the call and hung up on me!!! How completely unprofessional can you get?

 

Hard to believe I know, but I was straight back on the phone to them to lodge a complaint about the obnoxious berk.

 

After a while I got a call from the aforementioned team leader who assured me that she had listened to a recording of the call and would be taking appropriate action (although she didn't say what that would be) but my impression was that she was none too impressed with his performance to say the very least!

 

ANYWAY got that off me chest, but take heed - the people on the phones at Consumer Direct are mostly great but they aren't legally trained and do occasionally talk out of their bottoms.

 

So the upshot of this last conversation was that she emailed my local TS department and lo and behold I got a call this afternoon from the TSO I had spoken to previously, and now she seems to be taking the whole thing a lot more seriously.

 

The other little nugget of info I got from Consumer Direct team leader lady was that they are passing my file on to Kent TS (West Malling being in Kent of course) and they are now looking into it!!! Hurrah!!!!

 

I think it is really important for anybody who is experiencing any crap from Crap Pot to call Consumer Direct and lodge a complaint – the more we do, the more heat they are going to get.

 

I have copied all of the correspondence I have received from Crapola along with my letters of response to the local TSO after I suggested that she might like to forward these on to her colleagues in Kent (well someone has to tell her how to do her job!)

 

Once they get hold of copies of these letters, (if they haven't already) I would say Crap Pot may have some rather awkward questions to answer (well let's hope so anyway).

 

Oh and I made one mistake – I forgot to send my last letter (the one headed Formal Complaint) by registered post and now of course I'm still waiting for an acknowledgement which will never come so I'll be resending that (registered of course) when I get back off me hols next week.

 

That's all folks

 

Bye for now

 

H

Edited January 30, 2009 by harrystottle
fix typo

[harrystottle]

The idiots have sent me a solicitor's letter now. The latest is that Kent TS are going to contact Crap pot about their practices. I have forwarded copies of all correspondence to them via my local TS dept so hopefully this is just more fuel for the fire which is going to be lit under their a*ses

 

Tee hee

 

H

[ODC]

Thats Crapbot for you. They think the law doesnt apply to them and just keep churning out the threatomatics

[harrystottle]

More silliness from Crap Pot ...

 

It may be of interest to note that this has arrived after my communication with Kent Trading Standards. They are the 'Home Authority' to use the vernacular... I spoke to one of them recently but I have to say he didn't inspire confidence, saying that he would not be 'taking sides' and that if there were to be a dispute over the legality of what Crapola are doing it should be determined in court - not sitting on the fence or anything like that!

 

I was really busy at the time he called me so I didn't really have the time to point out that he should be interpreting/enforcing the law himself (surely that's his job) and at least he should be asking them why they are not complying with the OFT guidelines.

 

I'm not going to validate this nonsense by sending another letter to these **** buckets. Although it is tempting to shoot it down in flames, I will only be playing the game by their rules if I do that.

 

An email restating my position will be winging its way to the morons in due course.

 

For the fun of it however I have interceded with a few comments of my own, so, for your reading pleasure I now present:

 

The continuing ramblings of Mr Sam Moore, blood sucker and ponce extraordinaire...

 

Our response to your correspondence

I refer to your letter dated 16th January 2009. May I initially apologise for the delay in responding to you.

 

[so polite :o)]

 

I note that you have stated that the above account is statute barred by virtue of the Limitation Act 1980

 

[oh you noticed, how clever of you]

 

and that you have mentioned the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") Debt Collection Guidance which highlights action on statute barred accounts.

 

Please be advised that the OFT Debt Collection Guidance remains a guidance which is followed by the Industry and should not be confused with actual law.

 

[Oh the irony! I think we all know who seems to be confused about 'actual law' like for example err let's see now...oh yes - the Limitation Act]

 

 

On reviewing your account, I can confirm that we have previously confirmed your account is not statute barred and have explained the reasons why you remain liable for the repayment of the same.

 

[in your dreams pal]

 

For your ease of reference, the outstanding balance on the above account is [£lots]. Therefore, in light of the above, I would urge you to contact our Collections department on 0845 0700 116 to discuss the relevant options available to you in order to settle the account. I must inform you that if we do not receive a repayment proposal within this time frame, we will have no alternative than to escalate your account within our collections procedures.

 

[ooo mummy I'm scared]

 

I trust I have set out our position clearly.

 

[Yes - clear as mud]

 

If you have any further queries in relation to the above account, please do not hesitate to contact me on 0845 026 0463. The Customer Assurance department is open from 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday.

 

[Yes of course I will call you to enter into a pointless discussion with some tiresome cretin who makes their living out of terrorising people into paying them money that they don't owe - I just have to wait until hell freezes over]

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Sam Moore

Customer Assurance Adviser

 

[Ha ha that really is very funny 'customer assurance adviser' - 10/10 again for irony...most amusing I'm sure]

 

Well that's made me feel a bit better anyway - just going to fire off an email...

 

Please feel free to comment

 

All the best

 

H

[lickthewallfatboy]

just write back....."ok,take me to court"

 

then make them look really stupid

[harrystottle]

Okay - couldn't resist had to embellish my email and perhaps needed to make a few points for the purposes of record if it gets to court (which I think they will attempt!)

 

 

Here goes:

 

Dear Mr Moore

 

 

 

I have received your letter of 11th February which I am taking as a response to my formal complaint dated the 16th of January.

 

 

 

As I said in my letter of 16th inst. I am going to reply to you by email as I feel that this is going to be the most effective way to give you my answer to your comments and I have set these out below in direct response to your letter which I have reproduced and set out below for the purpose of clarity, (my comments in bold):

 

[can't do bold in this post but you can see what's what!]

