Cabot are threatening CCJ - PLEASE HELP

[cymruambyth]

How secure/reliable is this site as they are asking for driving licence/national inurance number etc?

[DonkeyB]

Well done KFP.

 

They say they haven't broken any rules? I think they have! They made threats when the KNEW the debt was statute-barred. That's an offence under CPUTR and also against the OFT's rules for debt collection. If you can be bothered - aside from the elation of seeing them off - you should complain to trading standards and the OFT, and anyone else you can think of. They've caused you a lot of grief and, for the sake of a few letters, you can cause them a lot of work - and therefore a lot of expense.

[cerberusalert]

How secure/reliable is this site as they are asking for driving licence/national inurance number etc?

 

I've used it for about four years & had no problem. They never asked for any of those details when I registered, all they required was DOB, address etc to verify identity, then they sent a login code by snail-mail before I could access the site.

[KungfuPanda]

Well done KFP.

 

They say they haven't broken any rules? I think they have! They made threats when the KNEW the debt was statute-barred. That's an offence under CPUTR and also against the OFT's rules for debt collection. If you can be bothered - aside from the elation of seeing them off - you should complain to trading standards and the OFT, and anyone else you can think of. They've caused you a lot of grief and, for the sake of a few letters, you can cause them a lot of work - and therefore a lot of expense.

 

 

How would I go about complaining and I read somewhere that I could claim compensation???

[DonkeyB]

OK, they said to you...

 

...you have 7 days in which to come to an arrangement or that "Cabot Financial Group will seek prompt enforcement of any Court Judgement obtained against you".

 

 

Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act says:

 

S40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

 

1. 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-

* harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency, or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

* falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

* falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

* utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character, or purporting to have some official character which he know it has not.

2. A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of sub-section (1) (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such actions as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment

 

I reckon they're clearly in breach of that.

 

Next, extracts from OFT guidelines:

 

THOSE CONTACTING DEBTORS MUST NOT BE DECEITFUL BY MISREPRESENTING THEIR AUTHORITY AND/OR THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITION

 

This includes:

 

* Claiming to work for the court or be a bailiff

* Implying action can be taken that is not legally possible such as implying they could take your property [because debt is statute barred - my insertion]

* Using a business name or logo that implies they are a government body

* Implying that court action has been taken against you when it hasn’t

* Implying not paying your debt is a criminal offence

* Threatening to take court action in England if you live in Scotland or the other way round.

 

PUTTING PRESSURE ON DEBTORS OR THIRD PARTIES IS CONSIDERED TO BE OPPRESSIVE

 

This includes:

 

* Contacting you too frequently

* Pressurising you to sell property or take out more debt

* Using more than one collection company at the same time or not telling you when your debt has been passed to another company

* Pressurising you to pay in full or in large instalments you cannot afford

* Making threatening gestures or statements

* Ignoring disputes about whether you owe the money

* Trying to embarrass you in public or threatening to tell a third party about your debts such as a neighbour or your family.

 

DEALINGS WITH DEBTORS ARE NOT TO BE DECEITFUL AND/OR UNFAIR

 

Examples include:

 

* Sending letters addressed to “the occupier” or discussing the debt with someone without knowing if they are you

* Refusing to deal with an adviser acting on your behalf

* Not accepting reasonable offers or passing on payments you make

* Refusing to freeze action if you dispute the debt.

 

 

I think that's plenty to be going on with! Adapt those facts, back it with evidence, and fire off those letters!

[Toulose LeDebt]

Hi

 

Just to keep you all updated and to thank everyone who helped.

 

Received a letter today from Cabot:

 

Here goes:

 

We acknowledge that your above reference account IS statute barred and so governed by the Limitation Act 1980. Under OFT guidelines it is accepted that legally the debt still exists but the collections of these debts must in no way be contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

Whilst we don't consider our actions to have breached any law or regultory guideline, you accout has been WITHDRAWN for our regular collections process.

 

If you have any queries blah blah blah.

 

So a huge thank you to you all who kept me calm and pointed me in the right direction. xx

 

 

 

Here's the bit from the OFT:

 

2.14 In the past we have dealt with a number of statute barred debt cases governed by

the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales. Based on that

experience our position with regard to England and Wales remains:

a. we accept legally the debt exists

b. it is the methods by which the debt is collected that can be

unfair as follows:

• it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from

the creditor during the relevant limitation period

• if a creditor has been in regular contact with a debtor before the debt

is statute barred, then we do not consider it unfair to continue to

attempt to recover the debt

• it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations, for

example, falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally

recoverable and relying on consumers not knowing the relevant legal

provisions, and

• continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they

will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to

harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of

Justice Act 1970.

 

If they get funny about removing any default they have applied I suggest you point out to them that the default should stand for six years from the date at which the account reached default status (Not from when the a/c closed, was sold to Cabbage etc.).

 

Since Cabbage acknowledge the debt to be statute barred this is in itself acknowledgement that a period of more than six years has elapsed and any resistance to removing a default should be tackled by you with a stiff cease and desist notice (might be a good idea to send one anyway) sent under Section 10 DPA 1998 citing breach of principles 1 and 4 of this Act.

 

Principle 1 provides a requirement that any data should be processed lawfully, principle 4 that it should be kept up to date.

 

The sharing of data with a CRA on a statute barred debt cannot possibly be lawful since it perpetuates the default status past the 6 year drop off and is certainly not an example of data being kept accurate and up to date.

 

It would also stop Cabbage selling the debt on to an even lower level dca if such exists.

[DonkeyB]

Sorry Toulose, posts crossed - you do it so much better!

[DonkeyB]

I'm quite surprised they mentioned the Administration of Justice Act in their letter to you - all that does is make you look it up and see if they have transgressed! Numpties.

[Toulose LeDebt]

I'm quite surprised they mentioned the Administration of Justice Act in their letter to you - all that does is make you look it up and see if they have transgressed! Numpties.

 

 

Does seem strange doesn't it? They probably saw it written on a letter sent to them by a Cagger and scanned it over to try and make it look like they know what they are doing and can even do 'the law' too.

 

As for crossing (see above) actually between us I think we've answered the last point for the OP, you with the AOJA 1970 and me with the OFT guidance.

 

Got plenty of time for Cabbage now that Lowells are out the way;-)

[DonkeyB]

Aha! Lowells gone? That sounds good! Any updates likely anywhere, Toulose?

[KungfuPanda]

Thanks for the advice, I must admit I was just going to leave it but I'm really angry now so plan of action is to compain to OFT, Trading Standards and I was thinking what about the Law Society, surely the fact that they had a solicitor contact me when the account was Statute Barred contravines legislation?!?!?!

[DonkeyB]

Solicitor will just say they were acting on the client's instruction (even if they're in-house). Stick to Trading Standards and OFT.

[KungfuPanda]

Okey dokey, thanks for that!!

[DonkeyB]

Don't you mean okey donkey?

[KungfuPanda]

Ha ha!!

 

Okey dokey Donkey!! (is that a quote from Shrek do you think)????

 

[Toulose LeDebt]

Aha! Lowells gone? That sounds good! Any updates likely anywhere, Toulose?

 

Sorry I think I've misled you.

 

By out the way I mean that I'm not privy to the case any more it's off the site and between the person involved and his appointed legal reps now. The less I know the better now, anyway no point in spoiling a nice surprise in a month or two is there?

[DonkeyB]

Aha. Well, more time to fillet other DCA's donkeys [grimaces] then!