 

Letter BEGINS:

 

I refer to your letter dated 16th January 2009. May I initially apologise for the delay in responding to you.

 

I note that you have stated that the above account is statute barred by virtue of the Limitation Act 1980

 

Correct – a law which you seem to be choosing to ignore

 

and that you have mentioned the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") Debt Collection Guidance which highlights action on statute barred accounts. Please be advised that the OFT Debt Collection Guidance remains a guidance which is followed by the Industry and should not be confused with actual law.

 

I think it is you who is confused by the 'actual law', and you appear to be flouting the above guidelines as well.

 

On reviewing your account, I can confirm that we have previously confirmed your account is not statute barred and have explained the reasons why you remain liable for the repayment of the same.

 

In my view, your 'explanation' is not well-founded in law

 

For your ease of reference, the outstanding balance on the above account is £5,769.41. Therefore, in light of the above, I would urge you to contact our Collections department on 0845 0700 116 to discuss the relevant options available to you in order to settle the account. I must inform you that if we do not receive a repayment proposal within this time frame, we will have no alternative than to escalate your account within our collections procedures.

 

As already advised, for reasons I have already set out, I am not willing to enter into verbal communication with you on this matter

 

I trust I have set out our position clearly.

 

I find your position far from clear; in fact I think it is rather confused.

 

If you have any further queries in relation to the above account, please do not hesitate to contact me on 0845 026 0463. The Customer Assurance department is open from 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday.

 

See above

 

 

 

Letter ENDS.

 

 

 

I trust I have set out my position clearly once more, but my opinion, having received your response to my formal complaint, is that we have reached now a position of deadlock. I have therefore decided to escalate this dispute to the Financial Ombudsman's office.

 

 

Any further letters from you, or your associates, which merely re-state your position will be responded to by an email re-stating mine.

 

 

 

Be advised that if you choose to issue proceedings against me for recovery of this alleged debt, I will strenuously contest this action.

 

 

 

regards

 

 

 

etc etc

[Rhia]

Harry - they are breaking the law. It states clearly the circumstances under which a debt becomes statute barred. Whilst it is true the debt still exists and they can ask you to pay. Once you have said it is statute barred and you have said you will not be paying they are breaking the law by continuing to contact you in this way.

I would say send a brief letter to Willem Wellinghof who is head of the legal team at Cabot and cut out the threat monkey completely otherwise this is just going to go backwards and forwards.

State you do NOT acknowledge this debt as it is statute barred (quote the act). Any attempt to enforce this will be malicious, harrasment and, in the case of court action, an abuse of the legal system.

C.c this to the OFT, Kent TS (no matter what that guy said on the phone); the Consumer Affairs Minister and anyone else appropriate.

As to Kent TS - he is not doing his job and I would complain to the Chief Ex of Kent CC; the OFT (for whom he works indirectly) and talk to your own TS dept wherever you live.

[ODC]

As usual Crapbot fail to realise that THEY MUST PROVE a debt is not Statute Barred something they have singularly failed to do. Of couse in the crazy paralell universe in which Cabot reside they think (Mistakenly) that the 6 year time frame starts when the OC registers a default. This is of course complete bollocks and indeed there is sufficient case law to shoot this down in flames.

 

Do as Rhia says and cut out the threat monkey and complain directly to Herr Wilhelmhoff

[harrystottle]

Thanks a lot for the replies guys

 

I will wait for the inevitable threatogram (probably in the form of a bogus solicitors letter similar, if not identical to the one I received last time) and then I will do as you suggested Rhia and send a copy of my reply out to all those people you mentioned.

 

I am waiting for a written response from Kent TS before I deal with that particular issue.

 

Cheers

 

H

[harrystottle]

Hi All

 

I've now received my complaint form back from the FOS so that's £500 out of Crap Pot's pot for a start

 

I have just got to fill in the "please give us any other details that you think will help us understand your complaint" box and I would really appreciate some input here so I can give them the whole 9 yards!

 

Any suggestions gratefully received

 

Will keep you posted

 

H

[harrystottle]

by the way - what's with this hyperlink about the FOS.

 

I thought they we're supposed to be on our side according to some of the posts on this thread that urged me to appeal to them at the earliest opportunity!

 

What gives?!!

[lickthewallfatboy]

opinions are mixed

 

personally,I think they are a waste of time......I would again suggest that you challenge crapbot to take you to court if they are so confident

 

they'll lose!!

[Rhia]

Send that complaint. And to the OFT as well ...look what's happened to 1st Credit with the OFT...in serious trouble.

[harrystottle]

Okay just called OFT and am going to email them all the details and copies of correspondence etc. (when I get a chance!)

 

Just FYI the email address is

 

[email protected]

 

As ever, will keep you abreast of any developments.

 

H

[harrystottle]

Would you believe, even though the matter is now being investigated by the FOS, they've had the nerve to send me a letter threatening a visit from a doorstep collector!

 

In the words of Katherine Tate, what a f***ing liberty!!!

 

I'm responding as always by email - if anyone turns up at my door I shall send them away with a flea in their ear (best place to have it!)

 

Cheers

 

H

[Rhia]

And it's still Statute Barred. Keep all the evidence. Might be a good idea to write and tell them it is still SB AND the FOS is investigating.

[harrystottle]

Well they already know it's SB and that the FOS are investigating, which is why I'm amazed at their gall (or is it incompetence?)

 

I'm not willing to spend time and money writing to them re-stating for the umpteenth time the reasons that I won't be paying.

 

When the investigation by the FOS is over I'll be forwarding all correspondence to the OFT and any one else I think will be interested

 

H

Edited April 2, 2009 by harrystottle
sheer fun of it